HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
RizzoTheRat said:
Evanivitch said:
saaby93 said:
Also why dont they begin that from the back end of the ship?
There's only so fast you want to hit that ramp!Cold said:
This afternoon, HMS Queen Elizabeth took over the role of fleet flagship from HMS Albion.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activ...
This deserves more recognition. Another important milestone in the regeneration of UK carrier operations. The first time we've had a fixed wing capable flagship since 2010.https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activ...
It has taken a lot of hard work over two and a bit decades to get to this point.
Wildcat45 said:
Cold said:
This afternoon, HMS Queen Elizabeth took over the role of fleet flagship from HMS Albion.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activ...
This deserves more recognition. Another important milestone in the regeneration of UK carrier operations. The first time we've had a proper white elephant since 2010.https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activ...
Piginapoke said:
Wildcat45 said:
Cold said:
This afternoon, HMS Queen Elizabeth took over the role of fleet flagship from HMS Albion.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activ...
This deserves more recognition. Another important milestone in the regeneration of UK carrier operations. The first time we've had a proper white elephant since 2010.https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activ...
I would love to have your foresight.
You’re either taking the piss - if so, fair play you got me.
Ot if not, you clearly don’t understand the role of the QEC and its capabilities.
Why are two warships capable of:
Fixed wing carrier strike.
Fixed wing air defence.
C3/4i
ASW
ASuW
AEW/ASaC
Close Air Support - Fixed and Helo
Landing Platform Helicopter
SAR
Humanitarian relief,
White elephants?
From 1980 to 2014, the QEC predecessors the Invincible Class were involved in operations from the South Atlantic to the Persian gulf. They were used as command ships, strike carriers, LPHs, peacekeepers, aid platforms.
Some of the busiest and hardest worked ships in the recent history of the RN. I fail to see how their replacements bearing in mind their superiority to the Invincible Class could be considered white elephants.
RizzoTheRat said:
Wildcat45 said:
AEW/ASaC
Eventually...I did read somewhere that the uninstalled kit may be shipped for CSG21.
However with advances in UAV technology, I wonder how long a service life Crowsnest will have.
One of the few drawbacks of a STOVL configuration. 3 used E2s would be nice. ASaC Ospreys with 849 art on the tails would have been great. Sadly ££££ or to be precise $$$$ made that unlikely.
Wildcat45 said:
RizzoTheRat said:
Wildcat45 said:
AEW/ASaC
Eventually...I did read somewhere that the uninstalled kit may be shipped for CSG21.
However with advances in UAV technology, I wonder how long a service life Crowsnest will have.
One of the few drawbacks of a STOVL configuration. 3 used E2s would be nice. ASaC Ospreys with 849 art on the tails would have been great. Sadly ££££ or to be precise $$$$ made that unlikely.
I can't see a ship based AEW drone for a while yet though, the USNs Stingray refueller will presumably be the first big UAV, and has the advantage of a cat and trap ship, a big drone on the QE class would surely be a harder job, although a rotary wing drone is presumably a lot cheaper to operate than a Merlin. Does having the operator on board help for AEW?
Land based drones have impressive range and endurance but I assume you wouldn't want to rely on having a land based AEW drone that takes several hours to even get to you.
Wildcat45 said:
Can you send me a link to your crystal ball supplier please.
I would love to have your foresight.
You’re either taking the piss - if so, fair play you got me.
Ot if not, you clearly don’t understand the role of the QEC and its capabilities.
Why are two warships capable of:
Fixed wing carrier strike.
Fixed wing air defence.
C3/4i
ASW
ASuW
AEW/ASaC
Close Air Support - Fixed and Helo
Landing Platform Helicopter
SAR
Humanitarian relief,
White elephants?
From 1980 to 2014, the QEC predecessors the Invincible Class were involved in operations from the South Atlantic to the Persian gulf. They were used as command ships, strike carriers, LPHs, peacekeepers, aid platforms.
Some of the busiest and hardest worked ships in the recent history of the RN. I fail to see how their replacements bearing in mind their superiority to the Invincible Class could be considered white elephants.
