I agree with a lot of your points but is it necessary for the CVF to be the final defensive layer before the Phalanx CIWS?Lord Jim wrote:So why does every other navy with large carriers and effective escorts, still see the need to fit a far more comprehensive defensive suite on theirs, and these countries have been operating large carriers continuously for decades. Even when we had Ark Royal and Eagle, they were not fitted with the defensive weapons they were supposed to be in their case Sea Cat. We only installed Phalanx on the CVLs after we realised the error during the Falklands war, why wasn't it fitted during construction. The threat of sea skimming missiles was well known. The only reason I can think of is to save money, there being no military reason that justifies the omission. The T-45s are very capable and two will provide a reasonable level of protection, but historically the best way to protect vital assets is a layered defence and ours on the Queen Elizabeths is lacking.
The QE's are not supposed to be globe trotting singletons. They will always be part of the CSG. This is the complete opposite of the Invincibles which often deployed as singletons. Why should the defensive bubble around the CSG be dependant on CAMM from the CVF's? By all means bolt as many CAMM and SeaRam onto the QE's as the budget allows but I think it's totally the wrong approach unless it's a last ditch insurance policy. Are we making excuses for a lack of escorts?
I would like to see the CSG made up of one QE, two T45's, two or three T23/T26's and a SSN. If an ASM makes it through that lot then probably a couple of dozen CAMM on the QE will make little difference.
Just my opinion.