Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers".
Originally Posted by Biggus
...Some of the ships in your list were not RN, they operated under the Red Ensign but carried RN personnel to operate and maintain the aircraft.
Here's the database I used:I concede there may be the odd anomaly like Deer Sound but that still leaves a lot of carriers that weren't lost to enemy action over six years compared to those that were. Agreed?
FOD - to give a couple of examples: Leviathan (never completed), Audacious (built as Eagle, entered service after WW2), Bulwark and Albion (both saw active service and survived, but weren't WW2); Perseus (not commissioned until October 1945); Ocean and Glory (operational by end of WW2, but didn't see active operations where there was an enemy threat; survived Korea).
The point that Caz was making, I suspect, is that the line of argument that says that carriers are almost invulnerable - and sadly, we have seen quite a lot of that from carrier proponents elsewhere - is not entirely truthful. Likewise, the point that a lot of British carriers weren't lost in action in WW2 is equally fair. But...
...when we get to the stage of generating long lists simply naming ships we depart sensible, rational analysis of the key question and get into Top Trumps - as seems to happen on virtually ever Harrier-related thread on Pprune...
The point that Caz was making, I suspect, is that the line of argument that says that carriers are almost invulnerable - and sadly, we have seen quite a lot of that from carrier proponents elsewhere - is not entirely truthful. Likewise, the point that a lot of British carriers weren't lost in action in WW2 is equally fair. But...
...when we get to the stage of generating long lists simply naming ships we depart sensible, rational analysis of the key question and get into Top Trumps - as seems to happen on virtually ever Harrier-related thread on Pprune...
Last edited by Archimedes; 13th Sep 2011 at 16:16. Reason: To get my Eagles and Arks the right way round
Originally Posted by Occasional Aviator
From someone who was there, and saw the ATO being built:
On your first point, CDG didn't make much difference and the FAF was able to take up the slack easily with Rafales based at Solenzara (one of the furthest airfields from Benghazi) on the (surprisingly frequent) days when she didn't launch...
OCEAN and AH were sent to the Libyan operation (after land-based air power had dealt with any possible naval threat) as a political token gesture
Originally Posted by Archimedes
...when we get to the stage of generating long lists simply naming ships we depart sensible, rational analysis of the key question and get into Top Trumps - as seems to happen on virtually ever Harrier-related thread on PPRuNe...
Anyway, what's wrong with "Top Trumps"?
Tourist,
The first (and so far only) one I looked at for a start...
MV Empire MacColl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I was actually interested, and first looked at some google images, then read some associated google articles.
You stated yours was a list of RN aircraft carriers, I would argue that this vessel, and presumably the others in the same class, weren't RN aircraft carriers based on what I have read.
It was you who made an issue of a long and extended list to prove your point, I'm simply pointing out that your list might well be at fault.
Yes, operating under a red ensign doesn't "discredit them" as aircraft carriers. But you proposed a list of RN aircraft carriers, if any WW2 aircraft carrier that survived unscathed will help your argument then expand your list to include all nations aircraft carriers in WW2, US, Japanese, etc, but also expand the corresponding list of aircraft carrier losses in WW2!!
I'm also aware of the issues of using wikipedia as a reference, but am pretty sure I could come up with confirming sources on this point if I could be bothered to spend the time doing so.....
The first (and so far only) one I looked at for a start...
MV Empire MacColl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I was actually interested, and first looked at some google images, then read some associated google articles.
You stated yours was a list of RN aircraft carriers, I would argue that this vessel, and presumably the others in the same class, weren't RN aircraft carriers based on what I have read.
It was you who made an issue of a long and extended list to prove your point, I'm simply pointing out that your list might well be at fault.
Yes, operating under a red ensign doesn't "discredit them" as aircraft carriers. But you proposed a list of RN aircraft carriers, if any WW2 aircraft carrier that survived unscathed will help your argument then expand your list to include all nations aircraft carriers in WW2, US, Japanese, etc, but also expand the corresponding list of aircraft carrier losses in WW2!!
I'm also aware of the issues of using wikipedia as a reference, but am pretty sure I could come up with confirming sources on this point if I could be bothered to spend the time doing so.....
Last edited by Biggus; 13th Sep 2011 at 16:52.
Biggus,
I'm not sure how warmly the compilers will welcome your suggestion of including "all nations aircraft carriers in WW2, US, Japanese, etc," in their database but please feel free to take up your argument with them:Incidentally, why do you keep addressing me as "Tourist"? If you are insinuating it's me in a different guise, I have never used the handle 'Tourist' anywhere and have only ever posted on this site under my current user name.
I'm not sure how warmly the compilers will welcome your suggestion of including "all nations aircraft carriers in WW2, US, Japanese, etc," in their database but please feel free to take up your argument with them:Incidentally, why do you keep addressing me as "Tourist"? If you are insinuating it's me in a different guise, I have never used the handle 'Tourist' anywhere and have only ever posted on this site under my current user name.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stats
Fod,
I don't doubt those figures, they're probably about right. The point I was making was that we just didn't see a step-change in availability, response times, endurance and range as many carrier obsessives often claim you will get from carrier-based air. 120 out of 138 days is still a 15% unavailability rate - I'd be concerned about an airfield that had that bad a weather factor in the Med in summer. Also, not all of those days were launching OUP sorties, and the carrier didn't provide 24hr ops.
For me, carriers give you influence in a way you may not always be able to get with a transitory air presence, but to suggest that you can run a proper air campaign from them is disingenuous - even if you could fit enough jets on them, you don't bring the enablers. You need proper tankers to give your jets suitable endurance after getting airborne from the deck with a decent warload, and you need big aircraft to give you ISTAR and airborne C2 - and no, JSF and some sort of ASACS-type Merlin won't give you the full suite of capabilities we were employing against the Jamahariya forces.
So, returning to the subject of the thread - and paraphrasing my earlier posts - would it have made any difference to this particular campaign if we'd still have had embarked Harrier? From one who was there, the answer is an emphatic no - and if we'd kept it at the expense of the Tornado force, the NATO campaign would probably have suffered a bit, and UK influence in NATO would have suffered a lot. Sorry, but there it is.
BTW, I can probably make a long list of all the airfields that remained operational during WW2 but I don't think that would prove anything would it?
I don't doubt those figures, they're probably about right. The point I was making was that we just didn't see a step-change in availability, response times, endurance and range as many carrier obsessives often claim you will get from carrier-based air. 120 out of 138 days is still a 15% unavailability rate - I'd be concerned about an airfield that had that bad a weather factor in the Med in summer. Also, not all of those days were launching OUP sorties, and the carrier didn't provide 24hr ops.
For me, carriers give you influence in a way you may not always be able to get with a transitory air presence, but to suggest that you can run a proper air campaign from them is disingenuous - even if you could fit enough jets on them, you don't bring the enablers. You need proper tankers to give your jets suitable endurance after getting airborne from the deck with a decent warload, and you need big aircraft to give you ISTAR and airborne C2 - and no, JSF and some sort of ASACS-type Merlin won't give you the full suite of capabilities we were employing against the Jamahariya forces.
So, returning to the subject of the thread - and paraphrasing my earlier posts - would it have made any difference to this particular campaign if we'd still have had embarked Harrier? From one who was there, the answer is an emphatic no - and if we'd kept it at the expense of the Tornado force, the NATO campaign would probably have suffered a bit, and UK influence in NATO would have suffered a lot. Sorry, but there it is.
BTW, I can probably make a long list of all the airfields that remained operational during WW2 but I don't think that would prove anything would it?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Here,there,everywhere
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FODPlod (Tourist)
Your sortie rates for the CDG are very slewed, the CDG was also sailing out and doing it's own flying training !
Even when 'on station' and had jets in the AOR, they still informed everyone that the were doing PI's AAR etc in area's.
Don't fall into being another WEBF and believing everything you can cut/paste/link.
Your sortie rates for the CDG are very slewed, the CDG was also sailing out and doing it's own flying training !
Even when 'on station' and had jets in the AOR, they still informed everyone that the were doing PI's AAR etc in area's.
Don't fall into being another WEBF and believing everything you can cut/paste/link.
Fire 'n' Forget (Tourist)
They aren't my "sortie rates". They're the French Navy's. Read the associated article on the French Navy website:
They aren't my "sortie rates". They're the French Navy's. Read the associated article on the French Navy website:
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I just say, having only just seen the latest page of this thread, that Fod is not, in fact, me.
Surely his polite and courteous manner would leave that in no real doubt?
Surely his polite and courteous manner would leave that in no real doubt?
Originally Posted by Tourist
Can I just say, having only just seen the latest page of this thread, that Fod is not, in fact, me.
Surely his polite and courteous manner would leave that in no real doubt?
Now, is it your turn to make the tea or mine?
Going back a couple of pages, to before the discussions about French wine, whether or not certain posters exist, or how many carriers the RN lost in WWII but ignoring the much larger number that were not lost - back to here:
Why would the Army feel a political need to be involved, with Afghanistan going on? As for the RN, it was involved from the start with TLAM strikes, maritime interdiction operations, minehunting, and then NGS against targets of opportunity. NATO had the naval forces of the Gaddafi regime bottled up in port, and would have made short work of them had they put to sea.
So why was Ocean deployed as an Apache strike platform?
Did the politicians perceive a need to have a means to strike land targets promptly? Did they feel that the UK was not doing enough? Or perhaps they wanted to show that we still have the capability post Harrier (shame Apache has neither the range or speed of Harrier)? Perhaps my suggestion to run a small number of Harriers cheaply might interest them?
Anyway, you know my views. Here is a viewpoint from Italy.
On your second point and IMHO, OCEAN and AH were sent to the Libyan operation (after land-based air power had dealt with any possible naval threat) as a political token gesture and in a desperate attempt to get the RN and Army involved after it became clear that NGS wasn't going to make any difference either. Maybe a little harsh but difficult to point to any evidence to the contrary. I do, though, take my hat off to the AH boys, who operated very professionally and at significantly higher risk than their fixed-wing brethren. I certainly don't think anyone is going to claim that AH was a game-changer in this conflict though.
So why was Ocean deployed as an Apache strike platform?
Did the politicians perceive a need to have a means to strike land targets promptly? Did they feel that the UK was not doing enough? Or perhaps they wanted to show that we still have the capability post Harrier (shame Apache has neither the range or speed of Harrier)? Perhaps my suggestion to run a small number of Harriers cheaply might interest them?
Anyway, you know my views. Here is a viewpoint from Italy.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ cazatou
Just stand and watch for a few minutes and take note of which wines the locals are buying.
.Still with the right cheese say, a Bleu d'Auvergne or even a Fourme d'Ambert any rough table wine can be tamed.
Trust me I know!!
