At Last, A Labour Minister Allegedly...
Society & Culture1 min ago
Government Putting Britain At Risk?
// A group of former Royal Navy admirals have called for the decision to scrap the aircraft carrier Ark Royal and the fleet of Harrier jets to be reversed.
The cuts were announced as part of the government's Strategic Defence Review.
In a letter to the Times, the group says defence cuts will leave the "newly valuable" Falkland Islands open to attack and call the plan to axe the Harrier fleet "financially perverse". //
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11723589
Are Osborne's bean conters leaving us open to attack?
The cuts were announced as part of the government's Strategic Defence Review.
In a letter to the Times, the group says defence cuts will leave the "newly valuable" Falkland Islands open to attack and call the plan to axe the Harrier fleet "financially perverse". //
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11723589
Are Osborne's bean conters leaving us open to attack?
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jake-the-peg
/// Please explain how you need an aircraft carrier to defend your own country?///
Take this hypothetical situation.
The aircraft carrier along with it's full complement of aircraft, is at sea or moored off some friendly port, and Britain comes under attack, with a possibility of the airfields being destroyed.
That aircraft carrier would;d be a friendly base from where tactics could be planned and from which aircraft could be launched, to oppose the enemy force.
/// Please explain how you need an aircraft carrier to defend your own country?///
Take this hypothetical situation.
The aircraft carrier along with it's full complement of aircraft, is at sea or moored off some friendly port, and Britain comes under attack, with a possibility of the airfields being destroyed.
That aircraft carrier would;d be a friendly base from where tactics could be planned and from which aircraft could be launched, to oppose the enemy force.
Aircraft carriers are not designed for home defence but to provide a mobile air base for foreign targets.
That's why the U.S fleet toured the Pacific to attack Japan and vice versa it's also why (if memory serves, not big on WW2 maritime history, to my shame) the British fleet was rarely in home waters, I can think of only two carriers sunk near home waters (Courageous and Nabob) and they auxilliary carriers, one on escort duty, the other was laying mines by air, I don't think Thane was sunk in 1945 just put out of action.
Most of our carriers were sunk protecting Malta, if I recall, we lost Glorious after Naarvik due to incompetence.
To sum up carriers are offensive not defensive weapons, the aircraft that serve them are different and alsorts of other things.
That's why the U.S fleet toured the Pacific to attack Japan and vice versa it's also why (if memory serves, not big on WW2 maritime history, to my shame) the British fleet was rarely in home waters, I can think of only two carriers sunk near home waters (Courageous and Nabob) and they auxilliary carriers, one on escort duty, the other was laying mines by air, I don't think Thane was sunk in 1945 just put out of action.
Most of our carriers were sunk protecting Malta, if I recall, we lost Glorious after Naarvik due to incompetence.
To sum up carriers are offensive not defensive weapons, the aircraft that serve them are different and alsorts of other things.
AOG
If an enemy of this country has the ability to distroy the majority of our airfields then they have clearly got the ability to destroy a heck of a lot more and a large grey sitting duck in the channel with a couple of dozen old Harriers is not going to win back air superiority is it?
Your scenario is frankly ridiculous
Aircraft carriers have one role and one role only which is to extend a countries reach beyond the range of its home based aircraft
If an enemy of this country has the ability to distroy the majority of our airfields then they have clearly got the ability to destroy a heck of a lot more and a large grey sitting duck in the channel with a couple of dozen old Harriers is not going to win back air superiority is it?
Your scenario is frankly ridiculous
Aircraft carriers have one role and one role only which is to extend a countries reach beyond the range of its home based aircraft
//Aircraft carriers have one role and one role only which is to extend a countries reach beyond the range of its home based aircraft //
Sometimes you need to go abroad in order to defend your own country. What should we have done in 1944, mustered the whole army in defensive positions on the south coast and stayed put? or participated in the invasion to get rid of the Nazis?
Sometimes you need to go abroad in order to defend your own country. What should we have done in 1944, mustered the whole army in defensive positions on the south coast and stayed put? or participated in the invasion to get rid of the Nazis?
jake-the-peg
/// Your scenario is frankly ridiculous ///
You should have added "in my opinion"
Everyone has the right to an opinion, and I think that 'in my opinion' my scenario is not so ridiculous.
Let me pull your over exaggerated scenario to pieces
/// a large grey sitting duck in the channel with a couple of dozen old Harriers is not going to win back air superiority is it? ///
Nowhere did I say that the aircraft carrier would be sitting in the English Channel, so therefore it would not be a sitting duck as you suggest.
Those dozen or so Harriers, may be a little long in the tooth but their is little to touch them for versatility, and would be perfectly capable of dealing with ground troops and taking on enemy aircraft.
If the homeland was being attacked every inch of friendly un-occupied land would be an asset from which to rally one's resources, and what better than a mobile aircraft carrier, complete with combat aircraft, from which to carry the fight to the enemy, and thus defend our land.
