In message , Old Git
writes
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 23:31:00 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , John
Rumm wrote:

On 09/06/2014 09:31, 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.

Yup 'Sharkey' Ward's book was not exactly complimentary...

Seems to me he was just cautious. Lose a carrier and it would have been
game over.


Our carriers involved in the Falklands do were very well protected
aand it was down to their anti-missile systems that that took out the
Atlantic Conveyor. The exocet was on its way to one of the carriers
whose anti-missile system went into action and drew the exocet away.
Unfortunately, when the exocet passed through the defence, the next
thing it saw was the Atlantic Conveyor. From that moment its fate was
sealed.

I know this because I was in the RN at the time and privy to a great
deal of info. Later, on leaving the service, I lectured in
anti-missile decoy Tactics and equipment usage.
I never talk about my knowledge of such things because I signed the
official secrets act - whoops I'm not supposed to tell you that.
--
bert