Yes, it was badly written, and shows great ignorance (particularly regarding technological issues) on the part of both journalists and politicians.
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
There appears to be a bit of a misconception about "capital ships" and "self-licking lollipops".
Air defence, wherever it is based, is an enabler and RAF types tend to get a little dismissive of Air defence in the RN because before JFH the carriers were seen as very much a self licking lollipop (what is the carrier for - to carry harriers; what are the harriers for - to protect the carrier). Whilst this is a massive simplification there is a large element of truth to it - the RN really had no way of projecting power at range.
The statement above illustrates the problem. LPH/LPD/LSD, MCMV, all sorts of different vessels are part of a Naval force that may be mission essential units, either delivering troops ashore or providing other enabling effects. The FAA f/w force was about defending that whole and allowing it to do its mission, rather than just defending the CVS. Doing AD doesn't necessarily mean having X cabs tied to that mission for the duration either. Just as Typhoon did on Ellamy, you can go from AD to strike and back depending on the phase of the operations and the tempo. It's another reason why very good multi-role platforms (eg F14, F18 and yes, SHAR) tend to be preferred at sea.
Given that SDSR was going to leave Harrier and Carrier Strike intact until changes were made at the last minute (sources
here and
here), I wonder what part these misunderstandings played in the decisions that were made. Was it argued that since Harrier GR9 is a ground attack aircraft then Tornado could do the same job, and that the secondary (limited) air defence role would no longer be needed as it was solely to protect the CVS - which would not be needed if we had no Harriers to deploy?
I remember very similar arguments in the discussion over the retirement of the Sea Harrier, but do they actually have any factual basis? Not from what I can see. Again, regarding the skills issue were people who had done Harrier GR7/9 embarkations listened to more than those (including both 1SL and CINCFLEET) who have commanded carriers?
Originally Posted by Nach Two
But as WEBF said earlier, better than nothing. Thinks: why do I keep hearing that phrase? Almost like we keep getting second-best!
Getting second best is better than getting nothing.
Originally Posted by Mach Two
Tourist and Courtney. Fair cop. What I should have said was no capital ship that can carry fixed wing. Why didn't I just say aircraft carrier? Good luck to Lusty as a helicopter and commando carrier.
Lusty CAN still carry and operate Harriers.
Going back to one of my own points, what will we do if we find ourselves in a crisis where we do need carrier borne fixed wing aircraft? Perhaps if we need to hit targets ashore we can use Apache (with range and weaponry limitations compared to a jet), or Tomahawk (until SSN numbers decline later this decade).
But what about the need to provide air cover to something like a mine countermeasures force in the Arabian Sea? How do you deal with shadowing aircraft if you have no manned aircraft of your own? You cannot intercept with Lynx or Merlin from a frigate or destroyer. You cannot visually identify at long range from a ship. ROE are likely to restrict the use of Sea Viper or Sea Wolf at maximum range. Think of Sea Harriers intercepting Argentine reece aircraft in 1982 as the task force steamed South, the incident when the task force nearly engaged a Brazilian airliner (See
One Hundred Days by Admiral Woodward), or the encounters between USN F14s and Iranian P3 and C130 aircraft during the tanker war.
The tacit assumption of no crises this decade has already proven to be wrong. Is there a fall back plan?