Plane guard for the QE2 carriers?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: London
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plane guard wasn't just the helos. A warship generally accompanied the carrier and stationed astern and to one side. If there was an escort group then one of that group would be assigned as plane guard. Of course I am referring to the sixties...when we had some carriers.
The ability to eject through the canopy under water was implemented after the Russell accident.
Although implemented after the Russell accident ( which I remember vividly seeing in the newspapers as a kid), was it partially a result of that graphically reported sequence of images?
If so, then there are quite a few individuals walking around today who might otherwise not be, which might be of some small comfort to his surviving family.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Yeovil
Age: 53
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off topic, but it makes me laugh the way the maturer (by age) generation refer to "proper" carriers. Do these fellows still have "proper" TVs with CRTs, and "proper" radios with valves? Move on, gents. Technology and capability has, why don't you? 
"Real" carriers
... move on, gents ...
OK, tin hat on ...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 70
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Junglydaz you are quite correct to admonish me on that point, I should have used the term "conventional"; in that I was refering to a ship that could act as home base to a significant and balanced package of fixed wing air assets and also launch and recover if necessary the fixed wing naval aircraft of our two principle allies.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jungly
I am way too young to have flown off anything other than toy carriers, but that does not mean I don't understand what we have lost.
Proper carriers were in a different league capability wise.
The modern toys flying off them have come a long way, but to suggest that "Technology and capability" have moved on misses the point.
FA2 and SK6/7 off a toy carrier was surprisingly effective, but nobody suggests that it would have stood toe-to-toe with Nimitz
If we had the money we would have stuck with proper carriers and had greatly increased capability.
Our new semi-proper carriers should at least be a step in the right direction.
I am way too young to have flown off anything other than toy carriers, but that does not mean I don't understand what we have lost.
Proper carriers were in a different league capability wise.
The modern toys flying off them have come a long way, but to suggest that "Technology and capability" have moved on misses the point.
FA2 and SK6/7 off a toy carrier was surprisingly effective, but nobody suggests that it would have stood toe-to-toe with Nimitz
If we had the money we would have stuck with proper carriers and had greatly increased capability.
Our new semi-proper carriers should at least be a step in the right direction.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Yeovil
Age: 53
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist/163627
I whole heartedly agree that we have lost capability since the CVS came into service and missed a trick with the new carriers (lack of cats and traps etc). My father served on the old Ark, Hermes, Bulwark, Eagle and we spent many an hour watching his old cine films.
However, decisions have been made and we have to move on with what we have been given and, in true RN fashion, make it great.
JD
I whole heartedly agree that we have lost capability since the CVS came into service and missed a trick with the new carriers (lack of cats and traps etc). My father served on the old Ark, Hermes, Bulwark, Eagle and we spent many an hour watching his old cine films.
However, decisions have been made and we have to move on with what we have been given and, in true RN fashion, make it great.
JD
