HMS
Liverpool has done some NGS too, as
reported by
Navy News:
Pro-government forces have made sustained attempts to block the approaches to Misrata port with mines, including one thwarted by HMS Brocklesby a fortnight ago when the Portsmouth-based minehunter blew up a mine laid a mile or so off the harbour.
Last night Liverpool and other NATO warships were sent in to intercept inflatable boats seen approaching Misrata; the small fast craft are used to lay and anchor the mines to the seabed.
As the force moved in, one of the regime’s coastal batteries fired a salvo at Liverpool – which missed – and the destroyer immediately sent a response of steel and fire in the direction of the rocket launchers which promptly ceased firing.
The sweep by the Allied warships also caused the pro-Gaddafi boats to abandon their mining operation before laying their deadly ‘eggs’.
Carrier based aircraft (like Harrier) would be useful in providing a rapid response to rogue aircraft (see above post), rocket and artillery positions, and small boats. Additionally the embarked Sea King and Merlin helicopters would add to situational awareness, and help make up for lack of a UK MPA capability, not to mention the command and control, and intelligence gathering capabilities of the CVS herself.
The
Liverpool NGS event was also mentioned
here:
HMS Liverpool’s tangle with Libyan forces was the Royal Navy’s most-significant war action since the First Gulf War, a leading historian said.
Top naval historian Professor Andrew Lambert, of King’s College London, said: ‘In 1991, a silkworm missile was fired at a US warship and HMS Gloucester intercepted it with a Sea Dart missile. That was the last big thing until now.’
Prof Lambert argues yesterday’s attack demonstrates the increasing desperation of the Libyan regime.
He said: ‘It’s a highly unusual thing to happen. I sense Gaddafi is feeling the pressure and lashed out.
‘The role navies are playing is destroying Gaddafi’s Libya. Libya exports oil and the blockade has meant he has lost his ability to make money from the sea. This would not have been a random attack. These ships are squeezing the life out of Gaddafi’s regime and he’s fighting back.’
Given Gaddafi's reported use of light aircraft and helicopters, which suggest gaps in the no fly zone, does this mean there is a potential air threat off of the Libyan coast? Are we sure he doesn't still have a few MiGs safely tucked away, ready for a bolt out of the blue attack? What about attacks against vulnerable MCMVs, or against ships' helicopters?
On the topic of carriers and Libya:
Despite criticism, aircraft carriers stake new claims at forefront of naval power
“The whole idea is about being able to project power,” said Rear Adm. Philippe Coindreau, commander of the French navy task force that has led the air strikes on Libya since March 22.
“An aircraft carrier is perfectly suited to these kinds of conflicts, and this ship demonstrates it every day,” he said in an interview aboard the French carrier Charles de Gaulle, which has been launching daily raids against Moammar Gadhafi’s forces since the international intervention in the Libyan conflict began March 22.
The 42,000-ton nuclear-powered carrier has been joined in this task by another smaller ship, Italy’s 14,000-ton Giuseppe Garibaldi.
Going back to the more general topics of this thread,
Defence News reports the public comments of the First Sea Lord:
Loss of Carrier Strike Capability Top Concern of Royal Navy Chief
Giving evidence alongside the heads of the Army and Air Force on the impact of last year's defense review, Stanhope said that retaining HMS Ark Royal and its fleet of Harrier strike aircraft would have been his top priority if the government's strategic defense review and associated four-year defense spending plan could be revisited.
Later....
Withdrawing Ark Royal and the Harriers earlier this year was by far the most controversial element of the defense spending cuts. Stanhope later indicated he would not oppose resurrecting the Harrier force if possible and if money was made available to support the aircraft.Stanhope and Air Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, the chief of the Air Staff, were asked by a defense committee member whether returning the Harrier force to service had gone beyond the point of no return.
Dalton said it had. But Stanhope responded that while Dalton's statement was correct, he would "like to think that should a decision [be made to reassess the Harrier force, we could], look again. It all comes down to money."
Stanhope said the Royal Navy is faced with the task of regenerating the carrier force in the latter half of the decade as a new aircraft carrier and the F-35C fighter become available. Rebuilding an aircraft carrier force around 2019 could only be done with the assistance of allied carrier operators France and the U.S., he said. Such a program is now being developed, Stanhope said.
Also:
British Military Warns It Is Stretched to Capacity
Sir Mark also said he regretted the decision to retire Britain's two aircraft carriers and said it will be a "major challenge" to regenerate that capability when new carriers are brought into service in around ten years time, given the loss of relevant skills.
Pompey news also covers this:
Navy chief sounds carrier warning
The First Sea Lord is a former CVS Captain are therefore has an understanding of all the different parts of ship involved in safe and efficient fixed wing flying operations. He opposed the axing of Harrier, and gave his support to the idea of using Reservists to maintain a small number of Harriers.
You may also be interested in this
video of the three Service Chiefs giving evidence to the House Of Commons Defence Commitee. The issue of losing fixed wing carrier aviation capability, and then having to regenerate it later this decade, is mentioned by the First Sea Lord from the 37 minute point onwards. The issue of whether Harrier is too far gone seems to be another area where 1SL and CAS are not exactly in agreement. In fact the Admiral appears to be completely unable to say whether or not he agrees with CAS.