Ship geeks in ere - US Carrier in UK

helpimcrap said:
given the good boy nature of the uk, i'm surprised at 2.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are right. I suppose we should be grateful that Carriers weren't considered to emit too much CO2 or the government didn't use their current ethos of stating that our defensive policy should focus on terrorism and there is no need for them. (because apparently politicians can see what’s going to happen 10 years down the line :rolleyes: )

helpimcrap said:
i'm very much a nationalist and think we have some of the best people in the world but then we shoot ourselves in the foot by letting dregs/foreigners doss here.
Click to expand...

What does the UK's immigration policy have to do with how many Carriers we maintain?
 
Last edited:
Their was sort off Aircraft Carrier Docked in Belfast a few years back! It was rather big :eek:...I dont know what kind off one though.

Shame Belfast's Ship building has died :(! We have the worlds largest dry dock here going to waste :(!
 
Last edited:
lucasade1 said:
Which is such a shame, the navy seems to be heading into an era of brilliant ships, but fewer actually being built under the argument of being more powerful than the older classes.
Click to expand...

then again, no other navy outside USN can field ships of this size, but we will soon be only other nation with super carriers, actually makes me feel very proud.

i heard they were pushing back completion date because they didn't want to use harriers and instead go from the start with the F35s on order.

not sure if we have enough harriers to fill them both :)
 
Flukester said:
can anyone identify these planes...

http://www.portviewfitout.co.uk/ukar/TR-05.jpg

i know the others are F18s, but what are these ?, surely not back end of 'prowlers', I thought they were all long gone.
Click to expand...

They are indeed EA-6B Prowlers. They have four onboard (three on the deck and one in the hanger).

Flukester said:
then again, no other navy outside USN can field ships of this size, but we will soon be only other nation with super carriers, actually makes me feel very proud.

i heard they were pushing back completion date because they didn't want to use harriers and instead go from the start with the F35s on order.

not sure if we have enough harriers to fill them both :)
Click to expand...

The completion date of the carriers was put back to spread the cost over a larger period of time (another attempt to fix the £3 billion blackhole in the defense budget).

The F-35B completion date has slipped back meaning that we will start to use the new carrier (only one to start with) with the GR9 / GR9A Harriers and a mix of RN and RAF pilots from Joint Force Harrier.
 
cant see anything on the RN website about it.

People saying about us 'only' getting two new carriers.. where do you think the manpower will magically appear from to keep this ships running? Theres about 5000 per carrier for the US or so is there not? Theres how many serving in the RN, about 20,000 I think it is.
Some people forget about HMS Ocean when speaking of carriers, its one big landing platform after all.
 
monkentage said:
Carriers are a waste of £. They went the way of the battleship quite a while ago.

It's ok though cos they look like they could blow up a small country or two...
Click to expand...

thats possibly one of the silliest comments ive seen thus far on this forum. for example where do you think the initial air domination came from when the coalition invaded Iraq? yes thats right carriers. And before you say it yes i know air attacks were launched from saudi but that would not have been possible without the carriers initial intervention and the surpressing of the iraqi airforce beforehand. carriers are definately the future in modern warfare in my opinion. i mean hell who would want to take on a carrier when they know for a fact there gonna be ****** if they do try anything.
 
aaron said:
thats possibly one of the silliest comments ive seen thus far on this forum. for example where do you think the initial air domination came from when the coalition invaded Iraq? yes thats right carriers. And before you say it yes i know air attacks were launched from saudi but that would not have been possible without the carriers initial intervention and the surpressing of the iraqi airforce beforehand. carriers are definately the future in modern warfare in my opinion. i mean hell who would want to take on a carrier when they know for a fact there gonna be ****** if they do try anything.
Click to expand...

I never stated carriers are useless for projecting power on some basket case nation that spends a huge proportion of its GDP on defence. How can Iraq fight back against a carrier? It couldn't hence it recieved a change of government. Infact, it couldnt counter anything. The thing is that's the point of Carriers; to project military power on anyone who can't fight back. Look at the Falklands war as an example. Argentina had less than a dozen Exocets, worth a small amount of $ and they scared the ******* **** out of the RN and even sank a few ships. Inteilligence services and diplomacy solved that problem for Britain not advanced anti-missile systems.

