CVF and Carrier Strike thread

Dazzle painting was a peculiarity of World War One, but would be unlikely to improve flight safety. Even a ship's paint scheme has a direct effect on aviation. Great to see our history being commemorated though - I hope World War Two carrier operations are remembered too.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
It was dry - apart from all the water. More importantly - HER not IT.

China's one operational aircraft carrier, Liaoning, was built almost 30 years ago by the Soviet Union. It was purchased from Ukraine (under the guise of turning it into a floating casino) before being reactivated as a training ship in 2012.


Really?
Seems to be the case, from the paper trail...
 
Dazzle painting was a peculiarity of World War One, but would be unlikely to improve flight safety. Even a ship's paint scheme has a direct effect on aviation. Great to see our history being commemorated though - I hope World War Two carrier operations are remembered too.
They had it in World War 2 as well - the RN had the Western Approaches Scheme and an Arctic Scheme while the Yanks had loads of different variants as they experimented with what worked best.



HMCS Restigouche in 1941 Western Approaches Scheme
 
UK’s new carrier 'ready to roam' after filling up on the go for the first time

You know, anyone would think the Navy knows what it is doing. Crazy talk, after all everyone knows....

Nobody ever thought about the carrier and aircraft at the same time - I certainly did not read an article about early CVF work in 1995 and articles about what was then JAST (with a V/STOL version for the US Marine Corps and the Royal Navy) a few months later.

Nobody thought about escorting the carrier - after all no operations or deployments took place in the eighties/nineties/after 2000 that involved carriers or carrier based task groups.

Nobody thought about the fueling issue - apart from designing the carrier with a much longer range than the preceding CVS, and of course the Tide class, but apart from that....

This guy seems to know: Rather than considering the carriers as items on their own, they should have been part of a fully integrated project that considered the carrier as the platform, the air assets as the delivery mechanism and the need for protection. If we have have considered these holistically, and I’m not convinced we have in any sense other than accidentally, I’ll be surprised.

Maybe lots of things surprise him? I also caused offence here for criticising other examples of daftness.

And relaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx....
 
Nice, if short, video of replenishment at sea....

I miss literally anything cool this ship bloody does.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 
They had it in World War 2 as well - the RN had the Western Approaches Scheme and an Arctic Scheme while the Yanks had loads of different variants as they experimented with what worked best.




HMCS Restigouche in 1941 Western Approaches Scheme
Not quite Dazzle but your point is well made. I imagine a Dazzle paint scheme would be quite distracting to the pilot trying to land on. I am sure I read somewhere that the US Navy experimented with camouflage on carrier based aircraft during the conflict in Vietnam, but it proved dangerous during landings, and did little to stop the enemy scoring hits with AAA.
 
Because
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Not quite Dazzle but your point is well made. I imagine a Dazzle paint scheme would be quite distracting to the pilot trying to land on. I am sure I read somewhere that the US Navy experimented with camouflage on carrier based aircraft during the conflict in Vietnam, but it proved dangerous during landings, and did little to stop the enemy scoring hits with AAA.
They don't paint the deck, dazzleflage is an anti submarine method
 

Attachments

Seems to be the case, from the paper trail...
I wonder if that is the inspiration for Lewis Page, Managing Director of Fcukwit Defence Ltd, and his suggestion that an oil tanker could be cheaply purchased and converted into a CTOL carrier complete with Hornets?
 
Does the flexibility exist for someone to by a Reserve Officer and a Civil Servant/employee of B****** in the same role - ie putting uniform on and being Lt Cdr Bloggs when he needs authority iaw QRRN/JSP 830?
 
Did this ever happen ? :)

From @Ancient_Mariner November 2006

"Having said this, I'll eat my hat if our new carriers ever get built. The Fleet Air Arm don't have anything like enough pilots to crew even one carrier and they don't seem to be making any effort to recruit and train more. I can see Gordon Brown quietly cancelling the project when he gets in"

Pictures or Video or it never did..
 
Did this ever happen ? :)

From @Ancient_Mariner November 2006

"Having said this, I'll eat my hat if our new carriers ever get built. The Fleet Air Arm don't have anything like enough pilots to crew even one carrier and they don't seem to be making any effort to recruit and train more. I can see Gordon Brown quietly cancelling the project when he gets in"

Pictures or Video or it never did..
Have you ever set foot on HMS QE? No. You haven't. It's a fekkin' computer graphic just like HMS Invincible was after the Argentinians sank the real one during the Falklands war.

If George Lucas could bring fekkin' Jar Jar Binks to life years ago, modern telly experts can bring a huge aircraft carrier and several dozen crew to life.

If our aircraft carrier is real, why do you never see any fixed wing aircraft on it? Because the special effects wizards would charge extra for that and the MoD had to spend all its cash reserves on transgender khazis on RAF bases, that's why.
 
Have you ever set foot on HMS QE? No. You haven't. It's a fekkin' computer graphic just like HMS Invincible was after the Argentinians sank the real one during the Falklands war.

If George Lucas could bring fekkin' Jar Jar Binks to life years ago, modern telly experts can bring a huge aircraft carrier and several dozen crew to life.

If our aircraft carrier is real, why do you never see any fixed wing aircraft on it? Because the special effects wizards would charge extra for that and the MoD had to spend all its cash reserves on transgender khazis on RAF bases, that's why.

Ironically, @Ancient_Mariner probably had a point regarding the ability of the FAA to generate the pilots required for the carriers in isolation.

Regards,
MM
 
Have you ever set foot on HMS QE? No. You haven't. It's a fekkin' computer graphic just like HMS Invincible was after the Argentinians sank the real one during the Falklands war.

If George Lucas could bring fekkin' Jar Jar Binks to life years ago, modern telly experts can bring a huge aircraft carrier and several dozen crew to life.

If our aircraft carrier is real, why do you never see any fixed wing aircraft on it? Because the special effects wizards would charge extra for that and the MoD had to spend all its cash reserves on transgender khazis on RAF bases, that's why.
All of that just to say the ANSWER is NO you have not eaten your HAT !! :)

I am now going back to that 2006 thread to name and shame a few more 'no faithers' :1:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top