Comments by "Jim Taylor" (@jimtaylor294) on "HMS Malta - Guide 246 (NB)" video.

@nk_3332 I can imagine the Headline: "Missile hit our ship. Did 30p of damage." says C.O.
8
@jackaubrey8614 More like: TSR-2 > F-111K > AVFG > Buccaneer S.2 (RAF) & then MRCA (Tornado). None of the aircraft used for the Tactical (Nuclear) Strike role post-Canberra (and there we so~ many) were actually designed to be Tactical Bombers though; so TSR-2's cancellation was a huge loss in yet another way. The Spey engined Phantoms were the FAA's compensation for SARO's SR.177 being cancelled.
3
... and surrendering upon seeing the British warming up the Buccaneers' XD . The Junta had after all previously considered a war with Chile... only to conclude that they would lose if they did.
1
Not really. We were affuent enough to spend more than 11% of GDP on the Military into the late 1950's, and produce our own Nuclear Weapons. The postwar mess re' Carriers can be blamed squarely on indecisive admirals with differing ideas on what they wanted; and politicians who'd rather they had nothing -_- .
1
@tbalmer1207 Aye. A random doodle during a meeting on his part, changed the fortunes of naval aviation. Without him and other's innovations: carriers might have faded out of use postwar, or at least become a class below land airforces in comparative ability.
1
Contrary to the prior statement: Vanguard would actually have been the ideal escort. She comfortably outgunned all Soviet surface ships and those of other potential threat countries, had a comprehensive AAA suite and top draw FCS', armour only the heaviest assets could deal with, and was well at home in heavy seas (unlike most smaller escorts). Like if we'd had the Mighty Ark or a Malta class around in 1982 though; Argentina would have given up had they been facing a Battleship. Like with our Nuclear Sub's (and their inability to detect & thus no hope of fighting them), they had nothing that could realistically hurt a ship of Vanguard's credentials; nor anywhere on the islands that would have been out of range of her guns. (25 miles with her 15"/42's, almost twice that of the Belgrano's guns, and no contest at all in punch) For the record though: the Rivadavias' (had they surrvived the '60's & been refitted [ if ]), would have stood no hope at all when faced with Vanguard either XD.
1
@nonna_sof5889 I now want to do a scale model of that idea XD.
1
Eeeh. At that size; we wouldn't have needed the Harriers XD. (at least not in the FAA) As it was the Centaur class proved ideal for those, and the Invincibles... slightly too small for an ideal CAP & strike force. (in the Falklands we lacked enough 'planes & space to do all that we needed to do with them)
1
@Philistine47 Well sort of. The Sea-Harrier slaughtered ostensibly more capable fighters in the Falklands (being well armed with twin ADEN cannons & Sidewinders, plus an excellent radar, will do that), but certainly the FAA would rather of had the Phantoms to hand, and enough fighters [of any kind] to both defend the fleet and strike at the enemy. Didn't help either that while the SHAR was capable of using SeaEagle missiles by 1982; only one of the aircraft sent was officially outfitted to use them. (we wouldn't have needed the Sub's to sink the Belgrano, as the SHAR could have Buccaneer'd the threat)
1