Ark Royal Scrapped

[aeropilot]

thatone1967 said:

Surely this begs the question of "retaking" the Falklands should the need arise.
I realise the Islands are much better defended now, but would be able to retake it should be we loose it with out a seabourne airforce?

Not a chance we could do what we did back in 1982 at all now, from both a sea and air point of view.

[Eric Mc]

aeropilot said:

thatone1967 said:

Surely this begs the question of "retaking" the Falklands should the need arise.
I realise the Islands are much better defended now, but would be able to retake it should be we loose it with out a seabourne airforce?

Not a chance we could do what we did back in 1982 at all now, from both a sea and air point of view.

The argument is that the Falklands is nowe defended by a proper, sophisticated air defence system that didn't exist in 1982.

[badgers_back]

Chrisgr31 said:

I'd guess scrapped means decommissioned out of the UK fleet. She'll almost cetainly be sold to another Navy I'd assume

Only useful if you want to use it for helicopters and harrier or the like

[aeropilot]

Eric Mc said:

aeropilot said:

thatone1967 said:

Surely this begs the question of "retaking" the Falklands should the need arise.
I realise the Islands are much better defended now, but would be able to retake it should be we loose it with out a seabourne airforce?

Not a chance we could do what we did back in 1982 at all now, from both a sea and air point of view.

The argument is that the Falklands is now defended by a proper, sophisticated air defence system that didn't exist in 1982.

Which isn't a lot of use against a seaborne threat

[Castrol Craig]

aeropilot said:

Eric Mc said:

aeropilot said:

thatone1967 said:

Surely this begs the question of "retaking" the Falklands should the need arise.
I realise the Islands are much better defended now, but would be able to retake it should be we loose it with out a seabourne airforce?

Not a chance we could do what we did back in 1982 at all now, from both a sea and air point of view.

The argument is that the Falklands is now defended by a proper, sophisticated air defence system that didn't exist in 1982.

Which isn't a lot of use against a seaborne threat

its a good job we have a couple of subs in the area then.

the argy fleet wouldnt dare come out of port.

[Eric Mc]

aeropilot said:

Eric Mc said:

aeropilot said:

thatone1967 said:

Surely this begs the question of "retaking" the Falklands should the need arise.
I realise the Islands are much better defended now, but would be able to retake it should be we loose it with out a seabourne airforce?

Not a chance we could do what we did back in 1982 at all now, from both a sea and air point of view.

The argument is that the Falklands is now defended by a proper, sophisticated air defence system that didn't exist in 1982.

Which isn't a lot of use against a seaborne threat

I think a couple of bomb or missile equipped Typhoons would make short work of any slow moving surface vessels.

[Simpo Two]

Castrol Craig said:

its a good job we have a couple of subs in the area then.

the argy fleet wouldnt dare come out of port.

We'd be too frightened to fire any torpedoes - think of the flap over the Belgrano, and besides, we probably only have one torpedo.

No, if the Argies wanted to capture the Falklands they could do so quite easily given enough determination. In fact we are quite dependent now on countries having benevolent leaderships - because if they were aggressive, there's sod all we could do about it beyond our own shores.

Brittania is washed up, sadly.

[aeropilot]

Castrol Craig said:

aeropilot said:

Eric Mc said:

aeropilot said:

thatone1967 said:

Surely this begs the question of "retaking" the Falklands should the need arise.
I realise the Islands are much better defended now, but would be able to retake it should be we loose it with out a seabourne airforce?

Not a chance we could do what we did back in 1982 at all now, from both a sea and air point of view.

The argument is that the Falklands is now defended by a proper, sophisticated air defence system that didn't exist in 1982.

Which isn't a lot of use against a seaborne threat

its a good job we have a couple of subs in the area then.

the argy fleet wouldnt dare come out of port.

The sub threat is certainley a valid one, but far from guarranteed as total protection.
I don't know why, in addition to the AD detachment, the RAF doesn't have a 4 x Tornado GR4 detachment in the anti-ship role, which would certainley then give that added extra protection...? Mind you, the GR.1B was the dedicated anti-ship version that replaced the Bucc in that role, I'm not sure whether after GR4 upgrade etc., the anti-ship role was retained...?
Typically stupid and shortsighted MOD if so.

[TEKNOPUG]

mybrainhurts said:

Bloody hell...

What happens if Ireland invades...?

This really cocks up my plans to invade France when I take over...

Arse, and double arse....

That's why we built the tunnel!

[TEKNOPUG]

The RN without carriers is pointless. May as well scrap the whole lot. If you have any aspirations of projecting military force throughout the world, you simply have to have a carrier task force. (you also have to have aircraft that can operate from them too, preferably at the same time.....)

[Dunk76]

TEKNOPUG said:

The RN without carriers is pointless. May as well scrap the whole lot. If you have any aspirations of projecting military force throughout the world, you simply have to have a carrier task force. (you also have to have aircraft that can operate from them too, preferably at the same time.....)

