Should Britain remain a 'Tier One' Military Power?

Sonic67

Ditto. Not that we have the money or the personnel. But the arguments are sound.
Exactly. Why risk ships costing billions when you can risk one costing millions?
Technology has moved on. No reason why a new helicopter carrier wouldn't also be a modern one. Similar to Mistral class.

Again irrelevant. You are comparing a modern ship to an old one. You do realise you could have a modern one?

Are you aware other countries have dedicated helicopter carriers?

Why?
Again shows how important an asset QE is and you are again comparing with an old ship. Why?
Not only still comparing with an old ship but also missing the obvious. You can send a helicopter carrier where you need a helicopter carrier. You can send a ship with everything where you need a ship with everything. Here you are committing to using a major asset where you might not need to.
You are risking a major strategic asset by using it as a helicopter carrier. If you are using it purely as a helicopter carrier.

Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers 'cannot take the place of specialised amphibious vessels' say Defence Committe

The evidence the Committee gathered in the course of its inquiry clearly demonstrates that amphibious operations require specially configured warships manned by highly-trained amphibious specialists. Anything less results in exposing vessels and the personnel manning them to an unreasonable level of operational risk.


The need for a new 'budget' helicopter carrier

Sonic67

The campaign to retain, and eventually replace HMS Ocean starts here

Why your CVF should not moonlight as your LPH

Most importantly, large high-value ships try to keep as far away as practically possible from the threat of land-based aircraft and missiles and even small boat swarms or mines. It is also far easier to defend a ship against submarines in the deep ocean than in the more acoustically challenging littoral environment where small conventional submarines have a great advantage.

Acting in the LPH role ideally requires the ship to be reasonably close to the beachhead so the helicopters can quickly shuttle back and forward with troops and equipment, at least in the initial phase of the assault. The range of the Merlin would allow the ship to sit considerably offshore but speed and timing are critical in the initial phases and this would slow everything down. There is a fundamental conflict between the carrier’s need to maintain its speed and distance from the land and the requirement to close the shore and reduce to slow speed during amphibious operations.

Using the 65,000 ton fleet flagship, the sole available carrier as an LPH would expose her to increased risk. The loss or even damage to the ship would probably end the operation, be highly symbolic and politically unacceptable. The loss of a smaller LPH like HMS Ocean would still be a disaster but a political risk that could be contemplated. Historically the RN accepted it must sometimes lose ships to win wars.

Etc.

Rasczak

How would you make an aircraft carrier to military specifications, rather than merchant standards, that cost millions rather than billions?

Sonic67

See all the links above as to why it's a better option than committing a major strategic asset, costing multiple billions when it's not needed.

EarthRod

If we didn't declare war why would there be a 'Battle of the Atlantic'?

Sonic67

We might not want a war, Hitler might. It's not like he declared war on Czechoslovakia etc.

justincase

I wouldn't bother Alan,,,we've gone from hindsight to they might.

IronGiant

"We" ?

EarthRod

Yes we have - noted that. So I'll stop defending my example option and leave it there

EarthRod

I think it's OK to use 'we' in that case

First person plural pronoun. Subjectively referring to himself and I.