marktigger wrote:gibmariner the point was being attempted to be made by others that all ships in extended readiness are capable of going to sea at short notice many weren't Bulwark being case in point!
The point I was trying to make is that Bulwark cannot be used as an example for this seeing as Bulwark had suffered two major fires which did extensive damage in the year before being decommissioned and was left in unmaintained reserve, without any attempt to repair the damage - which is incomparable to the situation today with Albion, or any other ship in the Royal Navy.
It takes time to return a ship to sea. because I understand she was diffy allot of kit and capabilities fearless had. especially when manning and spare parts are taken into account. its not quite as simple some would like to believe.
I agree, it's very likely that Albion could be brought back into service as quickly as Intrepid was in 1982, but if we actually needed to now, we'd have to be pretty well buggered already. It was relatively easy with Intrepid as she had just gone into reserve a couple of months before and her crew was able to be recalled quickly, something the RN would find very difficult with today's manpower problems.
was Intrepid fully capable on corporate? of had just enough capability to complete the mission?
Fearless was likely more capable having been fresh out of a refit, during which Intrepid was the active LPD. Just like Albion is slated to get improvements over Bulwark when she returns to service in the next year. Seeing as both LPDs were likely to be sold following the defence review, there would have been no point in refitting Intrepid at the time. Despite this, Intrepid managed to land her troops at San Carlos under heavy fire and she was considered too valuable to risk in the Bluff Cove landings, so Sir Tristram and Sir Galahad were sent instead.
gib mariner i seam to remember the Adriatc operations were part of a NATO task force so hardly independent CBG operations?
I may be wrong, but I do not think that is the case. Even if it were, would that make the RN's contributions any less significant? The US Navy assigned 3 carrier groups to NATO's Sharp Guard.
The UK had already independently deployed frigates/destroyers in 1991/92 to monitor shipping in the Adriatic, which was superseded by the STANAVFORMED & STANAVFORLANT operations to which the RN contributed frigates. Separately, the RN had also deployed RFAs Argus, Bedivere and Resource to support the British UNPROFOR troops in Yugoslavia.
As the situation deteriorated in 1993, the RN deployed a task group centred around Ark Royal, working in concert with USS John F. Kennedy and her battle group and FS Clemenceau and her battle group, later joined by Italian carrier group centred on Giuseppe Garibaldi. When Operation Deny flight began, the RN made its Sea Harriers available to NATO, but the UK's continuous carrier deployments remained a national effort as far as I'm aware (and if that wasn't the case, I'd like to be informed otherwise). I think it's commendable that the UK maintained a carrier group on station (with usually another nearby) almost permanently for almost 3 years, freeing up US carriers for duties in the eastern Med and Gulf - whether as part of a coalition or independently, no other country was able to do that.
yes big carriers are a better option but without enough escorts they are just white elephants.
Small carriers would also require escorts, while providing less capability and flexibility and probably having a bigger logistical impact.
If we don't have enough of our own frigates and destroyers we can't deploy them.
Agreed, the RN definitely needs more frigates/destroyers. The RN will have enough escorts for a carrier group (and little else) and this was effectively confirmed by the government in the run-up to last year's SDSR (which seems to have been recanted). Which is why the RN needs more credible "lighter" frigates to maintain the lower-end standing commitments. Whether the "Type 31" ever becomes a reality and the answer to the RN's problems remains to be seen.
The point is being made many countries can deploy frigates and destroyers but we can deploy a carrier group........fine but will the dutch, french, germans or spanish deploy a frigate in British national interests say in the South Atlantic if our fleet is deployed supporting a UK CBG on a NATO operation in say the western med?
Why would any country deploy an escort in support of our national commitments? When do we deploy any of ours to support Dutch, French, German or Spanish national interests? In this scenario, those foreign allied frigates would be better put to use escorting our carrier group in the NATO operation in the western Med, freeing up one of our own for the south Atlantic.
