HMS EAGLE in the Falklands

Reader mode

dvyws

Mr Carrot said:
Obviously, lets dismiss scholarship out of hand.

As for lived experience. @dvyws Age for beauty and all that obviously, I'm happy to bow to you but next time I run into R.Adm Morisetti at the RAC or the In & Out Club would you agree he is an ok source to support/confirm either side (commanding officer HMS Invincible)? He's the only guy I know who ran a big ship. The other top bods I know are all submariners.

This is a conversation I've had before and it ended in stalemate so I would like confirmation one way or another. Because I've seen a number of differing evidence and opinions from primary and secondary sources.
Click to expand...
But it isn't scholarship if it's wrong, is it?

And I'm not going to go into the whole "I know x..." thing. I was a junior officer when I left the Mob, and lost contact with most of my compatriots, although I occasionally came across them subsequently. Some of them did quite well for themselves. But please don't tell me I didn't know how to address members of the ships company I was serving with - especially when trying to be condescending.
 

Mr Carrot

dvyws said:
But it isn't scholarship if it's wrong, is it?

And I'm not going to go into the whole "I know x..." thing. I was a junior officer when I left the Mob, and lost contact with most of my compatriots, although I occasionally came across them subsequently. Some of them did quite well for themselves. But please don't tell me I didn't know how to address members of the ships company I was serving with - especially when trying to be condescending.
Click to expand...

Pot meet kettle. You did rather throw the guantlet of condescension down with your appeal to anecdote (and emotion) in dismissing a couple of well researched and well regarded Royal Navy facing historical texts... so I appealed to mine. Note I was only asserting that bigger ships called the 2ic 'the commander' not first officer/1st Lt.

Just FYI from Commodore RN (rtd.) - "Sorry been eating out in a reception black hole. Exec Officer (xo) used to describe 2nd in command in all ships. In larger ones where Commanding officer is a captain or above the 2ic will be called the Commander. You’re welcome."

Which supports statements made by White and Johnston Bryden in their respective works which you chose to dismiss.

But take it how you want given he's former SSBN and submarine shore establishment. Happy to send you a screenshot of the chat.
 
Last edited:

Lord Wyclif

Hammerbolt said:
Any docks in the UK, at this time, that could fit a 60-70k ton hull?
Click to expand...

Currently the 6th biggest dry dock belongs to the company that built 30% of the Royal Navy’s carriers. Completed in 1968 it’s 335m long, 50m wide and 12m deep. At the time of construction the worlds biggest cranes Samson and Goliath serve the dock.
When the HM Government ordered the two new Queen Elizabeth class, there wasn’t a shipyard in the UK to accommodate these ships so £1,000,000’s were spent upgrading Rosyth from 38M to 42M breadth (still 8M narrower than H&W, which the government doesn’t know exists).
 

dvyws

Mr Carrot said:
Pot meet kettle. You did rather throw the guantlet of condescension down with your appeal to anecdote (and emotion) in dismissing a couple of well researched and well regarded Royal Navy facing historical texts... so I appealed to mine. Note I was only asserting that bigger ships called the 2ic 'the commander' not first officer/1st Lt.

Just FYI from Commodore RN (rtd.) - "Sorry been eating out in a reception black hole. Exec Officer (xo) used to describe 2nd in command in all ships. In larger ones where Commanding officer is a captain or above the 2ic will be called the Commander. You’re welcome."

Which supports statements made by White and Johnston Bryden in their respective works which you chose to dismiss.

But take it how you want given he's former SSBN and submarine shore establishment. Happy to send you a screenshot of the chat.
Click to expand...
I love how my years of training and experience are "anecdote", while your quote from a friend who s "evidence"...

Try asking your highly placed officer friends how often they ADDRESSED the individual concerned as "XO", rather than "Number One" or some variant thereof?

But this is my last post on this subject - life is to short to argue with keyboard warriors with no personal knowledge of the subject.
 
SsgtC

SsgtC

Banned
dvyws said:
I love how my years of training and experience are "anecdote", while your quote from a friend who s "evidence"...

Try asking your highly placed officer friends how often they ADDRESSED the individual concerned as "XO", rather than "Number One" or some variant thereof?

But this is my last post on this subject - life is to short to argue with keyboard warriors with no personal knowledge of the subject.
Click to expand...
That's not what he said. Not even close. His "friend" is a Retired Royal Navy Commodore. And his "friend" stated that on the larger vessels of the Royal Navy, the Executive Officer (or Second in Command) was referred to as the Commander. I personally would take that to be a direct reference to his rank as a Commander (NATO rank code OF-4)
 

dvyws

SsgtC said:
That's not what he said. Not even close. His "friend" is a Retired Royal Navy Commodore. And his "friend" stated that on the larger vessels of the Royal Navy, the Executive Officer (or Second in Command) was referred to as the Commander. I personally would take that to be a direct reference to his rank as a Commander (NATO rank code OF-4)
Click to expand...
Oh, ffs! READ the post by the OP to which I was replying.

