View Single Post
Old 18th Jun 2012, 00:16
  #1114 (permalink)  
Milo Minderbinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,176
The problem was that they didn't do sterling AD - way too many Argies got through
What were the odds? 10:1 in terms of available aircraft 20:1? No AEW. The carriers stood off too far to allow the Shars to be effective. The equipment for a land-based airfield was sunk. The Galahad problem was due to an idiot who didn't listen to experience over landing the troops
Overall, given the circumstances the Harriers did sterling AD given the constraints of the poor decisions others made for them.


But thats not the issue.
You now have the scenario of a pair of large targets, built to commercial Lloyds safety standards - not military - with no armour, no native air defence, flying a mix of bomb trucks, geriatric AEW Sea Kings and a substandard antisubmarine platform (if they bother to embark ASW Merlin). Not enough T45 to screen the carrier, no spare ASW frigates and if the decision is to "go littoral" i.e. into the Iranian Gulf - no mine protection.
Without a balanced surface support group these carriers are dead ducks.
Without a balanced air defence group they are nothing more than floating coffins
What is the defence against mines? submarines? surface swarm? You can't claim "but the ship is mobile"...thats b******. If the ship has to be able to launch and recover its aircraft, it has to be within range of shorebased sensors and aircraft. ergo it is very very vulnerable, unless it was capable of self-defence against aerial attack. Which it isn't.
And PLEASE no b******S about "layered defence". What layers? Lets hope someone sees the launch and calls it in / oh that failed so the satellite will get it/ oh the T45 can see over the horizon.....oh it can't ../ oh F*** ...OK the fighters will get it / fighters what fighters..we drop bombs so f off...

Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 18th Jun 2012 at 12:16.
Milo Minderbinder is offline