SimonFa
Well-known member
They were a sight to behold in San Carlos and certainly gave those of us on the ground a moral boost when they set off after the Argies.
Blue ensign dick'ed
- Thread starter oldbilbo
- Start date
They were a sight to behold in San Carlos and certainly gave those of us on the ground a moral boost when they set off after the Argies.
Blue Sunray
Well-known member
Fundamentally they were nearing the end of their useful like and a wad of dosh could be saved by getting rid of a fleet. Yes, they were great 34 years ago, not so good now. The Spitfire was bloody brilliant in 1940 but I wouldn't have fancied its chances in 1972.
Sandyman
Well-known member
dombuckley
Well-known member
The CDS at the time was an RAF man (as now), and Eurofighter / Typhoon is the RAF's sacred cow. Maintaining the harrier fleet in service until the F35 came into service would have been the same cost as two shiny new Typhoons.
However, more importantly, it gave him the chance to indulge in inter-service rivalry and completely shaft naval carrier-borne aviation. Although the navy ran the carriers and flew the naval-variant aircraft, the RAF led the "Joint Force Harrier", so basically owned the aircraft. As soon as the RAF decided to bin the Harrier, the carriers were no longer tenable.
Of course, a few months later we had Libya. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that intervention, we then had the spectacle not of a UK aircraft carrier sited 2 minutes flying time of the coast, but a squadron of Typhoons and Tornados based in Italy, two hours flying time away, complete with tanker aircraft to keep them from dropping out the sky before they even got there. So a greatly-reduced ability to react to and influence events on the ground, however the operation did improve the finances of the Italian hotel trade to the tune of nearly £50,000 a day!
Drifting this thread still further, I do wonder if politicians find the RAF more amenable: the big defence cuts do seem to occur under RAF CDSs. The last naval CDS was Michael Boyce15 years ago, who stood up to Blair and refused to commit any forces to the Gulf War until he had written confirmation from the Attorney General that an invasion of Iraq would be legal. Funnily enough, we haven't had another navy man in the top job since then.
Seajet
...
dombuckley,
spot on.
Also it should be pointed out the updated Sea Harrier FA2's had the Blue Vixen radar - said to be the best fighter radar in Europe and now the basis of that in the Europhoon.
This radar allowed the Sea Harrier to use the Hughes AIM-120 AMRAAM medium range air to air missile, which is still very much the top thing going anywhere.
spot on.
Also it should be pointed out the updated Sea Harrier FA2's had the Blue Vixen radar - said to be the best fighter radar in Europe and now the basis of that in the Europhoon.
This radar allowed the Sea Harrier to use the Hughes AIM-120 AMRAAM medium range air to air missile, which is still very much the top thing going anywhere.
mattonthesea
Well-known member
Moored up in Porto Santo with my new, French, crewmember, we invited our French neighbour across for a drink. He was a regular in that cruising area. Not being fluent it took me some while to understand one of his suggestions. He told us to fly a blue duster in Islas Desertas as the keeper would then not ask us to show a visiting license. He did it regularly. I was just working out how to explain that I did not have the authority to fly one when it occurred to me that he shouldn't either! 'Why can you fly one' I asked.
'Because I bought it online' was the reply.
Couldn't argue with that Not in french anyway!
'Because I bought it online' was the reply.
Couldn't argue with that
Not in french anyway!
Last edited:
Pete7
Well-known member
I thought all the naval Harriers had just been through a major overhaul at the cost of billions which is why the US Marine Corps snapped them up, saving themselves a small fortune. Wouldn't surprise me if it was a RAF initiative, do wonder whose side they are on sometimes.
Pete
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
Its common knowledge that the RAF absolutely and totally HATE the Fleet Air Arm flying jets, They consider that anything airborne should be theirs and they will stoop very low in their efforts to try to grab all flying into their province.
To the uneducated it often seems to make sense.
As soon as you unpack it a little you discover just how expensive RAF operations are (compared to Fleet Air Arm) and how (in the past at least) EXTREMELY inefficient the RAF had allowed itself to become in parts. e.g. I remember the first time the RAF put Harriers on an RN Aircraft Carrier and naturally they asked for bed space for their maintenance crews. They asked for three times the number that the RN use to maintain the same aircraft and were told to go and think again... Manpower is very expensive. QED
I have a huge respect for many who have served and who serve in the RAF but I am afraid that I have seen at first hand the lies and deceptions that some senior RAF personnel have used to persuade politicians to make decisions that haven't always been in the next interest of the country or our national defence.