Sorry, didn't mean to rattle the cage with my comment but I stand by it. We simply have no need to "project power" nowadays, it's an outdated strategy that consumes a significant % of the naval budget. We haven't needed an aircraft carrier for nearly 40 years (Falklands) and what other regional conflicts cannot be served by land based aircraft? I am assuming for the purposes of my argument that we don't get into a shooting war with Russia or China.I would love to have your foresight.
You’re either taking the piss - if so, fair play you got me.
Ot if not, you clearly don’t understand the role of the QEC and its capabilities.
Why are two warships capable of:
Fixed wing carrier strike.
Fixed wing air defence.
C3/4i
ASW
ASuW
AEW/ASaC
Close Air Support - Fixed and Helo
Landing Platform Helicopter
SAR
Humanitarian relief,
White elephants?
From 1980 to 2014, the QEC predecessors the Invincible Class were involved in operations from the South Atlantic to the Persian gulf. They were used as command ships, strike carriers, LPHs, peacekeepers, aid platforms.
Some of the busiest and hardest worked ships in the recent history of the RN. I fail to see how their replacements bearing in mind their superiority to the Invincible Class could be considered white elephants.
Piginapoke said:
Sorry, didn't mean to rattle the cage with my comment but I stand by it. We simply have no need to "project power" nowadays, it's an outdated strategy that consumes a significant % of the naval budget. We haven't needed an aircraft carrier for nearly 40 years (Falklands) and what other regional conflicts cannot be served by land based aircraft? I am assuming for the purposes of my argument that we don't get into a shooting war with Russia or China.
No worries. I didn't mean to appear upset. Just a rare bout of insomnia and time on my hands .It all depends on the type of power you want to project. It doesn't have to be fighter planes. A good example would be the Al Faw helicopter assault in the 2003 Iraq war.
These ships won't be run like carriers of old, or indeed like modern USN carriers. To use what is probably outdated parlance, they will embark tailored air groups. Power projection could come in the form of a helicopter assault for example. It could be as small a thing as a couple of jets coming inover the horizon to offer "food for thought" as happened in Sierra Leone.
Your point about regional conflicts being served by land based aircraft is as far as I see it. one of the reasons for having an aircraft carrier.
There is a huge amount of diplomacy and planning needed to operate military aircraft from foreign soil - even friendly soil. Just flying jets from the UK to an overseas location requires planning, diplomatic clearances and all sorts of stuff.
A friendly country may not be stable. When the wind blows one way, things can become less friendly. A host nation may impose restrictions on foreign military operations as a conflict progresses and opinion in the host nation changes.
I dislike using the Falklands as an example, but if you look at the role of Chile in the conflict you'll see the delicate path we had to tread.
Chile had a vested interest in Argentina losing the war. Had it won, it would have posed a regional threat - especially in territorial disputes with Chile.
So Chile was the UKs friend for a reason. Despite this, they couldn't be seen to help us militarily. Therefore we couldn't - as we would have liked - operate a Nimrod from Chile. We did, but it was some convoluted evolution. Far from straight forward. The Nimrod was nearly shot down by Chile one night because the air traffic controller who had been secretly briefed about the flights was on a break. RAF support C130s (see logistics issues below) were painted in Chilean markings so they wouldn't raise suspicions, and cause trouble for Chile. It is all good secret squirrel stuff, but it was a hell of a faff.
When a RN helicopter which I think had landed special forces in Argentina turned up burnt out and crewless on a Chilean beach. Chile understandably wanted to know why. They weren't impressed and it required some hasty diplomacy - and tall stories - to keep them happy.
Now clearly a Nimrod wasn't a carrier aircraft, but the situation I just outlined illustrates the constraints using land based assets on foreign soil.
Another example was the way the UK was drawn into the fallout from the 1986 US bombing of Libya. The US jets flew from the UK, therefore in some small way, we were involved. We would have been quite at liberty to say no to the USA (unlikely I know) launching attacks from British soil.
An aircraft carrier means you don't have to bow to pressure or ask permission if the political landscape in a region changes.
There is also the matter if logistics. Moving a squadron, it's jets it's spares it's weapons it's people is no small task. Entirely possible for a long term operations like Afghanistan. An aircraft carrier however carries all the above with it. Of course it will need resupply of everything from bog roll to bombs, but there is a well tested supply chain of ships and logisticians to make this happen.
It depends on how you measure success. The ship named Ark Royal that saw service between the mid 1950s and the late 1970s never fired a shot in anger. To be more exact, her planes didn't. You could argue that she was therefore a white elephant. You could also argue that her presence and formidable strike capability made would-be aggressors think twice. That can't be proved either way.
Think about it like this. The 11 year old kid who can call upon his 15 year older brother and his pals, isn't likely to have his dinner money nicked. He may never have to call upon his brother to help because any would-be bully knows it's not a fight worth having.
Edited by Wildcat45 on Friday 29th January 18:17
RizzoTheRat said:
IOC for Crownest is sometime this year so might see it on CSG21, FOC's a couple of years later though I think.
I can't see a ship based AEW drone for a while yet though, the USNs Stingray refueller will presumably be the first big UAV, and has the advantage of a cat and trap ship, a big drone on the QE class would surely be a harder job, although a rotary wing drone is presumably a lot cheaper to operate than a Merlin. Does having the operator on board help for AEW?
Land based drones have impressive range and endurance but I assume you wouldn't want to rely on having a land based AEW drone that takes several hours to even get to you.
Yes I think unmanned shipborne AEW is a long way off. Assuming the ships remain in service for the planned 40-50 years, I think they will be operating very different equipment from the stuff we see today. In Invincible Illustrious and Ark Royal's 30-year plus career, they more or less operated the same types of aircraft (If you accept Sea king HAS, Merlin HM and various Harrier models were basically evolutionary). I can't see the same being the case with the QEC.I can't see a ship based AEW drone for a while yet though, the USNs Stingray refueller will presumably be the first big UAV, and has the advantage of a cat and trap ship, a big drone on the QE class would surely be a harder job, although a rotary wing drone is presumably a lot cheaper to operate than a Merlin. Does having the operator on board help for AEW?
Land based drones have impressive range and endurance but I assume you wouldn't want to rely on having a land based AEW drone that takes several hours to even get to you.
I wonder if as technology evolves it will become a moral or political issue sending pilots and aircrew into harm's way. That could be the impetus for accelerated UAV development. And the saving in manpower costs too.
As an aside. I am sure I heard somewhere that the F35s sensors have it some sort of AEW capability. I suppose a jet on CAP streaming even a basic AEW picture back on Link 16 or 18. Is better than nothing.
Edited by Wildcat45 on Friday 29th January 18:50
Wildcat45 said:
Piginapoke said:
Sorry, didn't mean to rattle the cage with my comment but I stand by it. We simply have no need to "project power" nowadays, it's an outdated strategy that consumes a significant % of the naval budget. We haven't needed an aircraft carrier for nearly 40 years (Falklands) and what other regional conflicts cannot be served by land based aircraft? I am assuming for the purposes of my argument that we don't get into a shooting war with Russia or China.
No worries. I didn't mean to appear upset. Just a rare bout of insomnia and time on my hands .It all depends on the type of power you want to project. It doesn't have to be fighter planes. A good example would be the Al Faw helicopter assault in the 2003 Iraq war.
These ships won't be run like carriers of old, or indeed like modern USN carriers. To use what is probably outdated parlance, they will embark tailored air groups. Power projection could come in the form of a helicopter assault for example. It could be as small a thing as a couple of jets coming inover the horizon to offer "food for thought" as happened in Sierra Leone.
Your point about regional conflicts being served by land based aircraft is as far as I see it. one of the reasons for having an aircraft carrier.
There is a huge amount of diplomacy and planning needed to operate military aircraft from foreign soil - even friendly soil. Just flying jets from the UK to an overseas location requires planning, diplomatic clearances and all sorts of stuff.
A friendly country may not be stable. When the wind blows one way, things can become less friendly. A host nation may impose restrictions on foreign military operations as a conflict progresses and opinion in the host nation changes.