20 years of missile technology progress has rendered carriers floating coffins. Send some carriers to bomb a nation that isn't run by imbeciles and they will be sunk faster than you can make a post denying you get sexually aroused by grandiose pieces of military hardware.
 
Last edited:
monkentage said:
I never stated carriers are useless for projecting power on some basket case nation that spends a huge proportion of its GDP on defence. How can Iraq fight back against a carrier? It couldn't hence it recieved a change of government. Infact, it couldnt counter anything. The thing is that's the point of Carriers; to project military power on anyone who can't fight back. Look at the Falklands war as an example. Argentina had less than a dozen Exocets, worth a small amount of $ and they scared the ******* **** out of the RN and even sank a few ships. Inteilligence services and diplomacy solved that problem for Britain not advanced anti-missile systems.

20 years of missile technology progress has rendered carriers floating coffins. Send some carriers to bomb a nation that isn't run by imbeciles and they will be sunk faster than you can make a post denying you get sexually aroused by grandiose pieces of military hardware.
Click to expand...
woah... someone doesn't know what they are talking about. You do realise that Battleships became 2nd to Carriers late 1941 when japan almost destroyed the US pacific fleet? Since then, Carriers have been number 1. Air-power (inc your missile example) will always win against a Battleship (or any ship for that matter), hence Carriers Win the battle. Projecting Air-power is what it is about.

The Reason the Argentine Exocet's caused so much damage was because we had no air-power to defend those ships (a few Jump-jets vs land based fighters = lose). If Enemy fighters never get close to the carrier due to effective Combat Air Patrol (from the carrier) then the enemy's missiles wont matter.


edited for mistakes
 
Last edited:
Overlag said:
woah... someone doesn't know what they are talking about. You do realise that Battleships became 2nd to Carriers late 1941 when japan almost destroyed the US pacific fleet?
Click to expand...

Yes. Where did I imply something incompatible with that statement? When I said they went the way of the battleship I mean they are now obsolete to the next technological adavancement, i.e missiles, like battleships were rendered useless by carriers.

£100m of modern missiles will end £4 billion worth of carrier poster art ****ery due to the basic £ vs £ of error rates for counter measures.

The Reason the Argentine Exocet's caused so much damage was because we had no air-power to defend those ships (a few Jump-jets vs land based fighters = lose). If Enemy fighters never get close to the carrier due to effective Combat Air Patrol off the carrier then there missiles wont matter.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do realise that.
 
Last edited:
i can sort of unerstand where your coming from but airpower is by far the biggest factor in modern warfare. very few land based operations go ahead now if not none at all without the garantee that air power can be called upon. and the only way to get that airpower there at the start of a war is through the use of carriers. until you have suffieciently pushed back the enemy the use of airfields in that particular country isnt viable as is the case with kandahar airbase. until that you have to either project your air power from a neighboring country or a carrier and carriers tend to be the best option. the same applys to the sea, if a carrier is operating in a particular stretch of water you can pretty much guarantee theres not going to be any trouble because as soon as those planes are launched your ******.
 
Seeing that I am glad we are in bed with the US of A, the power they can unleash could wipe out a country, Russia have the man power but they lack the tech same as China, they would only be good for ground invasion but we all know air and sea power is the king to attack.
 
aaron said:
i can sort of unerstand where your coming from but airpower is by far the biggest factor in modern warfare. very few land based operations go ahead now if not none at all without the garantee that air power can be called upon. and the only way to get that airpower there at the start of a war is through the use of carriers. until you have suffieciently pushed back the enemy the use of airfields in that particular country isnt viable as is the case with kandahar airbase. until that you have to either project your air power from a neighboring country or a carrier and carriers tend to be the best option. the same applys to the sea, if a carrier is operating in a particular stretch of water you can pretty much guarantee theres not going to be any trouble because as soon as those planes are launched your ******.
Click to expand...

im for carriers, but they're cannon fodder for submarines, just like anything else in the water..
missiles are not the be all and end all either, a full CAG can deal with a lot of incoming targets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom