CVF and Carrier Strike thread

On her way very soon:


I love the way this tweet from our most modern warship tells you about the historical origins of Procedure Alpha, similar to a salute or a handshake.
 
She is on her way!


Fair winds.

A strong Navy is not a provocation to way, it is the surest guarantee of peace - Theodore Roosevelt

Si vis pacem para bellum!
 
Last edited:
I ha to inspect a WRAF block once, nightmare!!!!!
I had to type up a WRAC's charge sheet after a late night block inspection: "Cpl W**son was found engaged in sexual intercourse with LCpl H**nes".
One looked like a Blackburn Beverley, the other more of a Spitfire.
Neither was male.
Sadly no photo's of the latter.
 
Interestingly the PR machine is banging out JPR and RM Junglies.

Wildcats with HM3M, flying as top cover and escort?
 
Interestingly the PR machine is banging out JPR and RM Junglies.

Wildcats with HM3M, flying as top cover and escort?
Not sure if they are taking any 847 NAS cabs with them.

Something that does get missed amidst all the excitement about the jets is the participation of 820 NAS - for task group ASW. Only a carrier can give you 24/7 dipping, and the AUTEC range is in the Caribbean. I was disappointed when Caroline Catz was narrating the BBC2 programme about QE and mentioned 'helicopters to fly relief supplies ashore'. Well, sometimes I expect, but mostly the helicopters are there to fight the enemy and defend the task group.

Anyway.....

The following was written on the PPRuNe Future Carrier thread in response to the usual 'carriers are very vulnerable' malcontents. The author is 'orca' - an experienced Royal Navy Pilot - started out with the mighty Sea Harrier, then Harrier GR7/9, then flying the T-45 and Hornet/Super Hornet on exchange with the US Navy:

There are numerous things people seem to forget whenever the ‘golly aren’t carriers easy to sink’ argument starts raging.

The first is that an army - which most countries have - is unlikely to hurt an aircraft carrier, but they could do a lot of damage to an airfield. I think the SAS or LRDG did it quite a lot.

Militia are much the same. I didn’t occur to me at the time but when we were under (half arsed) rocket attack at KAF - the CVNs weren’t. And for whatever reason we weren’t allowed to fly after IDF - I think due to FOD. Good drills.

I know that Black Buck effected Stanley in some way, the SF did over Pebble Island and had their bimble around Tierra Del Fuego - but I don’t think any of the three carriers involved in ‘82 were hit by anything. So I guess Air can attack airfields. That makes sense.

There’s terrorism - to the best of my knowledge there hasn’t been a single case of attempted kidnap of anyone doing flight deck phys.

Then there’s organic self protection. The aircraft carrier must have some but Akrotiri really doesn’t need it. Never really understood why.

Then there’s the main threat to any capital ship - Sub surface weaponry (when I say main - I mean the type that has accounted for most over the years); with which you don’t deal with organically - you take a SSN with you. The same sort of SSN that carries TLAM that seem to do over air fields regularly. (So you could say that airfield are vulnerable in three domains...I wonder if anyone’s got a space based JP233...that would make it four).

I guess the parallel is that that an airfield would have DCA. A carrier with DCA is a self licking lolly (odd phrase - never understood it); a DOB with DCA is just being sensible. Never understood that either.

I suppose we better talk about carrier killing missiles. Not that one’s ever killed a carrier but they work on the principle that you need specialist weaponry to attack a carrier. Unlike an airfield which can be attacked by a bloke with some wire cutters and a mallet. I suppose you could use your carrier killing weapons against carriers - leaving only your knives, guns, dumb bombs, PGMs, ALCMs etc for the airfields.

I’d very much like to see two RAF QWIs at work - one planning a strike on an airfield, the other scratching his head about attacking a carrier, wondering where the pickets would be, wondering what SURPIC was and who was going to feed it to him, wondering where to hide....the first one would probably get his done first.

Now that QNLZ has sailed any idea where she is. I know it’s somewhere in the Atlantic...I wonder if that counts as a JDAM grade coordinate these days?
 
