I don't think Harrier gives a true "strike" (as opposed to ground attack) capability - especially compared with Buccaneer. It's those short little legs were the problem. Take it from an expert on short little legsTempest414 wrote: ↑02 Feb 2022, 10:50I would push that forward to 1983 as Hermes could carry 24 Harriers and 10 helicopters ( Ark Royal carried 26 jets and plus 10 others in 78 )KiwiMuzz wrote: ↑31 Jan 2022, 23:18With no disrespect to the Invincibles, the Royal Navy has not had a Strike Carrier (expedient MoD terminology notwithstanding), since 1978.Scimitar54 wrote: ↑31 Jan 2022, 22:40
DYNR that for Ten years we did not even have a Strike Carrier. Now we have two and I would not be at all surprised for CAMM to be fitted to the QEC at their first Refit (or even in a more routine capability insertion), subject of course to sufficient funding being available and continued Carrier Readiness.
Phalanx
Re: Phalanx
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Phalanx
Could be armed with Sea Eagle (for Maritime Strike), so Strike IS appropriate. Don’t forget that Buccaneer was originally conceived for Maritime Strike as well !
Re: Phalanx
Didn't Sea Eagle enter service after Hermes had retired? Hermes was what I would call a Strike Carrier in the 1960 when se carried Buccaneers and Sea Vixen, not so much so when it had the Sea Harrier FRS1 even though this had Strike as a role, meaning nukes. AS for the Invincibles, calling them "Strike" Carriers was being a bit optimistic.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Phalanx
That is true. However, in character with “Type 64” escorts at the time, two together would have constituted a “Carrier Strike” capability !
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3243
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57