Aircraft Carriers eclipsed

Discussion in 'Postwar' started by kfz, Jul 7, 2009.

?

Is the Aircraft Carrier is an effective and essential part of a modern defence

  1. Yes, the carrier is an essential defence system

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No, its a nice to have luxury, but lets buy helicopters instead

    33 vote(s)
    100.0%
  1. Drew5233

    Drew5233 #FuturePilot Patron 1940 Obsessive

    For the heathens out there.........


    Ladies and Gents I give you the 'Egg Banjo'
    [​IMG]

    Yummmy !
     
  2. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Jesus Christ, what is that monstrosity?

    Urqh, no worries, the Typhoon can't be navalised but your Sea Lords are buying a naval version of the F-35 for the purpose.
     
  3. urqh

    urqh Senior Member

    za that monstrosity as you call it was once the lifeblood of the british army..still is i think.. except owen would probably recognise it as more runny with oily finger prints for taste. Monstrosity!!!!! thats like the yanks in a bridge too far talking about that baily crap.. im with king george..who needs allies.. and to keep on topic should name carriers..hms egg banjo and hms up the buffs.
     
  4. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    "John Hunter, notwithstanding he had a bee in his bonnet, was really a great man."

    :lol:
     
  5. A-58

    A-58 Not so senior Member

    "When you refer to Bailey crap I take it you mean that glorious, precision-made, British-built bridge which is the envy of the civilized world?" Only Michael Caine could deliver a line like that. Classic line if there ever was one.

    And keeping with the carrier theme of this thread, it was the British that developed the aircraft approach just prior to landing on the carrier deck. Early developemental USN approach protocol called for a direct straight line approach, which resulted in crashes and aircraft missing the arresting cables with their tail hooks. The Royal Navy figured out that approaching perpendicular to the carrier (keeping the deck in sight longer during the approach), then turning towards the carrier deck to make the landing easier.

    So, the Brits (is that a bad word?) invented the Bailey Bridge, aircraft carrier appproach, and something called a banjo sammich. Credit goes where credit is earned.
     
  6. Formerjughead

    Formerjughead Senior Member

    So, the Brits (is that a bad word?) invented the Bailey Bridge, aircraft carrier appproach, and something called a banjo sammich. Credit goes where credit is earned.

    They also invented the "tooth brush" because if it had been invented anywhere else it most certainly would have been named a "Teeth brush"

    They also figured out how to land a Corsair on an Aircraft Carrier
     
  7. A-58

    A-58 Not so senior Member

    They also invented the Liberty Ship. We just made'm. A bunch of'm.
     
  8. A-58

    A-58 Not so senior Member

    For the heathens out there.........


    Ladies and Gents I give you the 'Egg Banjo'
    [​IMG]

    Yummmy !
    Put some cheese and bacon on it and then you have something! Maybe a "McSomething."
     
  9. Smudger Jnr

    Smudger Jnr Our Man in Berlin

    An Aircraft carrier may be an extremely large target for the enemy, but so to is an airfield and the airfield is always fixed in it's position.

    I still see the aircraft carrier serving a very useful role for those countries that can afford to build and maintain them.

    Where else can you have a moving airfield with top class planes and weaponry to hand.

    Regards
    Tom
     
    A-58 likes this.
  10. James Daly

    James Daly Senior Member

    Here's my two penneth...

    The argument over naval airpower has been ongoing for almost a hundred years. Countless times it has been argued that aircraft carriers are un-necessary, that the RAF can cover the fleet with land based aircraft. Time and time again it has been proved that we need the capability and flexibility that aircraft carriers offer. They are pretty good value for money in terms of what they offer. Look at HMS Hermes - during her career she served as a fixed wing carrier, an anti-submarine carrier, a commando carrier and finally a Harrier carrier. Practically every operation that the UK has been involved in since 1945 has involved the use of a carrier in some way, shape or form. The argument goes that we dont need them for the current war in Afghanistan, but thats a dangerous road to go down - we need to leave ourselves capable of fighting the next war, in whatever form it comes.

    My concern over the new Carriers is two-fold, their size and the number of hulls. My feeling is that two ships of 60,000 tons is inflexible. Hailing from Portsmouth - and the son of a falklands era Dockyard worker - I know only too well that for every Carrier out on station, there is usually one in deep refit and one on trials or working up. So with two carriers we will almost certainly find ourselves overstretched at times. I cannot help but feel that we would be better served by 3 slightly smaller vessels. The problem with this would probably be the number of escort vessels required to defend them, as we are now to have only six Type 45's we will be overstretched in that department too.
     
    A-58 likes this.
  11. urqh

    urqh Senior Member

    An Aircraft carrier may be an extremely large target for the enemy, but so to is an airfield and the airfield is always fixed in it's position.

    I still see the aircraft carrier serving a very useful role for those countries that can afford to build and maintain them.

    Where else can you have a moving airfield with top class planes and weaponry to hand.

    Regards
    Tom

    A Gutersloh harrier hide?
     
  12. Smudger Jnr

    Smudger Jnr Our Man in Berlin

    A Gutersloh harrier hide?

    A good alternative:D

    Regards
    Tom
     
  13. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Now imagine having to dig that out, put it on a barge and tow it away to someplace where it is needed, say off the Barbary coast or thereabouts. A bit of logistics involved, eh?
     
  14. urqh

    urqh Senior Member

    no its what we did in belize mate.
     
  15. urqh

    urqh Senior Member

    but you got to have a pretty p.. poor enemy
     
  16. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Exactly. But for it's time the Harrier was quite a plane, and it's ability to dispense with conventional runways was much appreciated. Back to the naval topic, the Sea Harrier allowed some decent performance on smaller - chearper! - carriers (or through-deck cruisers, as the Invincible class was called :) )
     
  17. James Daly

    James Daly Senior Member

    Exactly. But for it's time the Harrier was quite a plane, and it's ability to dispense with conventional runways was much appreciated. Back to the naval topic, the Sea Harrier allowed some decent performance on smaller - chearper! - carriers (or through-deck cruisers, as the Invincible class was called :) )

    Thats a very good point. From what I can gather not a lot of commentators gave the Sea Harrier a chance against the Mirage in 1982. But the land based Mirage's were at the extreme of their range, whereas being on flat tops the Shars could within reason go anywhere. The Ferranti Blue Fox radar seems to have got rave reviews too. I know its not a straight comparison, but compare the performance of Invincible, Hermes and the Sea Harriers against the Argentine conventional carrier.
     
  18. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    What conventional carrier? When the Belgrano went down the 25 de Mayo went running back to port like it had it's tail on fire! Go figure!

    The Harrier concept was appreciated enough for the F-35s the RN is buying being the STOVL version.
     
  19. James Daly

    James Daly Senior Member

    What conventional carrier? When the Belgrano went down the 25 de Mayo went running back to port like it had it's tail on fire! Go figure!


    Exactly! Their only half-hearted attempt to launch a carrier-borne attack foundered, and then they went back to port. Ships and aircraft are nothing without quality men to operate them.
     
  20. A-58

    A-58 Not so senior Member

    I don't think it was the quality of the men operating the ship, the rank and file, rather the upper management lacking in motivation, desire, dedication and cahonies....
     

Share This Page