dark light

SteveO

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,381 through 1,395 (of 1,444 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers #2074611
    SteveO
    Participant

    Blackcat

    Thanks for the support, I like your hunting dogs idea, fight off one dog and get bitten by the other one, thats good tactics.

    Dreadnought

    I agree Invincible class isn’t the ideal basis for a STOVL carrier and your proposal for a 25-28,000 ton class sounds good as I think this is about the same size as the Hermes/Viraat which has a capacity for 30 Sea Harriers.

    in reply to: MULTI-ROLE METEOR #2059582
    SteveO
    Participant

    junipergoth

    Sounds like a good idea to me, I think giving your infra red and radar guided air-air missiles a secondary air-surface capability would be a very useful back up in emergency situations or when a target of opportunity presents its self.

    Just remembered that a anti-armour variant of ASRAAM was a competitor to the UK’s BRIMSTONE anti-armour missile. I wonder how it differed from the air-air variant?

    in reply to: RAF Eurofighter cannon news #2646949
    SteveO
    Participant

    Glad their keeping it.
    Removing cannon from fighters is like pulling teeth out of a guard dog.

    in reply to: MULTI-ROLE METEOR #2059613
    SteveO
    Participant

    Harry

    I think ARAMIS/ARMIGER was a Italian/German joint program, different names for the same missile.

    in reply to: Shorts Belfast #1796098
    SteveO
    Participant

    So performance wasn’t that good then?
    Is that why the RAF let them go?

    in reply to: Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers #2074677
    SteveO
    Participant

    OK, maybe its not a good idea to do without escorts, but I don’t think you need a high/low escort/capital ship mix. (capital ships=carriers and amphibious shipping).
    I think a 50/50 mix would be much more useful in future operations.

    As for better sortie rates on bigger carriers, no denying it, but the UK can never match US capabilities with only 2 carriers anyway. US operated day and night shifts over Afghanistan with at least 2 carriers. It is very unlikely the UK would have both carriers active for constant operations for extended periods. In fact if any threat emerged that needed the constant attention of a UK carrier, I think the weaknesses of the 2 carrier arguement would quickly come to light. (crew fatigue, maintenance, and training etc).

    My biggest concern is that the UK is buying expensive eggs and putting them all in one basket!

    in reply to: Shorts Belfast #1798451
    SteveO
    Participant

    Why only 10, budget cuts?

    in reply to: Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers #2074737
    SteveO
    Participant

    Aurel

    I disagree that the STOVL JSF will be a bad purchase. The US Navy and US Marines operated Tomcats, Hornets and Harriers far inland over Afghanistan and Iraq with the aid of land based tankers and AEW support.
    STOVL JSF will have better performance than Hornet and Harrier and the move to lighter 500lb smart bombs will benefit too.

    in reply to: Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers #2074745
    SteveO
    Participant

    Scooter

    4 smaller carriers may cost more than 2 large carriers, but having 4 smaller carriers would have the following advantages-

    Easier to build, industry capable of this size ship without major ship yard improvements.

    Dispersal of forces, one ship out of action=25% loss of capability.

    4 carriers=4 areas of operation.

    More relaxed training and maintenance possible due to higher number of carriers available for deployment.

    in reply to: Some thing different for the jet boys.TSR2 #1803905
    SteveO
    Participant

    Anyone know what weapons and how many you could get in the bomb bay?

    in reply to: Sanicole 2004 Pics #2650572
    SteveO
    Participant

    Nice pics!
    Did the Harrier operate from the grass or just park on it?

    in reply to: Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers #2074806
    SteveO
    Participant

    Jonesy

    The role of escorts is to defend against air, surface and submarine threats.
    All these roles are best done by aircraft, so I think it would be better to spend money on ships which operate useful numbers of aircraft.

    Take the Type 45 Destroyer, we will spend £5.5 BILLION!! on 6 ships that can operate 1 Merlin each, will not be fitted with a long range gun and will not be equipped with a land attack missile.
    It may have a state of the art anti-air warfare fit, but it will have to wait until it is attacked to use it. (and hope there’s not more than 48 targets.).

    I’m not denying escorts aren’t needed for high threat environments, but they need to be far more useful for any other type of operation.

    in reply to: Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers #2074813
    SteveO
    Participant

    Jonesy

    I’m not convinced that the function of escorts in the current threat environment is as important as providing airpower to all areas of operations. I think it would be better to have more carriers with smaller airgroups operating together, rather than a large carrier doing all the work while it’s escorts have little to do.

    in reply to: Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers #2074817
    SteveO
    Participant

    I’m not convinced CVF is the right program for the UK.
    I think we should be building at least 4 enhanced Invincible/Ocean type vessels and cut back on expensive escorts to man/afford them.

    in reply to: Some thing different for the jet boys.TSR2 #1806870
    SteveO
    Participant

    Good book on TSR2 from 1994.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,381 through 1,395 (of 1,444 total)