There had been some very sensible and reasonable suggestions that UK Plc actually build a ship, more like a mix of a RoRo / RFA Bay class (the Americans are presently doing so). This could then be used for many roles, including training Ship for both RN and Merchant Navy, carrying out humanitarian and disaster relief work, possibly some commercial cargo charters, and representing the UK when required. It would probably bring some money in to contribute to its running.
What is proposed, as nice as little non grey member of Grey Funnel line it will be, Iām afraid I canāt help but think it will become a jolly boat for those who move in the right circles rather than something the UK can be proud of.
If we want to use āpresenceā as a way of drumming up business, weād be far better off forward basing a Bay-type vessel in the Indo-Pacific. It could do counter-piracy, HADR, endless port visits, and act as a tanker for the River Batch 2ās that are already marked to operate out there.
That perhaps less glam, but persistent presence will garner far more good will and diplomatic strength than a every few years gin palaceā¦
You are impressively uninformed. 8 F35s onboard (doesnāt include those at Marham) packs a considerable punch when it is forward deployed in places of interest. As a carrier strike group it proves the RN as a blue water navy and can effectively kill the Queenās enemies globally, so to pin everything on diplomacy and flag waving is completely wrong. Op Fortis will of course play itās part in the usual British diplomacy piece, but not at the expense of real operations around the world. Donāt mix up operational output with a show of force.
As for the new yacht, I think if itās cost effective then itās worth considering. QEC cannot commit to this sort of tasking as one carrier will be operational around the globe carrying out jet operations, and the other so likely be littoral support.
There are 8 onboard or at least according to all reports.
Iām not counting stuff that can be flown in of course. Who would for an on board count.
Also. I understand the concepts of Force vs Thought and soft power.
I was more commenting on the archaic nature of an aircraft carrier.
Hypersonic missiles are coming if.not already present. With no known defence.
If the Chineese of Russians want to sink her they will and the whole fleet. With ease.
Letās not kid ourselves.
A carrier strike force is as much an effective threat as a castle was once cannons became common.
Or in naval terms as much an effective threat as a wooden hulled ship of the line vs an iron clad.
And yet China are plugging billions into their own carriers and now have 2 active types themselvesā¦ Yes, there may be challenges to them but thereās still a use (for now).
The future will certainly be drones, directed energy weapons, hypersonic missiles, asymmetric cyber warfare.
Question is, delivered from what sort of platform?
Cyber has no range limit.
The others and more have their available range improving all the time.
My overall point is whether a floating airfield planned for a 50 year operational life is realistically going to be valid 5, 10, 20 or 50 years from now.
My best educated guess is by 2035 it will be obsolete as technology surpasses the ācarrier ageā.
It will of course still have a use. But not as a strike carrier.
Ah, the classic hypersonic missile argument. Totally and utterly irrelevant. If we were to go to war with China or Russia then we are screwed regardless. Carrier Strike works as a concept and will be proven once again this year. The whole is we can project power far beyond our shorelines in places of military and political interest. The idea that the carrier is just a sitting duck is missing the point completely.
