QUOTE]but I think the new carriers will create an unbalanced force and divert money from where the RN should be spending it, we have only really needed the capability once in the last 50 or 60 years. [/QUOTE]
Ivan Rogov,
I am afraid you are twisting the truth a bit here. The reason that the RN (FAA) have not been in more action since 1979, when HMS Ark Royal was de-commisioned, was due to the compromised capability of CVS.
Falklands Conflict - FAA heavily involved
First Gulf War - FAA contribution compromised due to performance of SHAR operating in hot weather conditions off a short deck
OP Deny Flight Bosnia - FAA Heavily involved including SHAR where the aircraft flew CAP, RECCE, CAS - Compromised operation due to capacity of the CVF (numbers of aircraft it could carry). FAA fully contributed to the NATO effort, particularly when shorebased assets were cancelled due to fog.
Sierra Leone - FAA haevily involved
Second Gulf War - FAA heavily involved in assault on Al-Faw. HMS Ark Royal spent 190 days at sea. Harrier Force limited involvement due, once again compromise of capability when operating off a short deck, in hot conditions with limited numbers.
Afghanistan - FAA heavily involved but as land bases were available, quite rightly operated ashore. USN regularly provided support from a Carrier stationed west of Pakistan (up to 30%). CVS capability compromised.
Libya - FAA involved except for fixed wing as capability had been removed thereby removing the ability to CONTRIBUTE to the combined effort.
There are other examples. The RN has, learnt over the last 30 years the cost of not having a large enough deck to operate aircraft off. Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales are attempts to correct that situation. Whilst the Invincible class through deck cruisers were a good attempt to make the best of a bad job, they were and are, compromised because of their size. Those who argue that replacement of these assets with something of a similar size are missing the point.
If the RN is, in the future, to contribute towards the UK's strategic and operational objectives, it has to have the tools to exert influence, which does not just include boots on the ground or the Red Arrows.
QE and POW, with whatever jet (plus MASC and lift) will be able to:
Exert Defence Diplomacy
Provide the UK with the ability to exert pressure without actually setting foot in a country and exert that influence over a long period of time.
Promote UK trade and Business
Make a full contribution to NATO and our other allies
Improve interoperability particularly with the French
Protect those little bits of rock we still have around the world that are surrounded with Oil/Gas/Fish etc.
Protect troops on the ground
Provide a platform for future UAV operations
Conduct Ship to objective manouvre (over long distances)
Provide engineering, medical and support facilities
Support the RAF ashore
Help retain the UK's claim to British Antarctic Territory
Provide disaster relief
Provide non combatant evacuation
Support other nations with whom we have strategic agreements.
Etc Etc Etc
No other UK asset will be able to fulfill all these tasks, some can individually but, QE and POW will be a huge asset for the UK in both peace and war. When all that is considered, those ships will be very much well worth the investment. The only question is:
WHAT AIRCRAFT CAN WE AFFORD TO OPERATE?