RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

I'm just repeating what the news reported. Maybe we don't have the full range of support ships, rather like we had no planes until the US sold us some overpriced ones that can't be used to their max because of known but little publisised faults (that will be fixed in the future - promise). BTW, did they ever fix those reported leaks on those carriers?

Last time we fought a tin pot enemy they destroyed half our attending fleet. A mate of mine was on the Shefield. That was equipped with antimissile missiles.

General Jumbo01 wrote:I'm just repeating what the news reported. Maybe we don't have the full range of support ships, rather like we had no planes until the US sold us some overpriced ones that can't be used to their max because of known but little publisised faults (that will be fixed in the future - promise). BTW, did they ever fix those reported leaks on those carriers?

Last time we fought a tin pot enemy they destroyed half our attending fleet. A mate of mine was on the Shefield. That was equipped with antimissile missiles.

I would say that anti-missile tech has evolved since 1982. The US didn't put a gun to the UK's head and force them to buy planes. With any new technology there are issues. As I recall that British SA80 rifle was perfect from day one... So was our M-16...

Not one aircraft carrier though

On the 19th March 2011 Royal Navy Trafalgar Class Nuclear Submarine HMS Triumph fired Tomahawk Cruise Missiles in concert with the US Navy,
A total of 110 Cruise Missiles were fired on that day into Libya.

jarndice wrote:On the 19th March 2011 Royal Navy Trafalgar Class Nuclear Submarine HMS Triumph fired Tomahawk Cruise Missiles in concert with the US Navy,
A total of 110 Cruise Missiles were fired on that day into Libya.

But you said. . . .

jarndice wrote:And a Trident Class Submarine coordinating with a satellite could get a fix and launch a salvo of cruise missiles armed with conventional warheads at the carrier task force and that would be the end of that.
Anything anywhere on the surface of this planet is a potential target.

And. . . .

"The Trident Submarines & Missiles. Trident is a submarine-launched inter-continental ballistic nuclear weapons system, which is currently carried by four Royal Navy Vanguard-class submarines. Trident is a US nuclear system."

Just saying. . . .

Rather than allowing my earlier inaccurate entry to continue I had the blatant nerve to correct my original answer
Of course the Vanguard class Submarines with the Trident Missile system could attack an Aircraft Carrier Group but it would smack of overkill

At least the conversation is still friendly... I did read that although they are called the Ohio class they are sometimes referred to as Trident class due to the Tridents they carry.

jarndice wrote:Rather than allowing my earlier inaccurate entry to continue I had the blatant nerve to correct my original answer
Of course the Vanguard class Submarines with the Trident Missile system could attack an Aircraft Carrier Group but it would smack of overkill

Actually I don't think it would be overkill, you'd destroy a whole battle fleet in one go. I wouldn't be surprised if that strategy hasn't already been thought of, and the same for military airports and any large ground force assembly.

In outright war you do what works. If you can remove a battle fleet with a single missile then it's a valid option, particularly so if you are a small country that's short of options but does have nuclear weapons. Its easy to see why the British navy fears for their new toys. Maybe that's why they want a third!

Incidentally, how does the US 'Harrier Pro 3D GTi' move from vertical take off to forward flight when it has to have that huge barn door open just behind the cockpit to allow the forward lift fan to operate? It looks like a massive air brake - a real lash-up! This is not a UK v US arms argument, just an honest observation.



Sent from my ASUS_T00G using Tapatalk

Son of a gun-ner wrote:

jarndice wrote:Rather than allowing my earlier inaccurate entry to continue I had the blatant nerve to correct my original answer
Of course the Vanguard class Submarines with the Trident Missile system could attack an Aircraft Carrier Group but it would smack of overkill

Actually I don't think it would be overkill, you'd destroy a whole battle fleet in one go. I wouldn't be surprised if that strategy hasn't already been thought of, and the same for military airports and any large ground force assembly.

Well back in the Vietnam era my father was in the US Army. He wasn't deployed to Vietnam due to his job working with the Nike Hercules and Nike Ajax ground to air missile systems in White Sands, NM. His job was maintenance of those systems and it was deemed critical to the air defense of the United States. Those missile systems could be nuclear tipped. The purpose of firing a nuke would be to take out entire squadron of bombers heading for US airspace. I know the Russians also have a nuclear tipped motor round that is used as a weapon of last resort because it kills those that fire it. I guess my point is nuking a carrier group would not be out of the realm of a countries military doctrine. Nuclear weapons are IMO weapons of last resort by their very nature since they cause long lasting, wide spread devastation. People might say they were designed as first strike weapons. The problem with that is there is no "second" strike if the whole world is dead or dying from radiation fallout.