Reply to thread

Message

Revisiting topics, as I lay useless on my couch after pulling a bloody muscle in my back...
Yes, interesting analogy Abraham Gubler
As much as I might come across as sceptical, I also think that many navies and alsotheir headsheds fully appriciate and buck the notion that such "single hull design" / multi-role designs limit their number of actual vessels, their portion of the Defence Budget pie......
Again, after the relevant 'modern combat experience' gained by the RN during the Falklands War, especially that of area and close-in air defence, I still can understand the elimination of Sea Dart, let alone a serious upgrade of the system post-Falklands, when as you state "despite its minimal impact on the flight operations".
I personally put this down to the British military becoming oddly comfortable fighting "wars" against non peer adversaries nations/dictators who neither had the spine or Capability to threaten their light carriers....Alas this will have to change with the seemingly overnight refocus on the PRC and Russia...

Regards
Pioneer

<blockquote data-quote="Pioneer" data-source="post: 430595" data-attributes="member: 122">Revisiting topics, as I lay useless on my couch after pulling a bloody muscle in my back...Yes, interesting analogy Abraham GublerAs much as I might come across as sceptical, I also think that many navies and alsotheir headsheds fully appriciate and buck the notion that such &quot;single hull design&quot; / multi-role designs limit their number of actual vessels, their portion of the Defence Budget pie......Again, after the relevant 'modern combat experience' gained by the RN during the Falklands War, especially that of area and close-in air defence, I still can understand the elimination of Sea Dart, let alone a serious upgrade of the system post-Falklands, when as you state &quot;despite its minimal impact on the flight operations&quot;.I personally put this down to the British military becoming oddly comfortable fighting &quot;wars&quot; against non peer adversaries nations/dictators who neither had the spine or Capability to threaten their light carriers....Alas this will have to change with the seemingly overnight refocus on the PRC and Russia...RegardsPioneer</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pioneer, post: 430595, member: 122"] Revisiting topics, as I lay useless on my couch after pulling a bloody muscle in my back... Yes, interesting analogy [I]Abraham Gubler[/I] As much as I might come across as sceptical, I also think that many navies and alsotheir headsheds fully appriciate and buck the notion that such "single hull design" / multi-role designs limit their number of actual vessels, their portion of the Defence Budget pie...... Again, after the relevant 'modern combat experience' gained by the RN during the Falklands War, especially that of area and close-in air defence, I still can understand the elimination of Sea Dart, let alone a serious upgrade of the system post-Falklands, when as you state "[I]despite its minimal impact on the flight operations[/I]". I personally put this down to the British military becoming oddly comfortable fighting "wars" against non peer adversaries nations/dictators who neither had the spine or Capability to threaten their light carriers....Alas this will have to change with the seemingly overnight refocus on the PRC and Russia... Regards Pioneer [/QUOTE]

Verification