To the uneducated it often seems to make sense.
As soon as you unpack it a little you discover just how expensive RAF operations are (compared to Fleet Air Arm) and how (in the past at least) EXTREMELY inefficient the RAF had allowed itself to become in parts. e.g. I remember the first time the RAF put Harriers on an RN Aircraft Carrier and naturally they asked for bed space for their maintenance crews. They asked for three times the number that the RN use to maintain the same aircraft and were told to go and think again... Manpower is very expensive. QED
I have a huge respect for many who have served and who serve in the RAF but I am afraid that I have seen at first hand the lies and deceptions that some senior RAF personnel have used to persuade politicians to make decisions that haven't always been in the next interest of the country or our national defence.
oldbilbo
...
Hah! There Speaks the Voice of Dogma! This time it's Dartmouth-speak....
"When you unpack it a little you discover" that some parts of RAF Operations cost a damn sight more than hanging about in Portsmouth and Devonport nine-tenths of the year, because the heavy lift and pax transports run 24/7, carrying our uniformed people and their kit where our un-uniformed politicians want them to be.
While there's a wheen of respect for the above commentator i.r.o. his Mean Green Fighting Machine days, the rest of his diatribe is straight 'MoD Navy' special pleading. Pundits-various rabbit on about 'planning and funding for the next war' and the two QE Class aircraft carriers with associated F35 flying systems will cost us taxpayers several Kings' Ransomes. What will they be used for? Or indeed, what will they be capable of? As presently planned, they won't have a Deep Strike capability, even if the aircraft envisaged and ordered can fly fairly far. However, to stand off clear of current land-based anti-ship missiles systems, they'll have to stand off so far that in-flight refuelling will be necessary. And that's not something the RN's Admirals have offered to fund, 'cos they still seem to be thinking unopposed 'Sandpit Operations'.
There's no 'stand off weapon' in the mix. So is it envisaged that they'll be used as hyper-expensive Harriers? Or Jaguars, doing 'tank plinking'....? With the most expensive carriers in Britain's history sitting just offshore, within reach of any banana republic's Flat Pack Russian Export anti-ship launchers....? Iranian? Chinese?
Or for cocktail parties for Very Senior Officers....?
IMHO, 'Defence of the Realm' is the first responsibility of our armed forces. Not defence of someone else's realm. Right now - and for years into the future - we DO NOT have the resources to prevent Russian armed aviation incursions into our sovereign airspace. A couple of 'em, sure. Five, six or more....? No way. And the Russians have demonstrated, time and again, that they can send a stream of 'Long Range Naval Aviation' bombers carrying nuclear stand-off missiles right to our back door. And when one considers what those Bears, Backfires and Blinders are armed with, that is the most serious worry. You can get a lot of British interceptors and their airfields for the cost of a QE carrier - which is only ever going to be used to intervene in other peoples' wars, far away, using American aircraft, weapons and hardware..... which we will pay for.
That's a luxury purchase - a 'vanity project' - we really cannot afford.
And while we're on about 'luxuries', I'm reliably advised that when RAF aircrew were suddenly embarked on a jaunt to the South Seas a few years ago with some Harriers, and Support Helos following along behind, they all slept on camp beds in the busy ship's corridors. All of them.
The RN padres each had their cosy little private cabins. With Mess Servants....
I rather suspect the fellow above wouldn't even know how to 'sling an' 'ammock in a corridor'.....He'd have some little rating to do it for 'im.
IV
"When you unpack it a little you discover" that some parts of RAF Operations cost a damn sight more than hanging about in Portsmouth and Devonport nine-tenths of the year, because the heavy lift and pax transports run 24/7, carrying our uniformed people and their kit where our un-uniformed politicians want them to be.
While there's a wheen of respect for the above commentator i.r.o. his Mean Green Fighting Machine days, the rest of his diatribe is straight 'MoD Navy' special pleading. Pundits-various rabbit on about 'planning and funding for the next war' and the two QE Class aircraft carriers with associated F35 flying systems will cost us taxpayers several Kings' Ransomes. What will they be used for? Or indeed, what will they be capable of? As presently planned, they won't have a Deep Strike capability, even if the aircraft envisaged and ordered can fly fairly far. However, to stand off clear of current land-based anti-ship missiles systems, they'll have to stand off so far that in-flight refuelling will be necessary. And that's not something the RN's Admirals have offered to fund, 'cos they still seem to be thinking unopposed 'Sandpit Operations'.
