The big USN carriers (just as will be the case for PoW and QEC) have to carefully orchestrate launches and recoveries, so they are relatively inflexible on their own.
and then
On U.S. carriers we trap about 160 aircraft a day at sea, but here it's just 35-40 a day," he said. "Also, on U.S. carriers we're able to launch and trap aircraft at the same time,
So the big USN carriers (just as will be the case for PoW and QEC) are not so inflexible.
Buddy refuelling wouldn't deliver anywhere near enough fuel.
No it will not deliver nearly as much fuel as a Tanker however can and is used at the beginning and end of sorties IF required. Also see Belize 1970s.
n Afghanistan and there are lots of similar misconceptions and overstatements of what carrier air brings there.
Bringing the carrier argument to Afghanistan is futile as there is basing in country however they were of use in 2001.
The time on task would be effected by the transit time (mitigated mostly through AAR), but the Harrier has the shortest endurance of the three.
Aaaah the oft used less endurance of the Harrier argument, apart from in Afghanistan where the non tanked sortie lengths of Harrier and Tornado were remarkably similar.
Carriers are not the panacea and land based power will always be required however there is no doubt that we would have had a very valid use for our Harriers and Carriers in this conflict and who is to say it would not have expedited the whole thing.
We have the potential to have two large carriers in the future with a multi role aircraft capable of operating from land and sea. Then we have the ability to operate autonomously anywhere in the world and not be entirely reliant on other nations as we are in Libya. Then when land based air is set up the two can work in unison. Even the sorties from the UK needed overflight rights etc which were by no means guaranteed now were they.