How much force can Sea Harriers actually project though?

Something had to go, and I do rather fancy this was the lesser of all the evils. However, it does now tie us completely to the Americans when it comes to seaborne air support.

[dr_gn]

Eric Mc said:

aeropilot said:

Eric Mc said:

aeropilot said:

thatone1967 said:

Surely this begs the question of "retaking" the Falklands should the need arise.
I realise the Islands are much better defended now, but would be able to retake it should be we loose it with out a seabourne airforce?

Not a chance we could do what we did back in 1982 at all now, from both a sea and air point of view.

The argument is that the Falklands is now defended by a proper, sophisticated air defence system that didn't exist in 1982.

Which isn't a lot of use against a seaborne threat

I think a couple of bomb or missile equipped Typhoons would make short work of any slow moving surface vessels.

Plus there's not much point mounting a seaborne assault without air superiority. I don't think the Argentine Air Force in its current state would pose too much of a threat, even if it would initially outnumber the RAF Typhoons.

[grumbledoak]

dr_gn said:

Plus there's not much point mounting a seaborne assault without air superiority. I don't think the Argentine Air Force in its current state would pose too much of a threat, even if it would initially outnumber the RAF Typhoons.

Yes, but I doubt the Typhoons can simply fire their load from the runway...

[Eric Mc]

Dunk76 said:

TEKNOPUG said:

The RN without carriers is pointless. May as well scrap the whole lot. If you have any aspirations of projecting military force throughout the world, you simply have to have a carrier task force. (you also have to have aircraft that can operate from them too, preferably at the same time.....)

How much force can Sea Harriers actually project though?

None - they don't exist anymore.

Something had to go, and I do rather fancy this was the lesser of all the evils. However, it does now tie us completely to the Americans when it comes to seaborne air support.

As was the plan in 1975.

[Seight_Returns]

Lusty to go as well as Ark ? Report doesn't say so but AIUI Ark is youngest and the lesser used of the 3 CVSs and is the most recently refitted, so I can't imagine that they'd scrap Ark and keep Lusty.

Sad times.

Edited by Seight_Returns on Tuesday 19th October 11:45

[aeropilot]

Eric Mc said:

aeropilot said:

Eric Mc said:

aeropilot said:

thatone1967 said:

Surely this begs the question of "retaking" the Falklands should the need arise.
I realise the Islands are much better defended now, but would be able to retake it should be we loose it with out a seabourne airforce?

Not a chance we could do what we did back in 1982 at all now, from both a sea and air point of view.

The argument is that the Falklands is now defended by a proper, sophisticated air defence system that didn't exist in 1982.

Which isn't a lot of use against a seaborne threat

I think a couple of bomb or missile equipped Typhoons would make short work of any slow moving surface vessels.

If only they were so equipped.....

[Eric Mc]

aeropilot said:

Eric Mc said:

aeropilot said:

Eric Mc said:

aeropilot said:

thatone1967 said:

Surely this begs the question of "retaking" the Falklands should the need arise.
I realise the Islands are much better defended now, but would be able to retake it should be we loose it with out a seabourne airforce?

Not a chance we could do what we did back in 1982 at all now, from both a sea and air point of view.

The argument is that the Falklands is now defended by a proper, sophisticated air defence system that didn't exist in 1982.

Which isn't a lot of use against a seaborne threat

I think a couple of bomb or missile equipped Typhoons would make short work of any slow moving surface vessels.

If only they were so equipped.....

Are you saying that the RAF has no anti-shipping capability these days?

If not Typhoons, what about Tornadooes - F3s or GR4s?

[aeropilot]

Seight_Returns said:

Lusty to go as well as Ark ?

Yes, I'm sure that's what I read last night.....somewhere.

[Dunk76]

aeropilot said:

Seight_Returns said:

Lusty to go as well as Ark ?

Yes, I'm sure that's what I read last night.....somewhere.

Sky News have been banging on about "no carrier capability for a decade" for most of the morning.

[hidetheelephants]

Dunk76 said:

TEKNOPUG said:

The RN without carriers is pointless. May as well scrap the whole lot. If you have any aspirations of projecting military force throughout the world, you simply have to have a carrier task force. (you also have to have aircraft that can operate from them too, preferably at the same time.....)

How much force can Sea Harriers actually project though?
Something had to go, and I do rather fancy this was the lesser of all the evils. However, it does now tie us completely to the Americans when it comes to seaborne air support.

My bold; none because we only have five or so left and they're in a shed somewhere, where they have been since their early withdrawal in 2008. The Harriers flown off the carriers are RAF ground attack GR7 or GR9, which have no radar and are not much use as fighters without a AEW platform to point them in the right direction. Farce? At least we do something well.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Tuesday 19th October 13:20