There's no 'stand off weapon' in the mix. So is it envisaged that they'll be used as hyper-expensive Harriers? Or Jaguars, doing 'tank plinking'....? With the most expensive carriers in Britain's history sitting just offshore, within reach of any banana republic's Flat Pack Russian Export anti-ship launchers....? Iranian? Chinese?
Or for cocktail parties for Very Senior Officers....?
IMHO, 'Defence of the Realm' is the first responsibility of our armed forces. Not defence of someone else's realm. Right now - and for years into the future - we DO NOT have the resources to prevent Russian armed aviation incursions into our sovereign airspace. A couple of 'em, sure. Five, six or more....? No way. And the Russians have demonstrated, time and again, that they can send a stream of 'Long Range Naval Aviation' bombers carrying nuclear stand-off missiles right to our back door. And when one considers what those Bears, Backfires and Blinders are armed with, that is the most serious worry. You can get a lot of British interceptors and their airfields for the cost of a QE carrier - which is only ever going to be used to intervene in other peoples' wars, far away, using American aircraft, weapons and hardware..... which we will pay for.
That's a luxury purchase - a 'vanity project' - we really cannot afford.
And while we're on about 'luxuries', I'm reliably advised that when RAF aircrew were suddenly embarked on a jaunt to the South Seas a few years ago with some Harriers, and Support Helos following along behind, they all slept on camp beds in the busy ship's corridors. All of them.
The RN padres each had their cosy little private cabins. With Mess Servants....
I rather suspect the fellow above wouldn't even know how to 'sling an' 'ammock in a corridor'.....He'd have some little rating to do it for 'im.
IV
Last edited:
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
As one who has slept on camp beds in switch gear rooms or any available space, I think we can treat the last bit of fun for what it's worth.
Unfortunately for any defender of the light blue much of the rest can be answered very easily, and the answers are rather embarrassing for the RAF.
Selling the idea that there will always be a 'friendly airfield' available sounds very attractive but it reminds me of the complete fabrication of a story sold to the politicians when our previous 'proper' carriers were pensioned off and not replaced. In order to show we had world wide 'coverage' Australia was mysteriously moved a few thousand miles on the world map by the RAF briefing team. By the time the other arms worked out what had happened the decision had been made.
Secondly, the alleged ' vulnerability' of a carrier is invariably hyped up by those who are against them. The esteemed ex RAF poster ought to remember that the deal is that some of the aircraft on the ship will be joint force RAF/RN.
My costings quote was 'per aircraft of the same type'. Nothing to do with transport and supplies. The figures are well known and the RAF have had to do some serious pruning when their 'number of operation aircraft and costs and man power were compared with other countries.
Finally, the whole 'power projection, poise, demonstrate rehearse' etc role of the military is not understood by many. The best use of the military is to turn up and not fire a shot.
There are some stats that show that something like over 80% of the worlds population live within 100 miles of the sea. Protecting British interests needs the cooperation of all three wings of our armed forces.
Perhaps the esteemed ex RAF officer would like to comment on the costs of the RAF operations in Libya and the 'necessity' for an Air Commodore to be with the squadron? The hotel bill alone was over £50,000/DAY. That's before we paid subs and travel.
Or would he like to comment on the RAF Cpl who stopped a whole exercise I was on because he wasn't going to sleep in a tent that was provided for him. Everything stopped while phone calls were made and eventually the order came down from MOD to find him a hotel of a suitable standard. (3* or better).
Sadly the light blue haven't done them selves any favours in the past. They are getting better.... and Iv'e met some really good ones who work hard.
Unfortunately for any defender of the light blue much of the rest can be answered very easily, and the answers are rather embarrassing for the RAF.
Selling the idea that there will always be a 'friendly airfield' available sounds very attractive but it reminds me of the complete fabrication of a story sold to the politicians when our previous 'proper' carriers were pensioned off and not replaced. In order to show we had world wide 'coverage' Australia was mysteriously moved a few thousand miles on the world map by the RAF briefing team. By the time the other arms worked out what had happened the decision had been made.