I dislike using the Falklands as an example, but if you look at the role of Chile in the conflict you'll see the delicate path we had to tread.
Chile had a vested interest in Argentina losing the war. Had it won, it would have posed a regional threat - especially in territorial disputes with Chile.
So Chile was the UKs friend for a reason. Despite this, they couldn't be seen to help us militarily. Therefore we couldn't - as we would have liked - operate a Nimrod from Chile. We did, but it was some convoluted evolution. Far from straight forward. The Nimrod was nearly shot down by Chile one night because the air traffic controller who had been secretly briefed about the flights was on a break. RAF support C130s (see logistics issues below) were painted in Chilean markings so they wouldn't raise suspicions, and cause trouble for Chile. It is all good secret squirrel stuff, but it was a hell of a faff.
When a RN helicopter which I think had landed special forces in Argentina turned up burnt out and crewless on a Chilean beach. Chile understandably wanted to know why. They weren't impressed and it required some hasty diplomacy - and tall stories - to keep them happy.
Now clearly a Nimrod wasn't a carrier aircraft, but the situation I just outlined illustrates the constraints using land based assets on foreign soil.
Another example was the way the UK was drawn into the fallout from the 1986 US bombing of Libya. The US jets flew from the UK, therefore in some small way, we were involved. We would have been quite at liberty to say no to the USA (unlikely I know) launching attacks from British soil.
An aircraft carrier means you don't have to bow to pressure or ask permission if the political landscape in a region changes.
There is also the matter if logistics. Moving a squadron, it's jets it's spares it's weapons it's people is no small task. Entirely possible for a long term operations like Afghanistan. An aircraft carrier however carries all the above with it. Of course it will need resupply of everything from bog roll to bombs, but there is a well tested supply chain of ships and logisticians to make this happen.
It depends on how you measure success. The ship named Ark Royal that saw service between the mid 1950s and the late 1970s never fired a shot in anger. To be more exact, her planes didn't. You could argue that she was therefore a white elephant. You could also argue that her presence and formidable strike capability made would-be aggressors think twice. That can't be proved either way.
Think about it like this. The 11 year old kid who can call upon his 15 year older brother and his pals, isn't likely to have his dinner money nicked. He may never have to call upon his brother to help because any would-be bully knows it's not a fight worth having.
Edited by Wildcat45 on Friday 29th January 18:17
I think we can rule out a European war needing a carrier capability in the long term, Middle East conflicts are well served by existing air bases, South and North America seem unlikely to need bombing any time soon, Russia and China would be an act of suicide, which leaves us with what- Africa?
I'm no pacifist, but any defence spend has to start with considering risks, which to me seem to be costal and littoral defence to stop the illegal flow of migrants, the defence of trade routes and compliance with international obligations. This all needs many more, cheaper units than the RN has now (now just 6 destroyers and 16 frigates). What we do not need are two white elephants cruising round the Atlantic waiting for it to kick off in Chad.
Piginapoke said:
Wildcat45 said:
Piginapoke said:
Sorry, didn't mean to rattle the cage with my comment but I stand by it. We simply have no need to "project power" nowadays, it's an outdated strategy that consumes a significant % of the naval budget. We haven't needed an aircraft carrier for nearly 40 years (Falklands) and what other regional conflicts cannot be served by land based aircraft? I am assuming for the purposes of my argument that we don't get into a shooting war with Russia or China.
No worries. I didn't mean to appear upset. Just a rare bout of insomnia and time on my hands .It all depends on the type of power you want to project. It doesn't have to be fighter planes. A good example would be the Al Faw helicopter assault in the 2003 Iraq war.
These ships won't be run like carriers of old, or indeed like modern USN carriers. To use what is probably outdated parlance, they will embark tailored air groups. Power projection could come in the form of a helicopter assault for example. It could be as small a thing as a couple of jets coming inover the horizon to offer "food for thought" as happened in Sierra Leone.
Your point about regional conflicts being served by land based aircraft is as far as I see it. one of the reasons for having an aircraft carrier.
