Carriers or Submarines

[uk 75]

The title is not as some may groan, another of my rants about the RN CV programme.
On the contrary I am keen to read the pro carrier arguments.
While the United States is able to deploy both carriers and submarines in reasonable numbers, smaller navies find it much harder.
Back in 1966 the UK took a decision to cancel its large carrier CVA01 and focus instead on the hunter killer nuclear submarine as its capital ship.
In contrast France continued to operate two carriers and to build a nuclear powered carrier to replace them.
While the RN evolved through four generations of SSN in Dreadnought, Valiant, Swiftsure and Trafalgar classes, France limited itself to four Rubis boats during the Cold War years.
Russia tries in vain to keep the Kuznetzov in service but ita new nuclear submarines are once again the main threat to western navies.
China on the other hand has so far not had access to Russian technology to deploy modern nuclear submarines but is hard at wotk learning how to use aircraft carriers. Like Britain in 1963 it will soon have a four carrier force operating fixed wing jets.
Britain it could be argued has come through the painful years. If money continues to be found, the RN will have a credible carrier task group with a second available on some occasions plus an SSN force able to tackle all potential opponents.
So what do you think?

 

[F.L.]

I think the answer is "carrier and submarine".
Each deserves to exist for different missions.
What's more, while the aircraft carrier represents visible power and conventional deterrence, the "Silent Service" represents discreet but effective power.

 

[Foo Fighter]

With the number of UK and US subs, the French did not need to build as many. The threat even while outwith NATO would have been taken care of.

Limitations of expenditure mean "If you can get someone else to pay for/build, why would you add more to the pot?

A bit like having the neighbours dog bark for you.

We now have both too.

 

[southwestforests]

Each deserves to exist for different missions.
What's more, while the aircraft carrier represents visible power and conventional deterrence, the "Silent Service" represents discreet but effective power.

Good observation.
The question for any given nation is, "What missions do we need/want to do; and, how much of that mission type do we need/want to do?"
Then of course comes the conversation about how much of the hardware and personnel and support infrastructure and operating tempo for what mission types the available checkbook balance can finance.

 

[zen]

The carrier and the submarine be different types of weapons systems and be used in different ways. As I've written about before the visible big stick and the hidden stick. They fulfil different roles as their effects be different upon opponents.

When you see someone walking around with a big stick, you don't mess with them....they seem threatening and intimidating.

But it's quite possible such a person has little experience with it and worse the wood might be rotten and break with a single blow.

But the one with a hidden stick seems no threat at all....until suddenly out it comes and as swiftly disappears.

Equally the one with a big visible stick is also open to request for aid as that tool is potentially useful and visibly so.

Who asks help of the one who seems unable?
Who keeps hidden their assets, keeps their capacity to lend aid hidden also