Secondly, the alleged ' vulnerability' of a carrier is invariably hyped up by those who are against them. The esteemed ex RAF poster ought to remember that the deal is that some of the aircraft on the ship will be joint force RAF/RN.
My costings quote was 'per aircraft of the same type'. Nothing to do with transport and supplies. The figures are well known and the RAF have had to do some serious pruning when their 'number of operation aircraft and costs and man power were compared with other countries.
Finally, the whole 'power projection, poise, demonstrate rehearse' etc role of the military is not understood by many. The best use of the military is to turn up and not fire a shot.
There are some stats that show that something like over 80% of the worlds population live within 100 miles of the sea. Protecting British interests needs the cooperation of all three wings of our armed forces.
Perhaps the esteemed ex RAF officer would like to comment on the costs of the RAF operations in Libya and the 'necessity' for an Air Commodore to be with the squadron? The hotel bill alone was over £50,000/DAY. That's before we paid subs and travel.
Or would he like to comment on the RAF Cpl who stopped a whole exercise I was on because he wasn't going to sleep in a tent that was provided for him. Everything stopped while phone calls were made and eventually the order came down from MOD to find him a hotel of a suitable standard. (3* or better).
Sadly the light blue haven't done them selves any favours in the past. They are getting better.... and Iv'e met some really good ones who work hard.
capnsensible
Well-known member
Big Les Flies Undone.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe..._hits_target_on_San_Clemente_Island_1986.JPEG
:encouragement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe..._hits_target_on_San_Clemente_Island_1986.JPEG
:encouragement:
dombuckley
Well-known member
Thankyou John, I now finally understand why the RAF is so good at air-to-air combat (ironic).
It is now 68 years since they last had a confirmed "kill", unless you count the Phantom that shot down a Jaguar on exercise over Germany, or the GR3 pilot who managed the spectacular feat of shooting himself down while performing a strafing run (went too low, and a 30mm cannon shell ricocheted off the target and back up into the airframe).
Every UK air to air combat sortie since Palestine (1948) has flown from an aircraft carrier. Yet the RAF felt the need to sacrifice what was widely regarded as western Europe's best fighter (Sea Harrier FA2). As the yanks would say, "Go figure."
Blimey, how did we get to here from a yachty impeding a large ship in a narrow channel?
Last edited:
Mark-1
Well-known member
To be fair quite a lot of us live near the air, as well.
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
100% of us but unfortunately for the RAF and their historic anti carrier stance you need somewhere to launch and recover your aircraft. One of the clever ways the procurement of the new carriers was agreed was to include joint force (e.g. RAF and Fleet Air Arm) squadrons in the plan for embarked air wing. The gossip going round was that the RAF agreed as they saw it was a way of expanding their empire and less of the threat.
Many people might not realise that for several years we have had RAF and Fleet Air Arm pilots already training in the USA for the new carrier operations.
I'm not onto willy waving over these matters as it far too important an issue to get lost in petty squabbling.
What's more interesting is that we are probably seeing the last generation of fighter aircraft that actually have human pilots on board. The G forces are becoming far too high for the human frame to survive and function.
Last edited:
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
That's not entirely fair on the RAF. Air to air combat in the WW2 mode is almost a thing of the past and the RAF's bombing and support to ground forces capability has been used extensively and successfully in many theatres of operation over the last 50 years. They have also been active in ferrying troops and support round the world.
oldbilbo
...
There are always 'red herrings' trundled out during episodes of this game, and 'The Corporal Who Stopped The War' is one of them. So also is the Daily Mail's '£50,000/day hotel bill'.... Worth a passing chuckle, but vulnerable to Snopes.
The question remains. 'British Carriers - What are they for?' What would shiny new British aircraft carriers actually DO, without aircraft for many years into the future and - as presently planned - without any Deep Strike weapons at all. Not even Tactical Tomahawk, which is a damn good Deep Strike weapon already deployed with the RN. Carriers are - or were - for the 'projection of power, pose, demonstrate,' etc. They, and other capital ships, have always been vulnerable to air power, as the War In The Pacific proved against the arguments of the admirals of several nations. The only way to protect them is to spend eye-watering sums on Aegis-type frigates and submarines just to provide an umbrella-cover, as the Americans have done.