There is a huge amount of diplomacy and planning needed to operate military aircraft from foreign soil - even friendly soil. Just flying jets from the UK to an overseas location requires planning, diplomatic clearances and all sorts of stuff.
A friendly country may not be stable. When the wind blows one way, things can become less friendly. A host nation may impose restrictions on foreign military operations as a conflict progresses and opinion in the host nation changes.
I dislike using the Falklands as an example, but if you look at the role of Chile in the conflict you'll see the delicate path we had to tread.
Chile had a vested interest in Argentina losing the war. Had it won, it would have posed a regional threat - especially in territorial disputes with Chile.
So Chile was the UKs friend for a reason. Despite this, they couldn't be seen to help us militarily. Therefore we couldn't - as we would have liked - operate a Nimrod from Chile. We did, but it was some convoluted evolution. Far from straight forward. The Nimrod was nearly shot down by Chile one night because the air traffic controller who had been secretly briefed about the flights was on a break. RAF support C130s (see logistics issues below) were painted in Chilean markings so they wouldn't raise suspicions, and cause trouble for Chile. It is all good secret squirrel stuff, but it was a hell of a faff.
When a RN helicopter which I think had landed special forces in Argentina turned up burnt out and crewless on a Chilean beach. Chile understandably wanted to know why. They weren't impressed and it required some hasty diplomacy - and tall stories - to keep them happy.
Now clearly a Nimrod wasn't a carrier aircraft, but the situation I just outlined illustrates the constraints using land based assets on foreign soil.
Another example was the way the UK was drawn into the fallout from the 1986 US bombing of Libya. The US jets flew from the UK, therefore in some small way, we were involved. We would have been quite at liberty to say no to the USA (unlikely I know) launching attacks from British soil.
An aircraft carrier means you don't have to bow to pressure or ask permission if the political landscape in a region changes.
There is also the matter if logistics. Moving a squadron, it's jets it's spares it's weapons it's people is no small task. Entirely possible for a long term operations like Afghanistan. An aircraft carrier however carries all the above with it. Of course it will need resupply of everything from bog roll to bombs, but there is a well tested supply chain of ships and logisticians to make this happen.
It depends on how you measure success. The ship named Ark Royal that saw service between the mid 1950s and the late 1970s never fired a shot in anger. To be more exact, her planes didn't. You could argue that she was therefore a white elephant. You could also argue that her presence and formidable strike capability made would-be aggressors think twice. That can't be proved either way.
Think about it like this. The 11 year old kid who can call upon his 15 year older brother and his pals, isn't likely to have his dinner money nicked. He may never have to call upon his brother to help because any would-be bully knows it's not a fight worth having.
Edited by Wildcat45 on Friday 29th January 18:17
I think we can rule out a European war needing a carrier capability in the long term, Middle East conflicts are well served by existing air bases, South and North America seem unlikely to need bombing any time soon, Russia and China would be an act of suicide, which leaves us with what- Africa?
I'm no pacifist, but any defence spend has to start with considering risks, which to me seem to be costal and littoral defence to stop the illegal flow of migrants, the defence of trade routes and compliance with international obligations. This all needs many more, cheaper units than the RN has now (now just 6 destroyers and 16 frigates). What we do not need are two white elephants cruising round the Atlantic waiting for it to kick off in Chad.
But as I explained the carriers aren’t just about fielding fixed wing aircraft to bomb places.
Also Middle East land bases are a classic example of why they can’t be relied on. For example as oil becomes less vital it is possible that the region may become more volatile.
While I broadly agree with your assessment of future conflicts, we just don’t know.
Just consider sone of the unexpected events of the last decade or so. All of which had the potential for unexpected conflict.
Arab Spring, Donald Trump, North Korea Chinese influence in Africa death if Bin Laden MH17 going missing, the other airliner shot down ISIS.
I think an ISIS type situation is a great example of why you need to be able to deploy aircraft free from a sovereign state.
Here is an entirely possible scenario...
A fluid situation where you are fighting a group and not a nation, but they are in a nation that we don’t like who also doesn’t like them and neighbouring nations may or may not approve, and alliances exist but one of our allies doesn’t like a group we like and there is another neighbour who hates everyone else who we like but we can’t tell them to STFU because......etc.