Not sure if they are taking any 847 NAS cabs with them.

Something that does get missed amidst all the excitement about the jets is the participation of 820 NAS - for task group ASW. Only a carrier can give you 24/7 dipping, and the AUTEC range is in the Caribbean. I was disappointed when Caroline Catz was narrating the BBC2 programme about QE and mentioned 'helicopters to fly relief supplies ashore'. Well, sometimes I expect, but mostly the helicopters are there to fight the enemy and defend the task group.

Anyway.....

The following was written on the PPRuNe Future Carrier thread in response to the usual 'carriers are very vulnerable' malcontents. The author is 'orca' - an experienced Royal Navy Pilot - started out with the mighty Sea Harrier, then Harrier GR7/9, then flying the T-45 and Hornet/Super Hornet on exchange with the US Navy:

There are numerous things people seem to forget whenever the ‘golly aren’t carriers easy to sink’ argument starts raging.

The first is that an army - which most countries have - is unlikely to hurt an aircraft carrier, but they could do a lot of damage to an airfield. I think the SAS or LRDG did it quite a lot.

Militia are much the same. I didn’t occur to me at the time but when we were under (half arsed) rocket attack at KAF - the CVNs weren’t. And for whatever reason we weren’t allowed to fly after IDF - I think due to FOD. Good drills.

I know that Black Buck effected Stanley in some way, the SF did over Pebble Island and had their bimble around Tierra Del Fuego - but I don’t think any of the three carriers involved in ‘82 were hit by anything. So I guess Air can attack airfields. That makes sense.

There’s terrorism - to the best of my knowledge there hasn’t been a single case of attempted kidnap of anyone doing flight deck phys.

Then there’s organic self protection. The aircraft carrier must have some but Akrotiri really doesn’t need it. Never really understood why.

Then there’s the main threat to any capital ship - Sub surface weaponry (when I say main - I mean the type that has accounted for most over the years); with which you don’t deal with organically - you take a SSN with you. The same sort of SSN that carries TLAM that seem to do over air fields regularly. (So you could say that airfield are vulnerable in three domains...I wonder if anyone’s got a space based JP233...that would make it four).

I guess the parallel is that that an airfield would have DCA. A carrier with DCA is a self licking lolly (odd phrase - never understood it); a DOB with DCA is just being sensible. Never understood that either.

I suppose we better talk about carrier killing missiles. Not that one’s ever killed a carrier but they work on the principle that you need specialist weaponry to attack a carrier. Unlike an airfield which can be attacked by a bloke with some wire cutters and a mallet. I suppose you could use your carrier killing weapons against carriers - leaving only your knives, guns, dumb bombs, PGMs, ALCMs etc for the airfields.

I’d very much like to see two RAF QWIs at work - one planning a strike on an airfield, the other scratching his head about attacking a carrier, wondering where the pickets would be, wondering what SURPIC was and who was going to feed it to him, wondering where to hide....the first one would probably get his done first.

Now that QNLZ has sailed any idea where she is. I know it’s somewhere in the Atlantic...I wonder if that counts as a JDAM grade coordinate these days?
What a biased and in several respects factually incorrect post by Orca. Writing hoop like this - and reposting it for that matter - Is not helpful. Sadly, I’m unable to post a dislike, disagree and an old on the same post.

As ever, land and carrier air is complementary and each have their pros and cons.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
What a biased and in several respects factually incorrect post by Orca. Writing hoop like this - and reposting it for that matter - Is not helpful. Sadly, I’m unable to post a dislike, disagree and an old on the same post.

As ever, land and carrier air is complementary and each have their pros and cons.

Regards,
MM
If it's who I think it is you ought to hear him in person!
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
On her way very soon:


I love the way this tweet from our most modern warship tells you about the historical origins of Procedure Alpha, similar to a salute or a handshake.
Except I suspect this is untrue. More to do with manning the yards as a flash piece of showing off once it was no longer necessary to work the sails for berthing (tugs and all that).

