Accounting Troll Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 This is something that really annoys me. The three Royal Navy aircraft carriers are too small for their post Cold War role, which is why were are going to replace them with two larger aircraft carriers in 2012. The original plan was to refit the old aircraft carriers and keep them going until the new carriers were ready. However, Our Glorious Leader doesn't want to raise taxes to fund the unpopular war in Iraq. So he has decided to mothball HMS Invincible now in order to save money.Story. And with HMS Ark Royal currently being refitted, that leaves HMS Illustrious having to provide fighter support for the fleet on its own. A couple of weeks ago, Our Glorious Leader scapped three Type 42 destroyers early. I know they were obselete and their air defence system proved itself to be hopelessly inadequate in the Falklands War, but he was originally supposed to wait until the Daring class of destroyers had been manufactured. The thing that is REALLY stupid about these defence cuts is that he keeps committing British forces to wars such as Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FullAuto Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 The man's a damn fool. Every time we join a new conflict he downsizes our forces. Eventually he's going to get us involved in something we can't win. Aircraft carriers in particular are the best way, short of an actual land base, to project power and carry out operations abroad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir-roosio Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Captain Neil Morisetti, Invincible's commanding officer, said: "These events provide an excellent opportunity for HMS Invincible to celebrate not only her 25 years of service but also the hard work and dedication shown by members of the ship's company past and present, and the continued support given by their families throughout her long and distinguished career." Isn't he the guy from men behaving badly, who then shagged amanda holden? You're right though full auto, everytime our armed forces are assigned another 'peacekeeping' role, they're being stretched even thinner. We wont get involved in a war we wont win. . .the British economy will collapse cause the entire TA will be on duty at once and accountants offices all over the country will have to close due to a shortage of staff! No offence meant to our illustrious post-starter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accounting Troll Posted August 2, 2005 Author Share Posted August 2, 2005 None taken. Britain would have to be in a pretty bad way before Tony Blair would put a rifle in my hands and pack me off to fight whatever country he upsets next Anyway, accountants are more into paintballing than using proper firearms. And I can't see a paintball gun making much of a dent in a French tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blehm 98 Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 French tanks? I didn't know they kept tanks... unless they are for carrying flags sorry if that insulted anyone, but i had to say thatAs for the war and the decommissioning of the carrier, why not just stop getting involved in conflicts. As badly as it looks, the Iraq "War" is over, there are just terrorists still blowing themselves up. But we are doing at least relatively well, Britain can pull out and deal with other problematic areas better, and then pull the carrier back into commission, that would work much better in Britains favor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FullAuto Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 As for the war and the decommissioning of the carrier, why not just stop getting involved in conflicts. Never happen. Unlike some countries, we actually believe in the UN and we're always off peacekeeping somewhere or other. Not to mention our commonwealth and colonial history dropping us in it up to our necks. We make more and more commitments, yet Blair's reducing our forces ahead of schedule. What about the EU rapid reaction force? We've got a hand in that, and it's a damn good idea, as well. But if Blair keeps this up we're not going to have much left to contribute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kernel Posted August 4, 2005 Share Posted August 4, 2005 Arn't we supposed to be getting 2 or 3 new carriers by 2010? Possibly working with France when they get their new Carriers built? Edit: RN's link to details of new carriers: https://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1971.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accounting Troll Posted August 4, 2005 Author Share Posted August 4, 2005 Budget cuts and arguments over the design have already caused the completion date to be moved back a couple of years. I'm betting this is going to be like the Wembly Stadium farce I suspect that 'working with France' means that we will end up renting their aircraft carrier whenever we want to bomb someone and it will cost us more than if we had kept HMS Invincible going until 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir-roosio Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 And I can't see a paintball gun making much of a dent in a French tank.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> . . . . . . . I will say no more! French tanks? I didn't know they kept tanks... unless they are for carrying flags sorry if that insulted anyone, but i had to say that Nope, I've set a precedent in previous threads, it seems to be pretty much open season on the french here! Fire away! On another point, most upset that the navy will be switching to using the lockheed martin F35 JSF, after our success with the Harrier I'd like to see britain looking after itself on the aircraft front. On the other hand, it does mean I get to pretend I'm in the RNAS next time I play Energy Airforce. Thank god there is a realistic flight sim on the PS2! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kernel Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 I suspect that 'working with France' means that we will end up renting their aircraft carrier whenever we want to bomb someone and it will cost us more than if we had kept HMS Invincible going until 2012.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actualy I think the idea was that rather than designing 2 different carriers (one for each country) there would be one single design developed jointly by both countrys (sharing development costs). On another point, most upset that the navy will be switching to using the lockheed martin F35 JSF, after our success with the Harrier I'd like to see britain looking after itself on the aircraft front. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think that's to save costs. Why spend lots of money developing your own aircraft when you can get the US to pay for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accounting Troll Posted August 5, 2005 Author Share Posted August 5, 2005 Actualy I think the idea was that rather than designing 2 different carriers (one for each country) there would be one single design developed jointly by both countrys (sharing development costs).You mean like with the Eurofighter? I know we used that method to create a new class of destroyer along with France and Italy. Britain withdrew from the Horizon Destroyer project in 1999 and designed its own destroyer. France and Italy are carrying on without us. I didn't know we had attempted this with aircraft carriers as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ego Terrorist Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 Hopefully the UK will by 2020 will have two new carriers, the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales, out fitted with the F35 JSF they will, hopefully modernise our fleet. (The yanks are getting a new Nimitz class carrier named; George Bush.) Also related to the topic, the UK now only has 3 frontline fighter squadrons. 11 Squadron has been disbanded, in preparation for the Eurofighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accounting Troll Posted November 26, 2005 Author Share Posted November 26, 2005 I hope the new US carrier is named after Bush senior. I'd hate to serve on the USS Dubya. If the Americans continue to name their warships after their presidents, what design features will the USS Bill Clinton incorporate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uriaheep Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 Also related to the topic, the UK now only has 3 frontline fighter squadrons. 11 Squadron has been disbanded, in preparation for the Eurofighter. I suppose you all know it but the Eurofighter can't actually fly. It flies just about as well as a slug carrying a large suitcase, if it wasn't for the onboard computer correcting the flying surfaces it would drop faster than the Argentine economy. Now it might be me but I wouldn't want to be sat up there knowing that all it takes to make you hit the ground is someone with the inclination to create an EMP device. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matri Posted November 26, 2005 Share Posted November 26, 2005 If the Americans continue to name their warships after their presidents, what design features will the USS Bill Clinton incorporate?Extra "recreation" rooms? Maybe a competent laundromat service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jman4117 Posted November 27, 2005 Share Posted November 27, 2005 One being refitted, and 2 functional and one of those is being mothballed? Oh dear God..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kernel Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 Now it might be me but I wouldn't want to be sat up there knowing that all it takes to make you hit the ground is someone with the inclination to create an EMP device. ... and that's why all military electronic hardware is shielded against EMP devices. It's not just the Eurofighter that needs a computer to fly either, most modern combat aircraft need computers because they are all designed to be unstable in normal flight, which makes them more agile and manuverable. The B2 stealth bomber, which is designed to drop nukes (the primary source of an EMP) needs a computer to fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matri Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 That's because it's all wing and no fuselage. I don't think flying it manually is impossible, just extremely extremely difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomb Bloke Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 I've nothing against the french, but I like a good joke as much as the next man. Go to Google, type in "french victories" and press the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FullAuto Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Thank you, BB. Having wet myself laughing, I must now go and change my clothes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uriaheep Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 No, that can't be right - there was the.......... er the ............ and ....... oh er. I suppose Google must be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kernel Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Doing a search for "Liar" is better. See who's name comes out on top of the search results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matri Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Doing a search for "Liar" is better. See who's name comes out on top of the search results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uriaheep Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 That is the best yet - I literally have tears on my cheeks TOP MARKS FOR FINDING THAT ONE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zager Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 Now it might be me but I wouldn't want to be sat up there knowing that all it takes to make you hit the ground is someone with the inclination to create an EMP device. All modern airplanes will crash if they lose their electronics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now