Ship geeks in ere - US Carrier in UK

Flukester said:
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.
Click to expand...

even old subs could give modern day ships a battering with a decent enough crew and the right window of opportunity.
Russias rearming, theres a possible enemy force with new tech subs...... the merlins wont stand a chance of finding them if there half as good as ours.
 
I have no problem with name HMS Queen Elizabeth as the the QE class of superDs were the most effective+active battleships of all time (count the battle honours).

HMS Prince of Wales is another thing - the KGV PoW was a basket case from before commissioning to being sunk. It probably was never fully worked up in its 9 months of service. Given that it was named after KEVIII it rather reflected its monarch!
 
Overlag said:
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.
Click to expand...
That had nothing to do with it, the SHAR was a very capable aircraft that held it's own amazingly. The CAPs put on by the Royal Navy were more than adequate, and against an attacking force that had little loiter time (sometimes less than 5 minutes) were very effective. The real reason the exocets proved so potent was not because of the quality of the fighters on either side but due to the lack of Airborne Early Warning and the inadequacy of the fleets anti-ship missile defence. Had we an AEW capability at the time such as the Sea King or the Hawkeye then we would've spotted the attacking aircraft long in advance and intercepted them long before they were in effective range.
 
Stringy said:
That had nothing to do with it, the SHAR was a very capable aircraft that held it's own amazingly. The CAPs put on by the Royal Navy were more than adequate, and against an attacking force that had little loiter time (sometimes less than 5 minutes) were very effective. The real reason the exocets proved so potent was not because of the quality of the fighters on either side but due to the lack of Airborne Early Warning and the inadequacy of the fleets anti-ship missile defence. Had we an AEW capability at the time such as the Sea King or the Hawkeye then we would've spotted the attacking aircraft long in advance and intercepted them long before they were in effective range.
Click to expand...

You are correct that the SHAR did a great job and a better point defense would have have helped defeat the exocet but I'm not sure I agree with AEW or the CAP being adequate.

Whilst generally AEW is a good thing in this case I don't believe it could have been forward deployed enough to be any good. The Argies had some decent air defense setup and you wouldn't want to get to close to that. You also need to consider that the Super Etendards were flying extrememly low over the Falklands and popping up at the last minute. With radar technology available at that time it wouldn't have been very hard to pick them out of the ground clutter.

A lot of the SHAR CAPs were at high level and the SHAR (as did all other aircraft of the time) lacked a good look down radar picture. This meant they were directed onto the target by a controlling ship and time was wasted getting down to the sub 250 feet altitude the attacking aircraft would be at. I suspect this was a hang up from training to defend against Soviet attacks which would have been at high level.
 
Still all a horrible waste of money though. Could be better spent elsewhere, such as transport network, hospitals, schools etc.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Proud? Not a word I'd use for allocating a load of resources like this. Willy waving in my opinion, on a scale only the Soviets, Americans and unfortunately now us seem to be foolish enough to engage in.
 
clv101 said:
Proud? Not a word I'd use for allocating a load of resources like this. Willy waving in my opinion, on a scale only the Soviets, Americans and unfortunately now us seem to be foolish enough to engage in.
Click to expand...

and if we had no navy and argentina decided to invade the falklands again?
they still want those islands you know
 
clv101 said:
Proud? Not a word I'd use for allocating a load of resources like this. Willy waving in my opinion, on a scale only the Soviets, Americans and unfortunately now us seem to be foolish enough to engage in.
Click to expand...

Hardly, the current crop of aircraft carriers are long overdue replacement and not far from falling apart. These carriers aren't on the scale of the USN ones and aren't even nuclear powered (a mistake in my opinion).
 
Voltar said:
Recommission one as the HMS Victory and make it our flagship!

The HMS Victory and The HMS Nelson would be my choices for the names
Click to expand...

But we already have a HMS Victory, OK she may be over 250 years old but she is still a commissioned warship with the Royal Navy and is the flagship of the Second Sea Lord.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom