A subtle point that seems to be missed a lot is that whether it's 6 or 36 JCA onboard - it's (essentially, practically, potentially) 100% of the UK's (not fish head, not crab - the UK's) available FE@R.
So if it's 'paltry' then it isn't our MarStrike capability that's paltry -it's our strike capability in its entirety. (Unless FOAS, FCAC, DPOC is back...anyone?)
That's not the boat's fault.
Totally agree.
I have also never disagreed with Mr Boffin and I don't suppose I ever will and hopefully my posts are stimulating the debate as opposed to being argumentative and to put more avgas onto the fire..
Are these ships better than nowt??
We have always tried to maintain a presence in areas where we have a presence...
Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antartica, Falklands, South Georgia along with the South Sandwich Islands, British Indian Ocean territories, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno, St Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha, Sovereign Base ares of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus, Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands.
I have listed those locations just because Her Majesty's Government has a duty to provide security and protection for those far flung areas.
Traditionally we have had a minimum of three warships dedicated to this along with their supporting fleet auxillary vessel, but now this is no longer possible. The merchant fleet flying the red ensign now exceeds over 50million GRT and whilst it could be argued the Royal Navy is legally bound to protect our merchant fleet, it MUST surely be a fundamental role to do just that BUT... We cannot spare a single escort to maintain a presence in the most hostile areas where piracy is a daily threat and that is to me plain wrong!!
The South Atlantic areas has a guardship along with in the summer an Ice Patrol ship with her own aircraft (does the current hired ship carry such a thing?) but we are a fire brigade Navy that is chasing fires as opposed to being on scene preventing any type of ignition.
Would we be better off leaving 'air' to the RAF as they have ALWAYS assured our government ministers that they 'Can do'
Leave 'air' to the RAF and allocate a further four or five escorts along with half a dozen smaller ships to carry out constabulary duties??
I do not agree with this proposal as I have seen how it does not work but at the moment we are going into the fight in a half hearted manner with one hand tied behind the proverbial back with a ship that had the potential to offer so much.
I have read reports all explaining why it would be so difficult to have converted these carriers but it did make me smile when we are told that over 1200 compartments would have to be removed to make way for the extra equipment!! All this was being said before the ship was built!!! Are we talking of CAD drawings or real steel?
Talking of steel... I still cannot understand why such large ships were not designed from the outset to have both cats and traps. You can launch a STOVL aircraft from a CATOBAR configuration but there is not a 'cat' in hells chance of launching a conventional fast jet from these carriers.
I accept the Sea Harrier never had the capability of buddy buddy refuelling but when push came to shove this aircraft could plonk itself on the deck of a nearby 'floating platform'
but can the same be said for this latest STOVL aircraft and once refuelled could it take off again from a deck not adapted for this latest magnificent flying machine?
Is the RAF going to offer a refuelling and AEW capability that will be on station as and when required or are we going to have to rely on a rotor wing AEW and no refuelling capability?
Again this is me asking questions and not stating an opinion..