There are multiple facets of comparison, there is size which is why HMS Queen Elizabeth can't be compared to its contemporaries, but there's also naval doctrine, roles of the carriers (probably the most important thing) and the time period.Scimitar54 wrote:So a Merlin with auxiliary tanks, having a range 50% greater than a Sea King, in your opinion has less range than a Sea King and therefore more are needed on board a QEC .... total Tosh! The QEC were the replacements for the CVSs ...... They were not, they were the result of a realisation that since that fateful 1966 decision, we had been driving (sailing) down a dead end. The QEC are the modern interpretation of what we should have had all along following on from Ark Royal IV, (whether in STOVL or CATOBAR configuration).
Don’t get me wrong, we had good service from the Invicible’s, but they never were proper “Strike Carriers”. It is true that they were eventually used in a Somewhat limited strike role, but that is only because they were all that we had available when we needed a Strike Carrier. The Invincible's were designed as ASW cruisers for N. Atlantic Task Groups, with if memory serves me correctly 11-12 x Sea Kings. 5 x Sea Harriers were later added to counter the threat of Russian Long Range Patrol Aircraft.
Any comparison of ratios can only be made with a full spectrum air groups of a similar size. Eagle and Ark Royal IV are the only comparisons that are relevant here.
I think simplifying it down to strike carrier is a bit simple. If so, where are HMS Ocean or the Invincible-class' replacements? It isn't a direct comparison with the exact same mission but the roles previously being fulfilled by those vessels are now largely being fulfilled by the QE-class carriers. There are some areas where things have changed - strike capabilities may be more emphasised and anti-submarine properties may or may not be decreased but the navy they are built to serve in and the interests of the UK haven't suddenly changed drastically between 2010 and 2020, let alone reverted to how they were 50 years ago.
The Invincible class were designed as ASW vessels but that wasn't the role they filled as they became the primary carriers in RN service. From 33 main carrier deployments with operational air wings I observed between 1983 and 2010, the carriers had an average of 17-18 aircraft with a standard squadron of 7-8 harriers, 3 Sea King AEWs, 6-8 ASW Sea Kings and sometimes another 8-jet squadron of harriers for a smaller helicopter complement. This obviously varied with a few Commando Sea kings sometimes thrown in and some smaller units of aircraft in each role.
Some of the most notable prolonged operations the Invincible-class took involved harrier-centred air wings, either for air superiority or the option of strike. For example when enforcing the Iraqi No-Fly Zones the Invincible were sent with 2 squadrons of harriers, an AEW flight and at most a couple ASW helicopters to complement the escorts. During the Balkan conflicts, we had an Invincible-class on rotation there permanently from January 1993 to February 1996 on 7 shifts. These usually carried one squadron of harriers of varying strength from 4-9 aircraft, the usual flight of AEW helicopters and a mix of ASW and transport helicopters to provide anti-submarine protection and support land operations respectively.
The Invincible-class didn't just fulfil one role. They fulfilled several because they had to. Same applies to the QE-class.
(CAP/CAS) for the other. Keyword: LitM
.
)
ads to the various operational conditions though.