Calm down Obi Wan
its just a discussion.
There is no contradiction in my posts and I started by trying to answer a number of points made by other posters, so maybe you should have read the full thread before replying
The reason for concentrating so much on the Falklands is simply because it is the only action of its type in which the only Air Cover was Carrier based and the enemy reasonably capable. Incidentally, two of my best mates from school did serve in the Falklands and had I followed my original intention to enlist too, could well have ended down there myslef. I would also remind you that the Vulcan raids on Stanley were not particularly successful and that some Harriers had to be re-tasked to finish the job.
It does however illustrate that even small Carriers can do a good job of Air Protection of a Task Force, but the role we undertook in the Falklands is not the same as the role of the big Carrier Groups.
For Strike Aircraft, being Carrier capable means inevitable trade offs, so they are the Jacks of all trades, not the biggest, not the fastest, not the best defended and not the stealthiest. For most deep strike operations it is probably better to use Cruise Missiles, or Land Based Aircraft that can be re-fueled in mid Air or which can journey via a network of Global bases. In short, the specialists. In a stand alone conflict, Carrier Aircraft will be far more vulnerable to modern Air Defences than their Air Force Counterparts.
Of course Obsolescence is relative. The 1914 issue Cavalry Sabra was an absolute masterpiece and the heavy cavalry of that time could easily still put bolt action rifleman to flight. Sadly however on a battlefield of thick mud, dominated by artillery and machine guns, the Cavalry was an immediate fatal casualty and was never seen again except in ceremony.
Sooner or later somebody is going to send a Fixed Wing Carrier group somewhere and recreate the "Repulse and Prince of Wales event" and finally the penny will drop!
its just a discussion.There is no contradiction in my posts and I started by trying to answer a number of points made by other posters, so maybe you should have read the full thread before replying
The reason for concentrating so much on the Falklands is simply because it is the only action of its type in which the only Air Cover was Carrier based and the enemy reasonably capable. Incidentally, two of my best mates from school did serve in the Falklands and had I followed my original intention to enlist too, could well have ended down there myslef. I would also remind you that the Vulcan raids on Stanley were not particularly successful and that some Harriers had to be re-tasked to finish the job.
It does however illustrate that even small Carriers can do a good job of Air Protection of a Task Force, but the role we undertook in the Falklands is not the same as the role of the big Carrier Groups.
For Strike Aircraft, being Carrier capable means inevitable trade offs, so they are the Jacks of all trades, not the biggest, not the fastest, not the best defended and not the stealthiest. For most deep strike operations it is probably better to use Cruise Missiles, or Land Based Aircraft that can be re-fueled in mid Air or which can journey via a network of Global bases. In short, the specialists. In a stand alone conflict, Carrier Aircraft will be far more vulnerable to modern Air Defences than their Air Force Counterparts.
Of course Obsolescence is relative. The 1914 issue Cavalry Sabra was an absolute masterpiece and the heavy cavalry of that time could easily still put bolt action rifleman to flight. Sadly however on a battlefield of thick mud, dominated by artillery and machine guns, the Cavalry was an immediate fatal casualty and was never seen again except in ceremony.
Sooner or later somebody is going to send a Fixed Wing Carrier group somewhere and recreate the "Repulse and Prince of Wales event" and finally the penny will drop!
