CVF and Carrier Strike thread

Quote from Orca:

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

.
When Akrotiri was supplying force to Southern NATO and CENTO it typically had two fighter squadrons, a Squadron of Bloodhounds, and a full battalion sized field squadron of Rocks...

When Akrotiri is operating missions in support of operations nowadays I would expect that between us, USAF USN and our other NATO partners that it isn't left undefended.
 
Last edited:
Could of been the British option, Nissan.
Wouldn't that be the Japanese option? And a bit down market? ;)

I guess they could've gone with McLaren....which is British owned. But again all these seats are not actually made by the car manufacturers themselves, typically come from some supplier.
 
Maybe they could've funded/ subsidized the CV program through sponsorships! BAE sponsors this, missiles sponsored by xxx etc.

Or just go with all British sponsors, so they could be a floating tradeshow of British stuff! Get some funding from UKTI as well...
 
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
and:

10. That the airfield hasn't arrived today as its engines are broken.
 
Recent history suggests that the above's more accurate in a NATO context*

*Yes Im aware a certain ship goes nowhere sans its recovery vessels but I dont know Russian
Hows your French? They seem to have mechanical issues also.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
tombés

No charge.
 
Interestingly the PR machine is banging out JPR and RM Junglies.

Wildcats with HM3M, flying as top cover and escort?

Anyway - is that Cdr(Air) taking his seat in FLYCO? Perhaps Martin Baker could manufacture a suitable seat? Or use a helicopter one (I think MB do these as well) for comfort? During the nineties I may have looked in a Gentleman's publication and read an interview with an RAF Tornado guy (during the Bosnian unpleasantness) who commented that the bang seat is there for safety, not comfort.....
 
Now a FLYCO doing a zero-zero ejection from a carrier control tower would be a sight to behold!
I suspect the naval aviation terminology Nazis may rightfully be about to descend on you for that post...

Regards,
MM
 

Anyway - is that Cdr(Air) taking his seat in FLYCO? Perhaps Martin Baker could manufacture a suitable seat? Or use a helicopter one (I think MB do these as well) for comfort? During the nineties I may have looked in a Gentleman's publication and read an interview with an RAF Tornado guy (during the Bosnian unpleasantness) who commented that the bang seat is there for safety, not comfort.....
Not wishing to be pedantic but THREE have landed?
 
10. Que L'aerodrome a n'arrive pas aujourd'hui à cause de les motors sont tombé en panne
I'm disappointed, was hoping you'd get a helicopter full of eels in there.
 
Mk4 Merlin can carry 24 seated or 45 standing troops. Given how they cram them in are those troops fitted for, but not with, rifles and associated army kit?
 
Not wishing to be pedantic but THREE have landed?
Either that - or they are doing a very long hover! I am not sure how many are being embarked, or how many HM2 cabs from 820 NAS.


Now a FLYCO doing a zero-zero ejection from a carrier control tower would be a sight to behold!
Errr - if I had used the American term Pri Fly, would it have been better?

Mk4 Merlin can carry 24 seated or 45 standing troops. Given how they cram them in are those troops fitted for, but not with, rifles and associated army kit?
Army kit? Bootnecks? Can you spot the terminology mismatch?

Anyway - some of the proceeding comments have made me reflect that over the years some anti carriers critics have cited the limitations of some carriers as applying to all. For example, FS Charles De Gaulle and her operations being impacted by sea state.

I may be wrong, but I think her size was dictated by the largest vessel that could be constructed (in one piece) in a French yard. During operations in the Mediterranean in 2011 the sea state caused trouble. Would a 90 000 tonne Nimitz class CVN have been impacted the same way? What about STOVL operations from Hermes and Invincible in the South Atlantic in 1982?

A larger ship AND STOVL allows not only a higher sortie rate, but safe operations in rougher seas.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top