We can't afford that. We don't/won't have the ships, the systems, the personnel.... nor the money.
Then there are anti-ship systems now being deployed which are likely to spell the end for 'power projection by carrier task forces'.... such as the Chinese 'Dong-Fen' DS-21D and DF-26 ( http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-df-26-anti-ship-ballistic-missile-what-does-the-16260. The Chinese can be expected to protect their national interests wherever those are deemed to be and, as we should know, they are investing hugely ( 'economic colonialism' ) all over the globe, propping up puppet governments all over. So a future armed conflict between the US - and allies like us - and the Chinese is as likely to occur around Central America or Eastern Africa as off the Spratly Islands.
It will be remembered that the British Task Force in the South Atlantic remained well east of the Falkland Islands, in bad weather, due to concerns over carrier vulnerability to elderly Exocets launched from elderly land-based tactical aircraft. That remains the reality today....and for the foreseeable future.
The Falklands were invaded due to inadequate land-based defences. It took almost all our navy and other war-fighting capability to take them back. Could we do that ever again?
The toughest - and unsinkable - platforms for the projection of power are strategically-placed islands. We have a number of those.... RAF Akrotiri, for example, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. Then there's RAF Gibraltar, and if asked nicely, Malta. There's Ascension Island, and there are others in the Crab-bean such as Belize.
While it may or may not be true that "a large proportion of the world's population live within 100 miles of the sea", the conflicts this Realm has recently engaged in have required land-based airfields. Think Afghan/Baghram, think Kosovo/Sigonella, think Libya/Sigonella, think 'Sandpit'/ISIS-Iraq/Akrotiri and Bahrain...... and if there's conflict in the Baltic States in coming years, would anyone seriously suggest sending a British carrier through the Kattegat towards Kaliningrad?
But the most important island we have is the one we're sitting on right now..... Blighty. And while the Russians are growing ever more capable of projecting air power right up to our front doors, we're busy running down our Air Defence capability by closing vital airfields and reducing the numbers of defensive interceptors we have. Right here is our priority, and right here is where we should be spending our defence budget - instead of on 'willy waving' foreign military adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sierra Leone.....
It's all very well elderly RM officers ( retd. ) self-indulgently dreaming of a new naval empire, of being the world's mini-policeman, with humungous and cripplingly-expensive QE Class carriers that can actually do little other than 'show the flag' in banana republics, with next to nothing to show for it. They're useless for defending home airspace. Should 'push come to shove', they'll end like the Prince of Wales, Repulse, Ark Royal, Courageous, Glorious, Hermes, Eagle......et al.
And we'll still be unable to to protect our towns, factories, hospitals, shops and schools.
What then, Carruthers?
II
The question remains. 'British Carriers - What are they for?' What would shiny new British aircraft carriers actually DO, without aircraft for many years into the future and - as presently planned - without any Deep Strike weapons at all. Not even Tactical Tomahawk, which is a damn good Deep Strike weapon already deployed with the RN. Carriers are - or were - for the 'projection of power, pose, demonstrate,' etc. They, and other capital ships, have always been vulnerable to air power, as the War In The Pacific proved against the arguments of the admirals of several nations. The only way to protect them is to spend eye-watering sums on Aegis-type frigates and submarines just to provide an umbrella-cover, as the Americans have done.
We can't afford that. We don't/won't have the ships, the systems, the personnel.... nor the money.
Then there are anti-ship systems now being deployed which are likely to spell the end for 'power projection by carrier task forces'.... such as the Chinese 'Dong-Fen' DS-21D and DF-26 ( http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-df-26-anti-ship-ballistic-missile-what-does-the-16260. The Chinese can be expected to protect their national interests wherever those are deemed to be and, as we should know, they are investing hugely ( 'economic colonialism' ) all over the globe, propping up puppet governments all over. So a future armed conflict between the US - and allies like us - and the Chinese is as likely to occur around Central America or Eastern Africa as off the Spratly Islands.
It will be remembered that the British Task Force in the South Atlantic remained well east of the Falkland Islands, in bad weather, due to concerns over carrier vulnerability to elderly Exocets launched from elderly land-based tactical aircraft. That remains the reality today....and for the foreseeable future.
The Falklands were invaded due to inadequate land-based defences. It took almost all our navy and other war-fighting capability to take them back. Could we do that ever again?