/// Your scenario is frankly ridiculous ///
You should have added "in my opinion"
Everyone has the right to an opinion, and I think that 'in my opinion' my scenario is not so ridiculous.
Let me pull your over exaggerated scenario to pieces
/// a large grey sitting duck in the channel with a couple of dozen old Harriers is not going to win back air superiority is it? ///
Nowhere did I say that the aircraft carrier would be sitting in the English Channel, so therefore it would not be a sitting duck as you suggest.
Those dozen or so Harriers, may be a little long in the tooth but their is little to touch them for versatility, and would be perfectly capable of dealing with ground troops and taking on enemy aircraft.
If the homeland was being attacked every inch of friendly un-occupied land would be an asset from which to rally one's resources, and what better than a mobile aircraft carrier, complete with combat aircraft, from which to carry the fight to the enemy, and thus defend our land.
AOG, America was not at war on the morning of December 7th 1941, the carriers were out on manouvers in peace time from their home port, they were not intended to defend the island, that's why they had airports on land.
At some point any carrier has to return to it's home port for rearmament, refurbishment or redeployment, see H.M.S Glorious, but the idea that The Fleet Air arm and the R.A.F have the same operational imperitive is inaccurate.
If they did then the R.A.F would fly off Naval vessels whilst the Navy wouldn't have aircraft.
Naval aircraft need specialist equipment in order to land on carriers, many have retractable wing, the munitions carried are also different as the Navy have a far greater need for ship killing weapons were as the R.A.F are mor interested in ground baed targets to support infantry etc.
I'm sorry but you're scenario and historical narritive are false.
At some point any carrier has to return to it's home port for rearmament, refurbishment or redeployment, see H.M.S Glorious, but the idea that The Fleet Air arm and the R.A.F have the same operational imperitive is inaccurate.
If they did then the R.A.F would fly off Naval vessels whilst the Navy wouldn't have aircraft.
Naval aircraft need specialist equipment in order to land on carriers, many have retractable wing, the munitions carried are also different as the Navy have a far greater need for ship killing weapons were as the R.A.F are mor interested in ground baed targets to support infantry etc.
I'm sorry but you're scenario and historical narritive are false.
I am aware that America was not at war on the morning of Dec 7th 1941, and that they had airfields with planes on the ground, what you failed to grasp was the fact that I used Peal Harbour as an instance, and that if they had been within striking distance to Peal Harbour they would have been in a good position to make a difference to the outcome.
All the rest you seem to have taken from a text book, but one doesn’t have to be an expert to know that all aircraft have to return to base, (but not necessary their home one) to refuel and re-arm..
Once again we all know that RAF and Fleet Air Arm aircraft are different in some ways, but that does not make them any less effective in a dog-fight or a ground attack, obviously some RAF ground aircraft could not land on a carrier, but that is not what’s under discussion here.
Incidentally the Sea Harrier is no longer in commission by the Navy, it is now BAE Systems/Boeing Harrier II which includes the GR5, GR7 and GR9 series, used by the RAF and since 2006 by the Royal Navy.
Anotheoldgit (ex-RAF)
All the rest you seem to have taken from a text book, but one doesn’t have to be an expert to know that all aircraft have to return to base, (but not necessary their home one) to refuel and re-arm..
Once again we all know that RAF and Fleet Air Arm aircraft are different in some ways, but that does not make them any less effective in a dog-fight or a ground attack, obviously some RAF ground aircraft could not land on a carrier, but that is not what’s under discussion here.
Incidentally the Sea Harrier is no longer in commission by the Navy, it is now BAE Systems/Boeing Harrier II which includes the GR5, GR7 and GR9 series, used by the RAF and since 2006 by the Royal Navy.
Anotheoldgit (ex-RAF)
AOG, the carriers were a primary target at Pearl Harbour, if a carrier had been in the vicinity of the atack it would have been sunk due to the fact that it takes longer to launch planes off a carrier.
The absence of the carrier group at Pearl Harbour was a blessing, as Jake pointed out they would simply have been large grey sitting ducks, aded to that the amount of aircraft they could've deployed, given the strength of the attacking group would not really swing the operation their way (arguably), in all I've read (which isn't immense I admit) I've never heard the carriers absence as being significant in the strategic defeat, quite the opposite.
P.S.
Look up this book "The Voyage Of The Lanikai" by Rear Admiral Foley, it's quite interesting.
The absence of the carrier group at Pearl Harbour was a blessing, as Jake pointed out they would simply have been large grey sitting ducks, aded to that the amount of aircraft they could've deployed, given the strength of the attacking group would not really swing the operation their way (arguably), in all I've read (which isn't immense I admit) I've never heard the carriers absence as being significant in the strategic defeat, quite the opposite.
P.S.
Look up this book "The Voyage Of The Lanikai" by Rear Admiral Foley, it's quite interesting.
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
Other Sports13 mins ago
Film, Media & TV16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles35 mins ago
Is What I Experienced Called...
Body & Soul38 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles42 mins ago