In the midst of that you ask one nation you like if you can base aircraft there. The answer is yes, but only AWACS planes, nothing with bombs on. So you find somewhere else to base your jets. Not an ideal location. They say yes, but a vocal minority in the country objects and there is the risk of a coup so you are told to leave.
Or you sit 100 miles off the coast and remain detached from local squabbles.
I actually think there was more of an argument against aircraft carriers in the past when we had an empire - or post WW2 very close ties with former colonies. Stable nations where we could do as we please, I’m not suggesting we have an empire again!
Aircraft carriers are part of a comprehensive insurance policy.
As for your argument that the RN needs more ships, then I agree and this is being addressed with the creation of a two tier RN.
There are eight ocean capable offshore patrol ships in service with the RN now. Five of these have a specific role of being deployed across the globe on constabulary duties. Two are currently deployed, the others will follow,
The RN plans to build the Type 31 frigate which will extend that constabulary role with more firepower. (I understand the logic behind these ships but I remain to be convinced by their planned weapon load.)
Also Middle East land bases are a classic example of why they can’t be relied on. For example as oil becomes less vital it is possible that the region may become more volatile.
While I broadly agree with your assessment of future conflicts, we just don’t know.
Just consider sone of the unexpected events of the last decade or so. All of which had the potential for unexpected conflict.
Arab Spring, Donald Trump, North Korea Chinese influence in Africa death if Bin Laden MH17 going missing, the other airliner shot down ISIS.
I think an ISIS type situation is a great example of why you need to be able to deploy aircraft free from a sovereign state.
Here is an entirely possible scenario...
A fluid situation where you are fighting a group and not a nation, but they are in a nation that we don’t like who also doesn’t like them and neighbouring nations may or may not approve, and alliances exist but one of our allies doesn’t like a group we like and there is another neighbour who hates everyone else who we like but we can’t tell them to STFU because......etc.
In the midst of that you ask one nation you like if you can base aircraft there. The answer is yes, but only AWACS planes, nothing with bombs on. So you find somewhere else to base your jets. Not an ideal location. They say yes, but a vocal minority in the country objects and there is the risk of a coup so you are told to leave.
Or you sit 100 miles off the coast and remain detached from local squabbles.
I actually think there was more of an argument against aircraft carriers in the past when we had an empire - or post WW2 very close ties with former colonies. Stable nations where we could do as we please, I’m not suggesting we have an empire again!
Aircraft carriers are part of a comprehensive insurance policy.
As for your argument that the RN needs more ships, then I agree and this is being addressed with the creation of a two tier RN.
There are eight ocean capable offshore patrol ships in service with the RN now. Five of these have a specific role of being deployed across the globe on constabulary duties. Two are currently deployed, the others will follow,
The RN plans to build the Type 31 frigate which will extend that constabulary role with more firepower. (I understand the logic behind these ships but I remain to be convinced by their planned weapon load.)
In a previous life, I worked with the RN and NATO conducting media training,
There were regular big exercises which involved, ships aircraft and troops. All good fun, but the exercise ran on a background of made up political scenarios linked in with international law, UN resolutions, local rows between countries.
One was loosely based on the Balkans. It was physically based on Northern England Ireland and Scotland. Add a bit of Cyprus Sovereign Base Area in (Faslane) and you had the makings of a regional war where previously united countries fell out over something like fishing rights.
One night - for exercise - a NATO sub accidentally hit and sank a trawler. That turned a war of words into a war and NATO the peace keeper became the aggressor. There was military action, state sponsored terror - the lot.
We had an aircraft carrier with us. An invincible class.
I remember a military tactician telling me at the time that it was just this sort of rapid escalation from
Grumbling nations to s
t hitting the fan over a genuine accident that proved the value of a carrier.
There were regular big exercises which involved, ships aircraft and troops. All good fun, but the exercise ran on a background of made up political scenarios linked in with international law, UN resolutions, local rows between countries.