The toughest - and unsinkable - platforms for the projection of power are strategically-placed islands. We have a number of those.... RAF Akrotiri, for example, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. Then there's RAF Gibraltar, and if asked nicely, Malta. There's Ascension Island, and there are others in the Crab-bean such as Belize.
While it may or may not be true that "a large proportion of the world's population live within 100 miles of the sea", the conflicts this Realm has recently engaged in have required land-based airfields. Think Afghan/Baghram, think Kosovo/Sigonella, think Libya/Sigonella, think 'Sandpit'/ISIS-Iraq/Akrotiri and Bahrain...... and if there's conflict in the Baltic States in coming years, would anyone seriously suggest sending a British carrier through the Kattegat towards Kaliningrad?
But the most important island we have is the one we're sitting on right now..... Blighty. And while the Russians are growing ever more capable of projecting air power right up to our front doors, we're busy running down our Air Defence capability by closing vital airfields and reducing the numbers of defensive interceptors we have. Right here is our priority, and right here is where we should be spending our defence budget - instead of on 'willy waving' foreign military adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sierra Leone.....
It's all very well elderly RM officers ( retd. ) self-indulgently dreaming of a new naval empire, of being the world's mini-policeman, with humungous and cripplingly-expensive QE Class carriers that can actually do little other than 'show the flag' in banana republics, with next to nothing to show for it. They're useless for defending home airspace. Should 'push come to shove', they'll end like the Prince of Wales, Repulse, Ark Royal, Courageous, Glorious, Hermes, Eagle......et al.
And we'll still be unable to to protect our towns, factories, hospitals, shops and schools.
What then, Carruthers?
II
Last edited:
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
Finding examples of first world super powers ability to potentially defeat carrier forces isn't very persuasive. If the superpowers of the world wish to over run our little UK then they would without a thought. No amount of Airpower that we could muster from real islands or floating islands is going to make much dent in them.
Fortunately we live in the real world where such a one sided war is not very likely. Its not in their interests and its not in our interests either.
Unfortunately for the RAF we do have lots of 'interests' round the world that are not easily accessible from 'friendly airfields'. Don't complain about the lack of aircraft when its the very same RAF that persuaded the politicians not to spend money on the variants that are needed. (Spookily!)
Furthermore the original design brief was for catapults and fast jets. (I know the engineer who was in charge of liaising the whole project...) However, even while the ships were starting to be be built, there was a last minute rethink prompted by certain light blue factions in Whitehall and despite the various papers that were hurriedly resurrected showing how and why the fast jet option was best, some clever political manoeuvring saw the catapults pulled off the plans.
Does anyone see a theme developing here?
The spaces for the catapults are still in the build. I am given to understand that a later refit is (theoretically) possible.
The close in weapon systems (Goal Keeper etc) that we now have are very good at defending against any fast target (missile or plane) that comes close to a platform.
The one thing I do agree with is that we should be able to robustly defend out own country.
Fortunately we live in the real world where such a one sided war is not very likely. Its not in their interests and its not in our interests either.
Unfortunately for the RAF we do have lots of 'interests' round the world that are not easily accessible from 'friendly airfields'. Don't complain about the lack of aircraft when its the very same RAF that persuaded the politicians not to spend money on the variants that are needed. (Spookily!)
Furthermore the original design brief was for catapults and fast jets. (I know the engineer who was in charge of liaising the whole project...) However, even while the ships were starting to be be built, there was a last minute rethink prompted by certain light blue factions in Whitehall and despite the various papers that were hurriedly resurrected showing how and why the fast jet option was best, some clever political manoeuvring saw the catapults pulled off the plans.
Does anyone see a theme developing here?
The spaces for the catapults are still in the build. I am given to understand that a later refit is (theoretically) possible.
The close in weapon systems (Goal Keeper etc) that we now have are very good at defending against any fast target (missile or plane) that comes close to a platform.
The one thing I do agree with is that we should be able to robustly defend out own country.
Last edited:
Sandyman
Well-known member
My understanding is that the Russians have recently been developing & testing a tactical nuclear version.
This being in contravention of SALT1 & 2. Just one of these on or near target & its bye bye Battle Group & Escorts.
john_morris_uk
Well-known member
Colvic Watson
Well-known member
I really like blue ensigns