British air kills since 1945
Discussion
Catching up with News this morning on my way in to work, and picked up the following from a Sky News article about the new carriers;
To understand the true value of an aircraft carrier in conflict, consider that every enemy aircraft shot down by the British since 1945, except one, has been by a carrier-based plane.
I'm intrigued, and somewhat limited for google-searching time - does anyone know what was that non-carrier based kill?
To understand the true value of an aircraft carrier in conflict, consider that every enemy aircraft shot down by the British since 1945, except one, has been by a carrier-based plane.
I'm intrigued, and somewhat limited for google-searching time - does anyone know what was that non-carrier based kill?
Carriers are all about force projection. All our major land bases are closer to home and therefore far less likely to encounter hostile aircraft. Akrotiri is the obvious exception but neither Libya nor any of the ME countries we have flown operations in, put up any aerial threat. If you want to engage forces far from home, carriers are vital. Hence why they have been the mainstay of the US, UK and French navies. If you have a carrier force, you have the potential to bring to military force to anywhere in the world. They've been of less importance to Russia and China as they have such huge land borders, they control their local geospheres from their own land bases - they don't have colonies or direct interests all over the globe.
Eric Mc said:
But they are both now operating carriers - although at a far lower level than the US.
Indeed, which is a great indicator as to shifts in political and military power. China now which to challenge the US for dominance in the far east, outside of their own land borders (in much the same way as Japan did 70 years ago) and Russia can no longer plough an isolationist path following the break up of the SU - Africa and the ME/SA are now of much greater importance.TEKNOPUG said:
Carriers are all about force projection. All our major land bases are closer to home and therefore far less likely to encounter hostile aircraft. Akrotiri is the obvious exception but neither Libya nor any of the ME countries we have flown operations in, put up any aerial threat. If you want to engage forces far from home, carriers are vital. Hence why they have been the mainstay of the US, UK and French navies. If you have a carrier force, you have the potential to bring to military force to anywhere in the world. They've been of less importance to Russia and China as they have such huge land borders, they control their local geospheres from their own land bases - they don't have colonies or direct interests all over the globe.
In my experience carriers are all about fckiung people around for the sake of keeping them busy, cherishing the memory of Nelson and throwing corruption-riddled cocktail parties.V6Pushfit said:
Crossflow Kid said:
In my experience carriers are all about fckiung people around for the sake of keeping them busy, cherishing the memory of Nelson and throwing corruption-riddled cocktail parties.
Really?Maritime aviation wasn't top of the list that's for sure. I'm not convinced it was even in the top five some days.
Crossflow Kid said:
V6Pushfit said:
Crossflow Kid said:
In my experience carriers are all about fckiung people around for the sake of keeping them busy, cherishing the memory of Nelson and throwing corruption-riddled cocktail parties.
Really?Maritime aviation wasn't top of the list that's for sure. I'm not convinced it was even in the top five some days.
I guess that we do have a global network of land bases though. No planes mind 
I think they mean every aircraft shot down by another aircraft was by a carrier based plane. There was at least one land based ground to air kill in the Falklands.
Even so it doesn't take into the 1948 brouhaha.
Or for conspiracy theorists the Indonesian transport supposedly shot down by a Javelin. More likely it crashed while maneuvering to avoid the Javelin, much more likely still it crashed while the RAF were nowhere near and it suited the UK to deny involvement a little unconvincingly.
The fact is that UK land based aircraft weren't tasked with air defence in any conflicts in the past 60 odd years. The navy had the job in the Falklands and mainly USAF in the Gulf. I did hear that one Tornado ADV was scrambled from Saudi in GW1 but a Saudi aircraft was available so it was decided he might as well have the kill since it was Saudi airspace being defended. Eric? Ginetta?
Even so it doesn't take into the 1948 brouhaha.
Or for conspiracy theorists the Indonesian transport supposedly shot down by a Javelin. More likely it crashed while maneuvering to avoid the Javelin, much more likely still it crashed while the RAF were nowhere near and it suited the UK to deny involvement a little unconvincingly.
The fact is that UK land based aircraft weren't tasked with air defence in any conflicts in the past 60 odd years. The navy had the job in the Falklands and mainly USAF in the Gulf. I did hear that one Tornado ADV was scrambled from Saudi in GW1 but a Saudi aircraft was available so it was decided he might as well have the kill since it was Saudi airspace being defended. Eric? Ginetta?
I had thought about the ground-based missile kill as a possibility, but I'm more then certain that the Rapiers downed multiple aircraft during the Falklands conflict, so had concluded the Sky chap was indeed referring to a singular kill by an RAF plane that had taken off from a ground base.
So if it wasn't the Phantom/Jag incident, what was it?
So if it wasn't the Phantom/Jag incident, what was it?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff