Word Bubble 11/7/10

07.11.10

Categorie: David Axe, Naval, U.K., Word Bubble |
Tags: ,

by DAVID AXE

There is no doubt that a fully tooled up carrier battle group sends a clear message but whether that message is heeded is debatable. No doubt, there are examples where the deployment of a large carrier air package has de-escalated a situation but these are very few and far between and mostly from well before the last several decades. If even a U.S. carrier could not deter the Serbs, Saddam or the Taliban then what chance will a [Royal Navy] CVF?

Real life operational history is replete with examples where a carrier alone coerced precisely nobody; the only thing that has altered anyone’s intentions and actions is going ashore with land forces, in strength and in a sustained manner. The Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan all enjoyed carrier-borne fast air but the mission was not completed until land forces went ashore in depth and sustained for a period of time beyond a few weeks. This by the way is why the strategic raiding concept is deeply flawed …

|

3 Responses to “Word Bubble 11/7/10”

  1. Prestwick says:

    Its amazing how cost effective the UK intervention in Sierra Leone was. Basically HMS Ocean, one Royal Marine Commando, a Parachute Regiment battalion and a SAS patrol.

    Having a carrier of any kind that can carry and deploy land forces is far more effective than the huge investment that is an entire carrier battle group.

  2. FooMan says:

    Boots on the ground is what takes and keeps territory insuring that your goals are accepted.
    Having said that, a single carrier battle group poses the world’s 15th largest air force where ever it goes. There needs to be a political reality check of the intimidation/political arm twisting value of a CBG (carrier battle group), and when that ends a solid and comprehensive set of plans before those boots are put on the ground. Too many lives have been lost due to prolonged misadventures like Lebanon in the 80′s (and the abortive air campaign there).
    Foo

  3. Thanks for the link David

    Think Defence

Leave a Reply