Forget the Harrier Carrier for I bring you the Harrier Battleship...

Discussion in 'Royal Navy' started by jim30, Apr 3, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Subsunk

    Subsunk War Hero Book Reviewer

    Barking but charming, and showing more intellectual rigour and common sense then you're apt to find on an HCSC syndicate most days.
  2. I couldnt be arsed to read it but looking at the pictures, i agree he should have restricted internet to model making sites only.

    I think its misplaced nostalgia, whilst I love those BFO guns and would like to imagine them pounding the living daylights out of a coastal defence system taking combatants and civilians alike, it doesnt really seem to compliment the over the horizon Marine Expenditionary Force and precision striking capability of the F-35 it carries.

    Its like a plate of fried eggs and marshmellow.

    Why were there no model V-22to hard to make in 1:1 let alone 1:320 scale?
  3. [Spotter] If you dig out your well-thumbed copy of the 1980s part-work War Machine and find the issue which covered the Iowa class, you'll find brief reference to the idea of the 'interdiction assault ship', minus artists' impressions and any discussion. [\Spotter]

    The idea looked a bit mad even then, and this chap's notions about the affordability of F-35 against expensive UAVs suggests that somewhere a doctor is saying 'well, nurse, where is he? I hope he hasn't got access to the internet again...'
  4. The models very realistic, just keeps crashing.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Is this guy a Colonel in the US Army as the site says?
  6. This is Sparky's group; ie he who named the M113 the Gavin, thinks the M113 is the answer to everything and advocates combat bicycles.
  7. Can you not imagine him pushing around 1:300 scale models in his command tent, making war noises and demanding his officers follow his orders?
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Australia just added another wheel to its Vietnam era 113's, **** the aircon, you get another wheel....
  9. jrwlynch

    jrwlynch LE Book Reviewer

    It's one of those concepts that's got immediate appeal because "guns is cheap and cool, and armour is really nice, and it wuz the beancounters in Washington/Abbey Wood that got rid of these wonderful ships..."

    The trouble is, the details are a little harder to get to, but don't really make the case: the first time a reactivated battleship was given a fire mission, she not only missed her targets but shelled the wrong *country* (USS New Jersey off Lebanon, 1983) and the second time they were used... well, in 1991 two BBs fired about a thousand shells between them, again missing most of their targets, having needed a fleet of twenty-five ships working for three weeks to clear the mines and get them close enough to shore to actually hit it - with the Tripoli and Princeton both being badly and expensively damaged in the process. It would have been a lot cheaper to leave the BBs in reserve, and spend the money on Tomahawks: you could have swapped each 16" shell fired in 1991 with a TLAM (far more accurate and five times the explosive payload) and still had cash left over...

    For some reason, probably because they are indisputibly pinnacles of their art for its time, these ships seem to inspire a self-referencing spiral of escalating nonsense in their adherents; especially when you get into refits and conversions. There was some serious design effort put into the idea in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and one issue that kept arising was that the guns seriously limited your options for add-on kit; the reason the 1980s refit only added Harpoon, Tomahawk and Phalanx midships (replacing four of the five-inch gun mounts) was that anything else, like a surface-to-air missile system, would be trashed by muzzle blast from the 16" guns.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. jrwlynch

    jrwlynch LE Book Reviewer

    Don't forget the 106mm recoilless rifle to replace everything from pistols to ATGM to field artillery...
  11. There is an insane logic in this. Using air strikes and very expensive missiles is not cheap. The Libya fun and games was peaking at $100 Mn a day. Could you image how much it would cost to carry out the Incheon landings now with just missiles and air strikes ?
  12. It's not a completely awful idea though is it? After all, just because something's difficult doesn't mean it's not worth a crack. Remember, we in this country once trained seagulls for anti-submarine defence. Where's that kind of lateral thinking when you need it eh?

    The problem as I see it, is one of C-Sups, specifically fuel. If a battleship's using oil fired boilers for propulsion, where's the bunker space for AVTUR? My recommendation would be for a return to the age of fighting sail. Think about it. Victory's being restored anyway, so why not lash the guns into a run out position and nail a runway on top? With the ship being propelled by wind there'll be loads of room for fuel for the planes. Which should be Sea Harrier by the way. I'm led to believe there's still a few kicking round being kept running, just in case, so we may as well use them now instead of waiting for JSF. 104 guns, Sea Harriers and environmentally friendly. You heard it here first.

    I would have included a picture of a model I made, but I've stuck my fingers together.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Someone tell Sharkey about this.