HMS Illustrious sets sail to scrapyard

Roar87 said:
Just another reminder of how ridiculous it is that we don't currently operate a single ship that is capable of launching fast jets and won't do for another 4-6 years. Fingers crossed we don't need one in that time I guess.
Click to expand...

Out of interest, why do you think we would need one?
 
Mynight said:
We have shipyards capable of breaking it down don't we?

I must admit I have no idea how much cost is involved in breaking it down/melting and selling on but surely the amount of metal there is worth more than the above costs?

Obviously I'd prefer to see it as a museum but if it must be broken down surely the raw materials are worth much more than a couple million.
Click to expand...

By the time we'd broken it down here and paid all the workers a fair wage and paid for all the dangerous bits to be cleaned up and disposed of properly it would have cost us at least £2m.

In India neither of those things are an issue.
 
Roar87 said:
So we can use fast jets to attack ground targets and protect the fleet against threats from the air
Click to expand...

We haven't had this ability in years, decades even.

Firstly the carrier doesn't provide anti-air defence to the fleet, the fleet provide anti-air defence to the carrier. Secondly, we can use fast jets to attack ground targets from bases in the region easier and cheaper, that's how we have done it for 30 years now (the last time we actually had use for a carrier was the Falklands, and that scenario is over now).
 
hyperseven said:
And missiles and drones can't do this?
Click to expand...

Drones can't protect the fleet, they can be used to attack ground targets but they couldn't engage other aircraft or offer the same level of surveillance that a human can. Even the best missiles aren't 100% reliable, when you need to protect expensive ships or assets you want jets capable of intercepting enemy jets before they can get their munitions on target.
 
ubersonic said:
We haven't had this ability in years, decades even.

Firstly the carrier doesn't provide anti-air defence to the fleet, the fleet provide anti-air defence to the carrier. Secondly, we can use fast jets to attack ground targets from bases in the region easier and cheaper, that's how we have done it for 30 years now (the last time we actually had use for a carrier was the Falklands, and that scenario is over now).
Click to expand...

And if we get involved in a conflict (remember it isn't always of our choosing) that isn't in range of convenient land bases? or for whatever reason the Argentinians decided to stir things up again with the Falklands, etc. ? even for home defence a carrier is a potentially strong option for pushing the perimeter envelope.
 
Rroff said:
And if we get involved in a conflict (remember it isn't always of our choosing) that isn't in range of convenient land bases?
Click to expand...

I honestly can't think of anywhere that would be an issue, we have access to the whole of the middle east via friendly bases. Where else are we likely to follow America?


Rroff said:
or for whatever reason the Argentinians decided to stir things up again with the Falklands, etc. ?
Click to expand...

The Argentinians don't have the capability to threaten the Falklands, it's too well defended. That was on blip in the last 40-50 years.

------

This is one of the arguments against the new QE carriers, the way the UK military works we simply have no use for them, it's just an expensive way of increasing our usefulness to America in engaging in their fights that the people of the UK oppose :(
 
ubersonic said:
We haven't had this ability in years, decades even.

Firstly the carrier doesn't provide anti-air defence to the fleet, the fleet provide anti-air defence to the carrier. Secondly, we can use fast jets to attack ground targets from bases in the region easier and cheaper, that's how we have done it for 30 years now (the last time we actually had use for a carrier was the Falklands, and that scenario is over now).
Click to expand...

They're not mutually exclusive, if you had a group of fast jets coming to attack the fleet you would launch QRA from your Carrier before anything else. In a war with anyone worth worrying about they would likely knock out all NATO air bases that could be useful with cruise missiles in the first 12 hours of a war. We had to use Apaches from HMS Ocean to attack Libya which was very far from ideal, and only because of our excellent pilots and RAF were we able to do that.
 
ubersonic said:
I honestly can't think of anywhere that would be an issue, we have access to the whole of the middle east via friendly bases. Where else are we likely to follow America?




The Argentinians don't have the capability to threaten the Falklands, it's too well defended. That was on blip in the last 40-50 years.

------

This is one of the arguments against the new QE carriers, the way the UK military works we simply have no use for them, it's just an expensive way of increasing our usefulness to America in engaging in their fights that the people of the UK oppose :(
Click to expand...

Problem is you are thinking very statically in the here and now - over time geopolitics evolves and you can't just rely on being able to react to that at the time.

Roar87 said:
They're not mutually exclusive, if you had a group of fast jets coming to attack the fleet you would launch QRA from your Carrier before anything else. In a war with anyone worth worrying about they would likely knock out all NATO air bases that could be useful with cruise missiles in the first 12 hours of a war. We had to use Apaches from HMS Ocean to attack Libya which was very far from ideal, and only because of our excellent pilots and RAF were we able to do that.
Click to expand...

Type 45 have great functionality here - which is why it is crazy we have so few of them.
 
Rroff said:
Type 45 have great functionality here - which is why it is crazy we have so few of them.
Click to expand...

They are one of the best anti-air destroyers in the world and they're great at their job, but missiles aren't 100% effective. It's better to have jets intercept them before you have to rely on missiles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom