The fact is we're still thinking of naval engagements in local tactical terms. I personally think we're wasting money on these huge aircraft carriers, they're useful for taking the war to somewhere else … e.g. the Falklands and I did a bit of time down there. But they need a fleet just to protect them. And if attacking aircraft are carrying nuclear weapons in a major conflict .. then Putin is right. They're just big targets.
The Buccaneer was developed for low level attack on warships with tactical nuclear weapons … and all of that is old hat technology now. We're fine if we're dealing with countries whose capabilities are far less than ours, but nuclear ?
The entire Argentine fleet was swept off the sea by a nuclear sub with a conventional torpedo. It was only their air power that brought us to the brink … (worth mentioning with the loss of one merchant ship to air attack, the Atlantic Conveyor, the Army lost a lot of its helicopter capacity. Their job became much harder.)
Nope, battleships were impressive, but true white elephants when airpower became dominant. Aircraft carriers might go the same way, air power in the form of autonomous missiles with nuclear capability might be the way to go … unless we get sensible … and decide warfare is not the way to resolve conflict.
Yeah … like that's going to happen soon ….
I still think the Vanguard would have made a great museum though.
