DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate (http://www.discussworldissues.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://www.discussworldissues.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=27)
-   -   New Carriers for the RN! (http://www.discussworldissues.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112948)

poekfpojoibien 07-03-2008 11:40 PM

New Carriers for the RN!
 
Just what the world needs http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...s/rolleyes.gif

Aozenee 07-03-2008 11:52 PM

now all the need to do is replace the F-35 with something less crappy and they are set to go.

F1grandprix 07-04-2008 12:01 AM

Just out of interest, could a 747 or Airbus land on one of these safely, say in an emergency - meaning shortage of fuel.?

jurnalkduo 07-04-2008 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Kidicious


No Is that because of the length of runway or capacity of the arresting chains to stop such a beast. Or other?

offinoNem 07-04-2008 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Hercules


Is that because of the length of runway or capacity of the arresting chains to stop such a beast. Or other? The arresting chains probably have the capacity. The problem is the capability of the pilots. You have to be trained to land on a ship. Even if you are trained you probably couldn't land a 747 or airbus.

O25YtQnn 07-04-2008 12:24 AM

Ok I understand.

I feel a Steven Segal movie coming on.

So if the pilot crew found themselves in such a situation, near an aircraft carrier, their best option is to ditch and hope/await rescue.?

cucceevevaind 07-04-2008 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Hercules
Ok I understand.

I feel a Steven Segal movie coming on.

So if the pilot crew found themselves in such a situation, near an aircraft carrier, their best option is to ditch and hope/await rescue.? Well, also 747s don't have arresting gear. So yes.

SaamanthaSterlyng 07-04-2008 12:43 AM

Not really, since a new Nimitz with maybe three times the capability costs only 4.5 billion dollars.

We have the experiance and economy of scale though, so I am sure that has a bit to do with that cost. Good on them though, I do wish they had gone with catapults though.

dgdhgjjgj 07-04-2008 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Patroklos
Not really, since a new Nimitz with maybe three times the capability costs only 4.5 billion dollars. How much will the USS Ford cost?

Haibundadam 07-04-2008 01:05 AM

Are there any Presidents not to have been given a ship in their name? (excluding the most recent who will no doubt get their chance)

lookanddiscover 07-04-2008 01:07 AM

As I say, give it time for those. What about the others.

Mjyzpzph 07-04-2008 01:11 AM

Are there any Presidents not to have been given a ship in their name? (excluding the most recent who will no doubt get their chance) Actauly, some pretty recent ones like Carter, Ford, Reagon, and Bush #1 already have one.

But yes, there are presidents that haven't had ships named after them. I believe presidents only entered our naming conventions recently for the most part, starting with our first SSBNs.

I think Carter is being skipped. Carter got the second Seawolf-class submarine, since he was a submariner http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/biggrin.gif

swoluelvede 07-04-2008 01:14 AM

The Beatles got one too.

avodeinst 07-04-2008 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Sandman
£3 billion is quite a steal, really. Not that it will stay at that figure when BAE is involved. And the planes are added in. So that's where they got the money to buy out Tenix! http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif

animilius 07-04-2008 01:56 AM

So the unimportant people got left out? Figures.

beatrisio 07-04-2008 03:05 AM

Originally posted by Will


Q. Adams (There is USS Quincy, but named after the town Adams and Q. Adams were born in), Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson, Hayes (there is a USS Hayes, but I don't who it named after), Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, McKinley, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, & Hoover. I didn't check any after that. We do not have any ships name after Ford
or Nixon.

foonlesse 07-04-2008 05:01 AM

One dayt thjey re will be a carrier nam,ed aftyer me :Lb:

But no ta USN one :naughtyL:

liontutuxx 07-04-2008 06:00 AM

Originally posted by Joseph
We do not have any ships name after Ford Not yet, but the next carrier, which is the first of the class, is being named after him.

gettoblaster 07-04-2008 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Joseph
We do not have any ships name after Ford
or Nixon. You have one current ship named after Ford, and another one entering service in 2015 named after him. Potentially you'll have two ships named after one wanker.

KirillAristov 07-04-2008 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Will


You can't have a carrier, or the planes on it, strike unnoticed. Sure you can. Especially as the carrier wing in question will be consisting of stealth(F-35s) aircraft.

You have one current ship named after Ford, and another one entering service in 2015 named after him. Potentially you'll have two ships named after one wanker. The current ship ain't named after President Ford.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2