Originally Posted by
ShotOne
"...far far better placed"?? With respect wageslave, I fundamentally disagree. Attempting to maintain all but the briefest air campaign from a carrier is likely to be very much less effective than from an airbase;
So why do the Americans bother then? Are they idiots?
Why did the French do it that way in Libya?
Why are the Chinese building Carriers?
I often hear how quickly the RAF can deploy to an airfield, however the logistical chain takes a long time to follow to provide a decent amount of munitions/fuel. You still need ships or vast numbers of overland trucks which are vulnerable to political whims of the countries through which they must travel.
Yes a carrier can only do 30kts, but 24hrs a day and when it turns up it is ready for high intensity war.
All the things that make war possible are included as standard, and whilst it may be vulnerable, it is far less vulnerable than a stationary airfield.
It also has the ability to pre-emptively deploy to an area without any negotiations. No political deals with other countries required. No expensive hotels. No security risks to personnel. The ability to launch and recover without the ever present risk of dickers passing that info on.
The press never find out if the sqn boss makes an @rse of himself in a downtown bar.
You just sail it quietly into the region. Everybody knows what it means, but it doesn't cause any ructions because it can always be justified as just sailing past.
Gunboat diplomacy is very effective.
Originally Posted by
ShotOne
" if we don't have one, or an ally prepared to let us use one within a reasonable distance, what the f*** are we doing there at all?
What a silly post.
You don't get to chose when you are needed. The Falklands are a perfect example of that.