Originally Posted by WEBF

Ignoring exercises, show the flag activities, and SAR operations.....

For a large part of the 1990s, the main UK military effort was in Bosnia. A carrier was deployed continuously in the Adriatic for those years, with both Sea Harriers and Sea Kings doing all sorts of stuff, including enforcing the no fly zone over Bosnia, doing reece, and ground attack - the Sea Harrier participated in NATO air attacks against the Bosnian Serbs in 1995. On here, many have been dismissive of the small number of aircraft (six Sea Jets) embarked, but turn a blind eye to the fact that the RAF contributions ashore had similar numbers of aircaft, but without the mobility or swing role. The embarked ASW and AEW Sea Kings also contributed to operations. Remember, Yugoslavia did have an air force and a navy.

In the late 90s carriers took part in various other activities, including helping police the no fly zone over Southern Iraq and at least a couple of stand offs with Saddam Hussein. I think that RAF Harrier GR7s were embarked for the first time during one of these crises, hence the inclusion of the Joint Force Harrier concept in the 1998 SDR. After Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, HMS Invincible was sent to the Arabian Gulf as (so the media said) there was a missile threat to the RAF base in Kuwait and the UK wanted another option. On her way back to the UK, Invincible got diverted to the Adriatic to participate in the Kosovo operations.

In 2000, the UK intervention in Sierra Leone involved HMS Illustrious with both types of Harrier embarked, a fact that may not have registered with the UK commander ashore, Brigadier David Richards (now a Knight, a General, and CDS). The political and psychological messages sent by deploying large warships close to land should also be remembered, as well as constant presence, large numbers of helicopters, command and control facilities, medical facilities, and others. I seem to remember that Illustrious made a high speed dash across the Atlantic, but had to wait for the slower Ocean to catch up.

In 2001, Illustrious once again deployed with both Harrier types embarked, for the SAIF SARREA II exercise in Oman. Following the 9/11 attacks in the United States, she was retasked to act as a helicopter carrier (Ocean needed to return to the UK for maintenance) and disembarked her fixed wing aircraft (and grey Sea Kings?). No land based UK fast jets took part in the initial strikes against the Taliban either, although submarines did.

In 2003, Ark Royal acted as a LPH for the invasion of Iraq. The Iraqi air force was mostly dead and burried after over a decade of sanctions and a no fly zone, and Kuwaiti/Bahraini/Qatari airbses were used by the US/UK/Australians. Not that that stopped the US Navy from deploying FIVE carriers.

Since then, our main military involvement has been Iraq and Afghanistan. Apart from the lack of an opponent with an air force or navy, they both lack any length of coastline, Afghanistan being land locked, Iraq having only a tiny coastline - not that this prevents carrier based aircraft operating in both places. Yet we seem to have fallen into a trap, with many believing that:

a)All future operations will be in land locked places.
b)There will never be an enemy navy or air force to worry about.

Originally Posted by orca

Let's have flexible forces? Couldn't agree more. Joint forces? Don't believe in them anymore myself. So which would you rather have and which is safer to assure? Maritime specialists who occasionally turn the anti skid on and operate from land or land based chaps who occasionally go to the boat? Why not copy JHC exactly and have the FAA FW as a self governing entity?