TWICE he has the Captain addressing his subordinate as "XO". That is what I am objecting to. Kinda by definition, the Seaman branch is the Executive branch (hint - look in the Navy List, seaman officers are referred to as e.g. Lt(x), so yes, the senior seamen officer will be the executive officer. BUT that is not a term used by the RN. He or she would be referred to as the First Lieutenant or Commander as appropriate - NEVER as "XO".

Why do people insist on pedantically arguing about subjects on which they have no knowledge or experience?

Oh, and Merry Christmas to all...
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Folks I would suggest that many of you lower the rancor level in here. Please don't make me the Bear who kicked Christmas.
 

Stephanus Meteu

On the ops tempo, it has seemed absurdly high to my layman's view. Also, I though it common that fighter squadrons were substantially overmanned both on land and carriers with extra pilots?

On the dockyards issue vs. a Nimitz like carrier, Nimitz has a waterline beam of 134 ft., but an absolute beam of 252 ft. Depending on the specific dock geometry that 252 ft probably will not fit, and even if it did fit the hull, you really want room for cranes and scaffolding and such between the hull and dock wall. The width of Dry Dock 12 at Newport News at the keel blocks is 250 ft.

I wonder if there would be any hope of a joint Anglo-French effort without it ending in tears? CDG(Richelieu) was ordered in '86 and has smaller crew and equal or better aircraft facilities as Eagle at first glance... Hmm...

On the aircraft accident, it seems the landing barrier would be the fastest way to get back to recovery. Also, the USN built Lex and Sara with two sets of arrestors, one forward and one aft, together with the ability to make full power in reverse (turbo-electric drive) allowed recovery from either direction in theory. The idea has been played with, but it appears barrier arrested landing and rapid damage control and repair are the current options. Strangely a super carrier has extra catapults, but not extra arrestors, but that is perhaps informed by the USN experience that ability to launch aircraft may be absolutely critical to survival of the carrier and mission success. Harrier for all its many, many drawbacks does at least avoid the recovery dilemma.
 

StevoJH

The dock at Harland and Wolf is 95metres wide and over 500 long, but i’m not sure if the draft of a Nimitz Class if to much to be able to get in.
 

Stephanus Meteu

H & W appears to be draft limited to about 8 meters. Could probably work around that a bit by planning for a very high tide at float out, but then the approach channel is potentially an issue, too with depth of 8 to 12 meters.

Nimitz and QE class both want 11 meters. You could do a hull build, float it out, and then fit out somewhere deeper. However, that doesn't work so well for repairs.

H & W also has the disadvantage of being linked to all the political, religious, and historical baggage of Northern Ireland in ways most other yards are not.
 

Mike D

StevoJH said:
The dock at Harland and Wolf is 95metres wide and over 500 long, but i’m not sure if the draft of a Nimitz Class if to much to be able to get in.
Click to expand...

For the period under discussion though it's a major security issue where military ships have an unfortunate tendency to spontaneously combust. You'd probably need to increase the NI garrison by a battalion just to patrol the New Lodge 24/7 to deter any ideas of landing a Mark 15 on the deck...
 

Alanith

Mike D said:
For the period under discussion though it's a major security issue where military ships have an unfortunate tendency to spontaneously combust. You'd probably need to increase the NI garrison by a battalion just to patrol the New Lodge 24/7 to deter any ideas of landing a Mark 15 on the deck...
Click to expand...

It would seem rather self defeating for the IRA to attack a military vessel from a nation where they're getting a good part of their funding from.
 

Mike D

Alanith said:
It would seem rather self defeating for the IRA to attack a military vessel from a nation where they're getting a good part of their funding from.
Click to expand...

That may be a consideration, although it might be outweighed by the chance of driving a wedge between the UK and US and the financial damage it would do to H&W who were very much a Protestant workplace through most of the Troubles.

An attack wouldn't necessarily have to be from the IRA either, INLA could have a go at it and they're far more left wing than PIRA so upsetting Americans is less likely to bother them.
 

Lord Wyclif

Mike D said:
For the period under discussion though it's a major security issue where military ships have an unfortunate tendency to spontaneously combust. You'd probably need to increase the NI garrison by a battalion just to patrol the New Lodge 24/7 to deter any ideas of landing a Mark 15 on the deck...
Click to expand...

Short Strand would be a better launching site.

There was an American radar facility up some mountain, can’t remember which, but it would be a primary military target, but the ra were not allowed to go there they knew the consequences
 

MKD

Nick P said:
The Royal Navy does have Executive Officers or XO on large ships. They are called Number One in practice.
The title is mentioned in Phoenix Squadron by Rowland White so I would assume it was in common use in 1971.
Click to expand...

Is the "number one" still referred to as the Jimmy/ Jimmy the one in the RN?

PMN1 said:
Don't think they would get her through the entrance at Portsmouth, no US CV's or CVN's tie up, they all anchor in the Solent.
Click to expand...

I believe that is correct. I was in Portsmouth recently when one of the US Navy carriers, USS Harry Truman visited. It had to park in the Solent and the crew were shuttled to shore in boats. Apparently the US carriers are to wide to fit through the harbour entrance.
 
haider najib

haider najib

Question american aircraft carriers are massive how the hell do they operate with allied ports and etc it seems only america can fit these beast itsnt that a design flaw that these carriers cant use allied ports?
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top