FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1955
1955 - 0418.PDF
418 FLIGHT "Flight" photograph tfelt H.M. CARRIERS 1955 . described in the recent Defence White Paper. The ability to attack is stated(logically yet unpalatably) to be the most effective defence against the outbreakof such a war. The Navy's main contribution here lies in the mobility of its carrier force.Airfields used by the retaliatory bombing force can presumably be located and pin-pointed in advance by the prospective enemy. These would be major targets(for either manned bombers or the more deadly ballistic rockets with atomic warheads). There have recently been immense strides in the types of aircraft -which can operate from carriers, and it is true to say that, from now on, the. Navy will have aircraft capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Few would deny the value of mobile air bases able to retaliate against the enemy from unexpecteddirections through weak points in the defences. It is not at present Admiralty policy to take part in retaliatory bombing in thestrategic role; but, with modern NATO carrier task-forces used in a realistic way, their relative invulnerability makes this a function which certainly could be—and, in the opinion of the modern school of naval thought, should be—accepted. A second possibility is that of a global war without the use of nuclear weapons,due to fear of retaliation on both sides. Alternatively, there might be a condition of "conventional war," or war with only limited use of nuclear weapons, duringa period of stalemate following initial H-bomb attacks. In these circumstances, the aircraft carrier's value would lie in its more traditional role of protecting linesof communication, especially between the U.S.A. and the U.K. There is here no alternative. The only form of effective defence against enemy cruisers orland-based aircraft consists in long-range carrier-based strike aircraft, operating in strategic areas. Concerning localized warfare, the third type which might be considered, therecords of carriers in action during the Korean war (although admittedly mainly against weak opposition) give a further indication of their value. Carriers cantransport to any area of the globe what is in effect a self-contained air force, independent of runways and ground supplies, and can give immediate, close andeffective support to Army and other units. In consideration of any global war, the Royal Navy must obviously be viewedas a part of the NATO Navy, and its carriers as units in NATO carrier groups. Only in isolated instances (such as the Korean war) can carriers operate effectivelyalone: in general, it is the carrier task-force—including radar pickets and cruiser and destroyer support, as well as both large fleet carriers and smaller carriers—that is the fighting unit. Generally, too, the group's carriers would number at least four; otherwise too much air effort would be spent on self-defence. Theideal composition of a carrier task-force, however, is variable, depending on the strength of the opposition and the anticipated results. With the introductionof vessels carrying ship-to-air defensive missiles (which vessels will doubtless take over many of the functions of the small fighter-equipped carrier, locatedon the perimeter of the carrier group) integration of both missile ships and defensive carriers will be the next step. One reason, apart from mobility, why a carrier's defence against air attack canbe more effective than that of a land base, is that its radar warning stations can be placed in the most strategic positions (and can be changed at will). Thecombination of this and the presence of the carrier's own fighters provides an extremely powerful defence—a point often ignored by critics of the carrier onthis score. It has been said that the "unconventional" Navy of a few years' time may wellhave as its outline a floating counterpart to Bomber Command. If the Navy can, in fact, strike as far and as hard into enemy territory as can Bomber Command—a question whose answer depends on the performance of the next generation of strike aircraft—then the carriers can exploit routes which take their aircraft overthe least defended territories. This is the plan, it is suggested, that lies behind the new investment in high-powered fighters and missile ships, for both will stillbe needed to defend the attacking carriers. Whatever future advantage may or may not be taken of the Fleet Air Arm'sability to mount an atomic attack, one fact, at least, is undisputed. The securing of this country's communications has always been the Navy's job—a job performedmore powerfully and efficiently with present-day carriers and ship-borne aircraft than ever before. y "Flight" photograph Coming in, down and around: the Sea Hawk, day fighter, R.N.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
