Ship geeks in ere - US Carrier in UK

Yes, carriers are big tempting targets if they're on their own. But they're not. Nobody would be barmy enough to deploy a carrier without a support fleet. Missiles can be shot down with other missiles, as can planes. In fact, the latest destroyer (Type 45 Daring class) to roll off the production line is specifically fitted with PAAMS anti-air missiles which can intercept both planes and other missiles. You can bet that'll be hanging around the nearest friendly carrier like a bad smell during an operation.
 
3 would be nice but 2 is plenty, remember these things are huge. as said no one other than the USA has them. The UK is a small country in the grand scheme of things, to have the 2nd largest navy and thus manuverable airforce is very powerful.

I can understand the point of them not being needed, anyone able to put up a fight will have nukes etc etc but you could say that about all military hardware.

Unfortunatly we have to have it just incase.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Eh? Where's your patriotism?
Click to expand...

Previously,

HMS Illustrious
HMS Invincible
HMS Ark Royal
HMS Dreadnaught
Etc

Now, with the future CVF carriers

HMS Queen Elizibeth 2nd
HMS Prince of Wales

Not exactly cracking names that strike fear into the enemy are they?


Also remember, carriers aren't only used for war. They are used during peacetime to help during natural disasters and other such events.
 
True. HMS Churchill and HMS Trafalger I wouldn't have minded if they wanted to rename after people.

I also think we should retake our rights to HMS Enterprize :p
 
peetee said:
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.
Click to expand...

not really, for one any carrier in operation would have type45 with it and running awacs cover, that pretty much eliminates any problems from surface / airborne threats..

then i'm sure we would have a sub assigned also to battle group (astute ?), and no possible enemy in the world today is gonna sneak a sub up into range very easily
most possible enemy forces are running aged diesels at very best, let alone proper blue water sub fleets with the latest tech

the above all makes threats to our carriers quite low... look at how many operations US carriers have been in in modern times, none have been hit by anything.
 
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...
waste of money???
i dont think so... do you have some insider knowlege of where our next conflict will be, who it will be waged against and what capabilities said country/faction will have?
cause if you do please do tell Pa Broon and Co and the lads and lasses at the MOD, so they can equip our armed forces with which weapon systems will be needed.
and while you are at it can i have a try of that crystal ball?

the biggest mistake is equiping the armed forces to fight the last war, just because the current operations are being fought in a land locked country dosnt mean the next will be, and how do you know the next country will have naval or air capibility to take out a carrier, the day of the carrier are nowhere near over, its better to have the equipment and the option to use it than not have it at all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom