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.

and more escorts...................

I presume this led to MDC etc.
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.

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? :D

"Real" carriers
 

Because "proper" carriers were a great deal more fun, and a great deal more capable. Unfortunately we can't afford them. Nor could we then, as it happens. Anyone who remembers how everything stopped on all the other ships when Ark (the real one, not the through-deck cruiser immitation) came in to Devonport Dockyard will realise that Denis Healey, for all his sins in believing RAF lies about the location of Australia, was probably right. The RN could not afford a proper Air Arm. It still can't.

OK, tin hat on ...

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.

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.

Idle

We can afford them but we choose to spend our money elsewhere. That's democracy in action - right or wrong....................discuss (Good Staff Question)

:D

Arc

"referring to the sixties...when we had some carriers.."

we don't have enough ESCORTS to do plane guard these days..............

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