HMS Queen Elizabeth.

I remember reading of when Vanguard went aground near the Gosport sub base HMS Dolphin; the surface fleet tried racing destroyers around in the hope their wash might help her off, but no joy.

The sub officers sent a signal ' Officers welcome in our mess for the duration of your stay ' :)
 
Biggles Wader said:
Which bit is nonsense?The bit about Vanguard or the bit about the carriers?And what is defeatist about suggesting resources could be better spent elsewhere?
Click to expand...

Aircraft Carriers are highly effective ships that for the most part can look after themselves due to the range of sensors and weapon systems they carry. They are multi tasking and can take on jobs around the world that no other ship on it's own can do. I have some experience as I served on a fixed wing carrier and I have no doubt the passage of time has not made them any less useful.
To say they are easy targets is to say that we should just lie down and give up. Defeatism is so prevalent today. All ships are targets but a carrier is not an easy target due to the wide range of defensive capabilities at its disposal.
There are always people who say the money could be better spent elsewhere. Thank goodness on this occasion they were ignored even though I suspect it was just due to luck rather than any common sense from our politicians.
 
mainsail1 said:
Aircraft Carriers are highly effective ships that for the most part can look after themselves due to the range of sensors and weapon systems they carry. They are multi tasking and can take on jobs around the world that no other ship on it's own can do. I have some experience as I served on a fixed wing carrier and I have no doubt the passage of time has not made them any less useful.
To say they are easy targets is to say that we should just lie down and give up. Defeatism is so prevalent today. All ships are targets but a carrier is not an easy target due to the wide range of defensive capabilities at its disposal.
There are always people who say the money could be better spent elsewhere. Thank goodness on this occasion they were ignored even though I suspect it was just due to luck rather than any common sense from our politicians.
Click to expand...

At least there haven;t been any comments yet abojt how many hospitals, or schools or police, or gay whales against the bomb action groups that the carrier could have funded.
 
jac said:
At least there haven;t been any comments yet abojt how many hospitals, or schools or police, or gay whales against the bomb action groups that the carrier could have funded.
Click to expand...

Is there really a Gay Whales against the Bomb action group? It'd be pretty cool if there was :D
 
mainsail1 said:
Aircraft Carriers are highly effective ships that for the most part can look after themselves due to the range of sensors and weapon systems they carry. They are multi tasking and can take on jobs around the world that no other ship on it's own can do. I have some experience as I served on a fixed wing carrier and I have no doubt the passage of time has not made them any less useful.
To say they are easy targets is to say that we should just lie down and give up. Defeatism is so prevalent today. All ships are targets but a carrier is not an easy target due to the wide range of defensive capabilities at its disposal.
There are always people who say the money could be better spent elsewhere. Thank goodness on this occasion they were ignored even though I suspect it was just due to luck rather than any common sense from our politicians.
Click to expand...

I think it was Tony Blair wanting to spend money in Scotland. Before the two flat tops were ordered, Rosyth was due for closure with the loss of thousands of Scottish jobs. The Scottish Mr Blair couldn't allow that to happen on his watch any more than Brown could let the RBS go on his watch. So yes it was lucky we got some defence capacity.
 
Tomahawk said:
I think it was Tony Blair wanting to spend money in Scotland. Before the two flat tops were ordered, Rosyth was due for closure with the loss of thousands of Scottish jobs. The Scottish Mr Blair couldn't allow that to happen on his watch any more than Brown could let the RBS go on his watch. So yes it was lucky we got some defence capacity.
Click to expand...

Not just that, I suspect

. Firstly, he will have been aware of Mrs T's chagrin in 1982 when it was explained to her that the old Ark Royal was no longer around and her Phantoms and Buccaneers, now in RAF hands but supposed to support the RN couldn't reach anywhere near the Falklands.

Second, hanging out with Dubya will have made him acutely aware of both the power projection and, more importantly the photo opportunities afforded by proper aircraft carriers.

As for the initial STOVL decision, we should remember that the official provider of advice to the government on all military aviation matters is the head of the RAF, who is always acutely aware of the need to defend the separate existence of his service. That may also go some way to explain Cameron's later decision to scrap the Harrier force.
 
It would have made infinitely more sense to keep the Harriers in Joint Force Harrier ( RAF & Navy use & pilots if a little tense with each other at times ) for use both ashore and afloat; we could have kept Ark Royal and a fixed wing capability up to the F-35, bought the F-35C with longer range & payload and had cats & traps so being useful to other NATO carrier aircraft, keeping the Harriers on for quite a while as precision bombers - they'd just had a multi - 100 million £ upgrade with Brimstone and Enhanced Paveway which are jolly handy things to have - but GR9's are not fighters, Harrier II+ are though.

If interested in late RAF / Joint Force Harrier capabilities try ' Harrier Boys Volume 2 '.
 
Seajet said:
It would have made infinitely more sense to keep the Harriers in Joint Force Harrier ( RAF & Navy use & pilots if a little tense with each other at times ) for use both ashore and afloat; we could have kept Ark Royal and a fixed wing capability up to the F-35, bought the F-35C with longer range & payload and had cats & traps so being useful to other NATO carrier aircraft, keeping the Harriers on for quite a while as precision bombers - they'd just had a multi - 100 million £ upgrade with Brimstone and Enhanced Paveway which are jolly handy things to have - but GR9's are not fighters, Harrier II+ are though.

If interested in late RAF / Joint Force Harrier capabilities try ' Harrier Boys Volume 2 '.
Click to expand...

You have filled in the detail of my point!

Edit: given the gestation period of military hardware, how about this for joined up thinking? The Typhoon could have been designed for cat and trap operation with a bit more range (which might have brought France into the project); after all, what is the point of a fast jet or any other aircraft if it can only be deployed over friendly airspace and from friendly bases with long smooth runways? The RAF aircraft could also have been built with a gun like all the others, instead of having it designed out then expensively added back in again.

The RAF have opposed or hamstrung naval fixed wing capability at every opportunity since 1919 for entirely selfish reasons, and have got away with it in part by playing the Bomber Command casualty and Battle of Britain cards. The rest is down to the ignorance, gullibility and short termism of British politicians of all stripes.
 
Last edited:
Grumpybear,

you might like my bit on the Dunsfold Airfield History Society - DAHS - site www.dunsfoldairfield.org

- see under ' Buildings / Aden Cannon range '

The top pic is mine, I credited it to an author who'd used my pics and words ( badly ! ) before John Farley organised the all clear to use my stuff which was BAe copyright.

Couldn't agree more re the RAF trying to stuff the Navy, it has become a tradition, ie moving the Falklands until the **** hit the fan, they're a very insecure lot; the idea of everyone getting on and sorting out the best for the UK seems a far off dream.
 
Last edited:
Arriving earlier than expected

dgn5ohsxyaavp9ojpg.jpg


Picture from the IOW County Press
 
mainsail1 said:
She is still owned by the builders. She has not been handed over to the RN. She does not even have a gun onboard yet. But, yes, this was an oversight by mod plod in Invergorden who had two patrol vessels out and about at the time.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Hopefully MOD police in Portsmouth will do better after she arrives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top