Matt Clonfero wrote: You say IFOR, I say EFA - let's call the whole

>If the UK had only two carriers, there will be gaps when NO carriers
are
>ready, and almost never will it be possible to field BOTH carriers.

>the loss of the third carrier is a big loss of capability.  And yet
>Britain is looking at probable cuts in the Navy.

>here is a dumbquestion:  Are all three carriers fully crewed?        

>is that necessary?

>about 85% of the crew would be switched to the ship moving out of

Rob Wheeler wrote:

> In a previous message you warbled tunelessly:

> > Here is the dumb question:  Are all three carriers fully crewed?  If so,
> > is that necessary?  People costs are a big day to day cost.  What if

> Put it this way, we only have two SHAR squadrons...

> Rob.
> --
> Rob Wheeler
> r...@pypers.demon.co.uk    TIP#035           O-
> Scroat (RNR)

> I had heard that the RN is talking about a joint capability with the RAF: ie,
> trying to persuade them to by the VTOL capable JSF when it arrives. During the
> Falklands, RAF Harriers operated off the carriers without any major problems.

Eugene Griessel wrote:

> In a previous message Niels Stchedroff wrote:

> >> I had heard that the RN is talking about a joint capability with the RAF: ie,
> >> trying to persuade them to by the VTOL capable JSF when it arrives. During the
> >> Falklands, RAF Harriers operated off the carriers without any major problems.

> Wasn't that easy -  the RAF soon discovered that there was more to
> shipboard operation than having the pilots grow a beard.  Salt water
> protection, deck lashing points and a transponder had to be added to
> the aircraft, a means of aligning the Ferranti INS on a rolling deck
> devised.  BAe and Ferranti worked around the clock to provide a means
> of aligning the INS to true North.  Additional wiring and a plug point
> to provide external reference data had to be added - and even then the
> system failed to provide the accuracy of the twin-gyro INS fitted to
> the Sea Harriers.  Fittings to carry and launch the Sidewinder had to
> be adapted and devised and a modification to the bomb release system
> made to carry the launch signal as it was impossible to fit additional
> wiring into the wings at such short notice.   Some armaments could not
> be safely carried due to the high electromagnetic environment aboard
> ship and naval versions of these had to be adopted and modified to fit
> (in particular the MATRA SNEB rockets had to be excahnged for RN 2
> inch rockets.  Increased oleo pressures in the landing gear had to be
> cleared.  Chaff and flare dispensers had to be adapted and fitted and
> adaptions made to carry the AN/ALQ-131 pod.  BAe Kingston worked 100
> hour weeks in  preparing approximately 10000 individual pieces needed
> to modify the GR3s for their naval role.  In fact they could not even
> depart with the fleet and had to be flown down to join it at Ascension
> after their modifications were complete.

>  Furthermore ski-jump training had to be given to the RAF pilots.

> Little more involved than kicking the tyres and grabbing a piece of
> deck space.

>There are some variances from navy to navy, but the basis is the court of King
>Neptune and his daughter, the port and starboard dip, being shaved, and so on.

>hope I jogged your memory some

Atkatz) wrote:

> Don't forget the Royal Baby (generally the biggest fattest guy aboard)
> & having to kiss his navel.

Patrick Pemberton wrote:
> TJG <tomg...@eyex.netcom.com> wrote in article
> .> The battleship may have been close to unsinkable in WWII, but
> times and
> weapon
> > lethality have changed.  On a battlefield characterized by such
> concentration
> > of destructiveness, the wise reaction is to disperse; the trend of
> the
> past few
> > centuries of warfare have recorded this movement.

> Negative for naval warfare, according to Mahan and several war's
> worth of
> experience. Hence we steam in battlegroups and convoys.