Tim Streater scribbled...


In article
sting.com, Jabba
wrote:

harryagain scribbled...

It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when the
fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which were
several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation was
performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that aircraft
carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't have any carriers
now and all the aircraft the navy used have been scrapped.

Er. We are building new ones.

One may not be built, if it is, it will be mothballed immediately. The
second might be in service in 6 years time. So we would have been
without a carrier for almost 10 years - they're not exactly vital to our
defence are they?

Going back to the Falklands, we had 2 carriers and they were not used
well. The admiral in charge was a prat. I've read a couple of books by
harrier pilots and none have a good word for Woodward. His ****ups put
pressure on the Navy afterwards.

What sort of things were they complaining about?


Not doing anything about the Hercules refuelers used by the
Argentinians. Keeping 2 aircraft on standby, on deck, throughout the
war, when they should have been used in action. Not sharing out the
raids sensibly between the carriers. Not putting Stanley airport out of
action - properly. Keeping the carrier fleet too far away from the
Falklands during the day, which meant aircraft were only able to provide
limited CAP over the landings.