Britain’s aircraft carriers are a triumph, not a failure
The UK is the foremost maritime power in Europe. It is madness to criticise the ships that make us so
It has been a common refrain in recent years, sometimes on the letters page of this paper, that Britain’s aircraft carriers are an expensive error. Their detractors argue that they are too expensive, vulnerable to new forms of warfare – such as hypersonic missiles or drones – and have been made redundant in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The news that HMS Prince of Wales, the Royal Navy’s £3billion carrier, has broken down, therefore, could not come at a worse time. It is to be hoped that this is not a design fault but rather a mechanical breakdown that can be resolved relatively rapidly.
However, those who seize this opportunity to denounce the carriers yet again are wrong. Not only is their strategic value immense, but their cost relative to other military spending here and abroad has been overblown.
Britain is an island and, first and foremost, a maritime nation. Twas ever thus, though Brexit has brought this into sharper focus. London is still the headquarters of global maritime trade, and our relationship with Asia gives this a particular impetus. Thus the ability to protect trade routes has always been paramount, as we learned in the First and Second World Wars.
But carriers do far more than protect shipping. Their defensive and offensive capabilities are enormous and, as a seafaring nation, all our overseas operations are expeditionary. A fleet with a carrier at its heart can ensure theatre entry, as we saw in the Falklands. Indeed, it would have not been possible to fight and win that war without a carrier. All bar one of the enemy planes shot down in air-to-air combat by the UK since the Second World War have been shot down by Naval aircraft.
Detractors cite carriers’ excessive “vulnerability” from enemy attack. This, too, is incorrect. Carriers are far less exposed to attack than, say, airfields. Airfields are static and known to the enemy – hence why Hitler chose to target them, to great effect, in the Battle of Britain. Carriers, by contrast, are almost invisible amid the vast ocean. I know because it was my job to make them so.
As the commander of the UK Task Group deployed to the South China Sea covering the withdrawal from Hong Kong in 1997, we did so to great effect. The Chinese were agitated at their inability to find us. We also conducted a naval exercise with the Americans, where our effectiveness took even them by surprise. Indeed, it is not surprising that the US is hugely supportive of the formation of two new UK carrier battlegroups.
Evolutions in military technology have not changed the difficulty in targeting carriers. They can travel 500 miles a day in any direction, and other ships can be easily disguised to look like them. Hypersonic missiles need accurate knowledge of a target’s position to make an effective strike. Likewise, no small drone would be able to reach carriers out at sea, and large drones would be detected and shot down by F-35s long before they were a threat.
Of course, anything in war is vulnerable when matched with comparable force, but carriers are if anything less so than any other ship. The last carrier we lost was in 1942 – HMS Hermes – which did not have its airwing, a lesson to be learned from.
The other main charge against British carriers is that their cost is “exorbitant”. This, too, is erroneous. The two that we have cost £7billion
– a considerable amount, it’s true, but not when one considers that £1billion of that was due to a yearlong delay in construction, and when compared with other countries’ carriers. The US carrier Gerald R Ford cost at least $13billion: $5billion for research and development plus $8billion to build.
Our carriers are also more efficient: due to its cutting-edge design, the HMS Prince of Wales only requires 700 personnel aboard, whereas American carriers require over 3,000.
They are the first in the world to be designed from the keel up to operate 5th generation fighter aircraft. When compared with the cost of the RAF’S Typhoon programme – tens of billions – a carrier hardly seems the great absorber of funds it first appears.
That said, there is more that can be done to make our carriers more effective. Fixing mechanical faults aside, it is vital that they have a full airwing at all times. Yet the Government has been pusillanimous regarding training F-35 pilots and speeding up orders of F-35 aircraft. I hope the next prime minister, whoever he or she may be, will rectify this urgently.
Britain is an island. If matters escalate into a world war – and it is the job of the armed forces to always consider this – then the maritime front will be crucial for our defence. Despite this, I cannot recall any time when a Naval programme has come under such a sustained barrage of criticism.
The blunt truth is that if you are a serious naval player then you need aircraft carriers. Why else are the Chinese, Indians and numerous others building them? As the foremost naval power in Europe, it is vital that Britain continues to invest in them.