One was loosely based on the Balkans. It was physically based on Northern England Ireland and Scotland. Add a bit of Cyprus Sovereign Base Area in (Faslane) and you had the makings of a regional war where previously united countries fell out over something like fishing rights.
One night - for exercise - a NATO sub accidentally hit and sank a trawler. That turned a war of words into a war and NATO the peace keeper became the aggressor. There was military action, state sponsored terror - the lot.
We had an aircraft carrier with us. An invincible class.
I remember a military tactician telling me at the time that it was just this sort of rapid escalation from
Grumbling nations to s
t hitting the fan over a genuine accident that proved the value of a carrier. Edited by Wildcat45 on Saturday 30th January 13:27
Piginapoke said:
I think we can rule out a European war needing a carrier capability in the long term, Middle East conflicts are well served by existing air bases, South and North America seem unlikely to need bombing any time soon, Russia and China would be an act of suicide, which leaves us with what- Africa?
It wouldn't take a war, or even a sinking ship, for China to block international waters to trade ships.Similarly, there numerous nations East of Suez that could blockade the major routes. The KSA has already shown their ability to blockade Qatar, and whilst we maintain relationships across the blockade, there's always a chance such volatile relationships would crumble. The ability, or even desire to then operate out of several nations in that area would be limited.
Same could be said of trade routes out of South America, doesn't have to be Argentina that decide to blockade the significant mineral wealth in the region. We don't need nations to side against us, just to declare neutrality and prevent usage of their airfields.
Evanivitch said:
Piginapoke said:
I think we can rule out a European war needing a carrier capability in the long term, Middle East conflicts are well served by existing air bases, South and North America seem unlikely to need bombing any time soon, Russia and China would be an act of suicide, which leaves us with what- Africa?
It wouldn't take a war, or even a sinking ship, for China to block international waters to trade ships.Similarly, there numerous nations East of Suez that could blockade the major routes. The KSA has already shown their ability to blockade Qatar, and whilst we maintain relationships across the blockade, there's always a chance such volatile relationships would crumble. The ability, or even desire to then operate out of several nations in that area would be limited.
Same could be said of trade routes out of South America, doesn't have to be Argentina that decide to blockade the significant mineral wealth in the region. We don't need nations to side against us, just to declare neutrality and prevent usage of their airfields.
Piginapoke said:
Evanivitch said:
Piginapoke said:
I think we can rule out a European war needing a carrier capability in the long term, Middle East conflicts are well served by existing air bases, South and North America seem unlikely to need bombing any time soon, Russia and China would be an act of suicide, which leaves us with what- Africa?
It wouldn't take a war, or even a sinking ship, for China to block international waters to trade ships.Similarly, there numerous nations East of Suez that could blockade the major routes. The KSA has already shown their ability to blockade Qatar, and whilst we maintain relationships across the blockade, there's always a chance such volatile relationships would crumble. The ability, or even desire to then operate out of several nations in that area would be limited.
Same could be said of trade routes out of South America, doesn't have to be Argentina that decide to blockade the significant mineral wealth in the region. We don't need nations to side against us, just to declare neutrality and prevent usage of their airfields.
Your childish response is somewhat revealing of your naivety on the subject.
Evanivitch said:
Piginapoke said:
Evanivitch said:
Piginapoke said:
I think we can rule out a European war needing a carrier capability in the long term, Middle East conflicts are well served by existing air bases, South and North America seem unlikely to need bombing any time soon, Russia and China would be an act of suicide, which leaves us with what- Africa?
It wouldn't take a war, or even a sinking ship, for China to block international waters to trade ships.Similarly, there numerous nations East of Suez that could blockade the major routes. The KSA has already shown their ability to blockade Qatar, and whilst we maintain relationships across the blockade, there's always a chance such volatile relationships would crumble. The ability, or even desire to then operate out of several nations in that area would be limited.
Same could be said of trade routes out of South America, doesn't have to be Argentina that decide to blockade the significant mineral wealth in the region. We don't need nations to side against us, just to declare neutrality and prevent usage of their airfields.
Your childish response is somewhat revealing of your naivety on the subject.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff