As with JakeS point in the parent diary:
Escort carriers can still do a lot of mischief, and frankly I don't see a role for them in defending our own territorial waters. I can't see a reason that we shouldn't be able to protect our territorial waters with land-based aircraft and light ASW squadrons.
Its not that light carriers cannot do a lot of mischief, but that the difference between wanting light and heavy carriers is precisely being dissatisfied with how much mischief can be accomplished with light carriers.
Similarly, its not the landing platform docks ... especially if supported by light carriers or helicopter carriers ... cannot get into mischief, but it looked to me like the chief reason for wanting an amphibious assault vessel instead is in order to be prepared to cause mischief.
But I'd been thinking of escort duties more in blue water terms ... the Horn of Africa, the Straits of Malacca ... I hadn't thought about the appeal of being able to be a fast missile boat carrier, in place of the landing craft they are designed for.
Nobody's talked me down yet on why y'all need heavy carriers (or why we need so many, but I take the insanity of the Pentagon-driven US foreign policy as a given). I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Nobody's talked me down yet on why y'all need heavy carriers (or why we need so many, but I take the insanity of the Pentagon-driven US foreign policy as a given).
I see one of two possible options:
a) We don't, and are just building them because it makes the Pentagun go starry-eyed, and we really, really luv the Pentagun.
b) When the American hegemony comes to an end, we'll want to be prepared to make the most of it with a little smash-and-grab at some former US colonies. Think Panama, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and so on and so forth and etc. Kinda like the US-supported colour revolutions, except with CTFs...
Of course, the former could easily morph into the latter. In fact, I bet it will eventually do just that if we don't get our act together and develop an intelligent foreign policy doctrine.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Why would there be any more than this?
The one thing the military hardware types are reliably bad at is strategy. There's very little evidence that they have even basic strategic skills and plenty of evidence that they make bad, stupid and expensive decisions.
These carriers are being built primarily for symbolic and political reasons, not strategic ones.
The fact that other countries have fought differently in conflicts since hasnt altered strategy because they havent been "serious" opponents Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
The US navy is configured to fight a modern equivalent of the Japanese Soviet Navy, whereas European navies are mainly configured to fight Nazi Communist Submarine fleets.
But it was written as intended, no correction needed. "Re-fighting the last war" is often the last Great Power hot-war, and there wasn't anything in the Korean War or the Second Indochinese War to knock the Navy out of re-fight WWII mode. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
In a "worst" case scenario we are talking about - maybe - 3 or 4 future EU (British and French) "heavy" aircraft carriers capable of carrying 40-50 airplanes. Plus the Spanish "Juan Carlos I" capable of carrying around 30 airplanes in its carrier configuration. Plus 2-3 light carriers carrying 8-10 airplanes each.
That´s not comparable to 12 US aircraft carriers capable of carrying 80-90 airplanes each. Not to mention that the EU simply doesn´t have the world-wide bases like the USA.
Simply put, if the EU - disregard the UK ties to the USA here - wanted "to cause mischief" on its own it could maybe deploy the equivalent of 1-2 US aircraft carriers. Plus maybe in a best case 10000-12000 soldiers and their equipment in their amphibious ships.
You can´t invade and secure a country with 12000 soldiers and maybe 100 - 200 airplanes. Won´t work unless its Monaco or Andorra. :)
"Invading and securing a country" can hardly be considered the threshold level for military mischief making, wherein anything shy of that is just ordinary argy bargy between good mates.
As far as:
Regarding the the world-wide bases like the USA, I agree that the EU is far less likely to be dragged into pointless international confrontations in defense of a global base network, and by the same token is not carrying that economic dead weight around.
But why the need for an offensive strike capability at all?
As far as the shipbuilding, the shipyards could be building all manner of different things ... why offensive strike vessels?
Aside from US instigation, I think the prestige factor is something. The Royal Navy's carriers were basically demoted to helicopter carriers in the Iraq invasion ... oh the ignominy. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Because military procurement is exempt from the EU's restrictions on "State Aid". A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
As the US loses the capacity to project force on a global basis over the next two decades, the question of how Europe should comport itself as in independent power will emerge as a policy question that cannot be ducked, and that then ties in with the question of the shape of strategic threats that Europe faces in the tumultuous thirty years ahead.
So, yes, I was trying to push for an expression of a rationale beyond, "let's build the biggest ship we can, using US pressures for what they would like to see for leverage" ... because that's all I can see, and I don't know if I'm missing something.
Its obviously not a rationale for the acquisition, but one thing about the amphibious assault ships is that they could indeed be provided with a complement of fast hydrofoil patrol boats, which would seem to make for a better match to the strategic threats ahead than an amphibious assault force. So while the military might have to be dragged kicking and screaming, maybe there's a retrofit there that can make it less of a waste of resources.
But the big carriers ... the expression from the 90's of "why they are needed" reads like officialspeak for "the stuff we got isn't great for trying to stand offshore and blow shit up". I can't see any reason to have them other than trying to sink somebody else's ships, or for trying to stand offshore somewhere and send sorties in to try to blow shit up.
And of course a heavy carrier is a hole in the water that you pour aviation fuel into when you want it to be replaced by hot air. If pressed into service in secondary roles, its far from the most energy efficient way to serve those roles. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
It doesn't look like you are... A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
But it seems likely that in the late 1990's and early 2000's, "going along with the yanks" was the easier path to walk. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
The Italians when they went for a bigger ship just went for a SCS carrier with capacity for more jump jets and helos. So obviously if you just want a bigger ship, just edging up the size of the Sea Control Ship is the other road to go.
OTOH, maybe they figured that the export market was bigger for an amphibious assault ship ... after all, they sold the design to Australia, who is building not one, but two. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Or, of course, counter-invading the Northern Territory coast if Indonesia invades Darwin. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
... but a counter-invasion in case the Indonesians invade Darwin? That one is a lot more plausible. In a country of 20m next to a country of 100m+ with a history of invading places in their neighborhood, the military, at least, of the less populous country smaller country will not ignore that prospect in its strategic planning. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Also, Africa.
That is, the EU is not gearing up to fight a naval war in the straits of Taiwan. But it (well, France and the UK and at times on opposite sides) still has a large and not always benign influence on politics in Africa, with a lot of interventions.
Which doesn't require more than a few thousand troops plus overwhelming firepower at a time.
More aircraft carriers will mean more interventionism in Africa and parts of the Middle East.
I'm optimistic that the carrier plans are going to be scaled down and postponed, though. The money has to be spent on banks right now...
The "money being spent" on the military is a diversion of national real income ... and given the collapsing phony-economy sector in the UK, it seems highly likely that the MP's "representing" y'all in the UK will forget to consider whether or not to continue with building the QE class ships. These ship-building projects are like boulders rolling downhill ... they are a lot easier to stop before they get moving than when they are on the move.
But there seems to be very good prospects for France backing out of their penciled in plan to buy one or two of their own, so that's good news at least. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