Gun salutes, meanwhile, were originally a gesture that the guns were no longer loaded. However an incident at Greenwich I believe caused a change to firing blanks after a shotted salute had done a bit of damage to someone.
 
If it's who I think it is you ought to hear him in person!
He wouldn’t happen to have a green lid would he?

Regards,
MM
 
M_M/Alamo

I am not sure where orca argued against land based aircraft, however I hope you can understand the context in which it was written. Airfields, like carriers, have pros and cons, strengths as well as weaknesses.

Some posters on that site and that thread seem to be unable to contain their excitement at the thought of 'anti carrier' (ballistic) missiles because missiles have been tested against a carrier sized piece of land - surely that demonstrates a threat against key points on an airfield? Similarly the threat of underwater sabotage is seen as new and the attack against the USNS Card in Vietnam used as an example of vulnerability despite the fact she was simply being used as a ferry. The underwater sabotage threat was encountered during World War Two, existed throughout the Cold War from Spetsnaz, and still exists now. Counter measures exist, but some strident critics insist they do not.

Anyway - I think orca was right to highlight the way a carrier launching air defence sorties as part of a task group is labelled a self licking lollipop, yet generally those sorties are not just to defend the carrier. If an operation took place in which an amphibious landing or mine clearance and opening up a port were the aims, and an air threat existed, the use of carrier based aircraft would be derided by some as a 'self licking lollipop'. Would the same thing be said if troops ashore somewhere (and support helicopters) were threatened by enemy MiGs and a number of Typhoons were sent to deal with that threat. Would that count as a 'self licking lollipop' because the Typhoons would also defend the airfield they are operating from?

Carrier based ASW sorties also seem to be seen as defending the carrier, rather than defending the task group. What about the LPD, LSD(A), and STUFT/chartered vessels? 24/7 dipping in conjunction with 24/7 long range detection by hull mounted/towed array sonar?

He [orca] has previously criticised me on another PPRuNe thread for cutting and pasting a 'low brow article' - his words (nothing to do with carriers although it was naval related). I can only imagine the constant barrage of ignorant tripe from the likes of ORAC or Heathrow Harry drove him too far.
 
Last edited:
...I am not sure where orca argued against land based aircraft...
Seriously?

I might have some sympathy with that viewpoint if ‘Orca’ had:

1. Adopted a slightly less condescending tone in his post.

2. Adopted a more balanced approach to the ‘vulnerability’ of airfields (which are in fact fairly difficult to shut down for extended periods).

3. Mentioned some of the occasions since 1945 that carriers have been completely put out of action for weeks , months and even years by accidents, collisions and engineering issues. Examples are the USS Oriskany, USS Forrestal and USS Enterprise fires, the collisions between the USS Wasp and Hobson and USS JFK and Belknap and HMS Illustrious’ 1986 gear box fire.

4. Mentioned the impact of sea states on carrier operations.

5. NOT suggested that TLAMs ‘do over airfields regularly’.

6. NOT suggested that airfields have dedicated DCA.

7. NOT suggested that naval vessels are somehow immune to terrorist action or accidental engagements.

8. NOT suggested that carriers are more difficult targets to attack than airfields.

9. NOT suggested that SURPIC is hard to come by or that pickets and carriers are especially difficult to find.

I don’t doubt that there are equally biased anti-carrier muppets on the other side of this argument (god knows you remind us often enough by cross-posting here) which may have caused Orca to bite. However, by doing so he has lowered himself to their standard.

Carriers and airfields are complementary clubs in our operational golf bag. Both have pros and cons, both are often ideally used together.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
Something you definitely won't see on a U.S. carrier..a bloody pub (apparently)!



And what's with the jaguar logo on the seat? Did they nick the seat from a Jag or something?

Jag designed and made the seat, lots of mumbles about the Sr mess to, its a bit larger than the one I was chiefs messman I must admit. Still after a few months away from home a bit of home comfort.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top