Post Sea Harrier the argument was that GR9 (with Sidewinder) would offer a limited air defence capability if supported either by shipborne Fighter Controllers or ISTAR assets such as Sea King ASaCs or AWACS, and that in exercises such as Red Flag it had proved itself to be agile. At least it was better than nothing. It could intercept and visually identify unknown aircraft which no shipborne system can - which in future conflicts may be important as the littoral environment, and tight ROE due to not being "at war" as such, will prevent ships from using their weapons at maximum range.
Carrier borne fighters do much more than defend the carrier. Not only do they provide the outer layer of air defence for a task group, but certain activities, like Naval Gunfire Support or Mine Clearance, or amphibious operations, involve a higher degree of exposure to enemy air power. No point in projecting power if you have been denied use of the sea.
Who was it who saw carrier based air defence as a self licking lollipop?
I thought Harrier GR7/9 was for projecting power at long range (longer than that of other current shipborne assets)? Likewise Tomahawk. In any case sustainability and force protection are rather important too.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 26th Nov 2011 at 17:10.