LOGO
General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here.

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 07-25-2007, 11:16 PM   #1
BipiewExifese

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
378
Senior Member
Default Good News for the RN!
BipiewExifese is offline


Old 07-25-2007, 11:45 PM   #2
zilsolley3

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
446
Senior Member
Default
They also need to beef up air interception, with the Russian naval aviation probing.
zilsolley3 is offline


Old 07-26-2007, 12:08 AM   #3
ditpiler

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
481
Senior Member
Default
What French participation? If I recall correctly, they were supposed to cooperate with the French but it fell through because Charles de Gaulle's performance hasn't been stellar. True?
ditpiler is offline


Old 07-26-2007, 12:35 AM   #4
neerewed

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
388
Senior Member
Default
I was hoping this thread was about Registered Nurses...
neerewed is offline


Old 07-26-2007, 02:43 AM   #5
Kiariitf

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
389
Senior Member
Default
First thought - Random Number
Second thought - Registered Nurse

Way off.
Kiariitf is offline


Old 07-26-2007, 03:25 AM   #6
blodwarttufla

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
430
Senior Member
Default
True. I never look at the poster when I click a thread.

I should probably work on that though. I always end up being enticed by Pekka's thread titles only to find out that... it's a Pekka thread.
blodwarttufla is offline


Old 07-26-2007, 07:40 PM   #7
Wsjltrhe

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
465
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Sandman


Crappy names. My thoughts were the same.

I liked it when they chose names like HMS Fury, HMS Revenge and HMS Scourge.

Even HMS Spanker was a better name.
Wsjltrhe is offline


Old 07-26-2007, 10:11 PM   #8
TheBest-Host

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
463
Senior Member
Default
What a waste of money, by a country still dreaming of past glories and playing at pretend-to-be-relevant.

Hilarious that they will be giving them these names.

The last HMS Queen Elizabeth missed the greatest naval battle of the first world war, a battle it was designed to fight, by being in dry dock IIRC.

The HMS Prince of Wales, was battered by the Bismarck, suffered multiple failures, and now rests off of the Malay coast courtesy of Japanese aircraft.

You'd thing that the stain of failure would have removed these names from contention.
TheBest-Host is offline


Old 07-26-2007, 11:05 PM   #9
spineeupsenry

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
453
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Zkribbler
Ironic. I was just thinking the other day that the U.S. should have fewer carriers and concentrate more on frigates, hydrofoils and other small patrol craft. At least the US has a reason to have aircraft carriers. We may not agree with US policy, but given its position in the world, you can see why they might want them.

Britain is no longer that kind of country. Then again, Britain just committed itself to spending a fortune on Trident, which it needs even less than it needs aircraft carriers.
spineeupsenry is offline


Old 07-27-2007, 12:12 AM   #10
gluckmeea

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
498
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Agathon


At least the US has a reason to have aircraft carriers. We may not agree with US policy, but given its position in the world, you can see why they might want them.

Britain is no longer that kind of country. Then again, Britain just committed itself to spending a fortune on Trident, which it needs even less than it needs aircraft carriers. QFT

They can use Lithuanian airbases when they start bombing Moscow.
gluckmeea is offline


Old 07-27-2007, 01:34 AM   #11
Beauseaccerce

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
443
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Lonestar

How did you come to that clearly well thought out opinion? The chief threat to the U.S. is al Qaeda. Since the fall of the Taliban, they haven't been in a situation where they've been able to hide behind a state sponsor. Thus, the need for a major armed conflict is minimal.

The most effective means of countering al Qaeda is trying to win the "hearts and minds" of the Islamic world -- which mandates even more than the U.S. not engage in any major conflict in the region.

(Can you guess what I think of our war in Iraq? )

At most, we need small commando-type units to launch quick hit-and-run raids against al Qaeda hideouts, headquarters, and training facilities. This implies small, fast, stealthy ships to transport them in and out. And small launching platforms for a few helicopters.

Also, piracy is a growing problem along the Somali and Indoneasian coasts...so again, more small patrol craft are needed.

We need to think small, fast, stealthy and smart -- not big, blundering and hamhanded.
Beauseaccerce is offline


Old 07-27-2007, 09:39 AM   #12
herrdwq

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
470
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Agathon
What a waste of money, by a country still dreaming of past glories and playing at pretend-to-be-relevant.

Hilarious that they will be giving them these names.

The last HMS Queen Elizabeth missed the greatest naval battle of the first world war, a battle it was designed to fight, by being in dry dock IIRC.

The HMS Prince of Wales, was battered by the Bismarck, suffered multiple failures, and now rests off of the Malay coast courtesy of Japanese aircraft.

You'd thing that the stain of failure would have removed these names from contention. The Prince of Wales hit the Bismark and inficted serious damage
herrdwq is offline


Old 07-27-2007, 11:37 AM   #13
casinoboneerer

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
466
Senior Member
Default
I read RN as National Reserve ( )
casinoboneerer is offline


Old 07-27-2007, 06:43 PM   #14
levitratestimon

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
413
Senior Member
Default
Splitter!

-Arrian
levitratestimon is offline


Old 07-27-2007, 07:09 PM   #15
ultramDoctoo

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
461
Senior Member
Default
How about HMS Not Quite and HMS Short Stuff?

Really, these are no larger than our bigger amphibs, only they don't carry marines. I applaud a European nation condributing to the overall maritime force of the West, but if you going to build a carrier, build a damn carrier.

More to follow.
ultramDoctoo is offline


Old 07-27-2007, 07:15 PM   #16
popillio

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
497
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Patroklos
If you going to build a carrier, build a damn carrier. Considering much of the cost of a ship these days goes into electronic systems, the marginal cost of a large ship goes down considerably for each extra ton of displacement.

I was particularly appalled to read in Wiki (god knows how accurate that was though) that they were only going to be able to carry 36 fixed-wing aircraft. 65,000 tons of ship for 36 aircraft? That's insanely low: a Nimitz carrier can carry over 80 fixed-wing aircraft for its 100,000 tons.

Heck, even the Charles the Gaulle can carry 36 aircraft and it's only 40,000 tons.
popillio is offline


Old 07-27-2007, 07:25 PM   #17
FateHostera

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
564
Senior Member
Default
Originally posted by Dauphin
I liked it when they chose names like HMS Fury, HMS Revenge and HMS Scourge.

Even HMS Spanker was a better name. I suggest:
HMS Empress of India
HMS Thunderchild
FateHostera is offline


Old 07-27-2007, 08:04 PM   #18
CamVideoQl

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
459
Senior Member
Default
The USN's carriers are the centerpiece of American military power. But remember, Iraq has brocken our back, AMERICA IS DEFENSLESS!!!
CamVideoQl is offline


Old 07-27-2007, 08:07 PM   #19
Dastyh

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
361
Senior Member
Default
You missing my point, Lonestar.

While carriers were nice to have vs. the Soviet thread and in Desert Storm, those are past situations. I'm looking into the future. And while I'm sure we will need some carriers in the future, IMHO we won't need as many.

I haven crunched the numbers, but I'll be we could cut the number of our carriers by 2/3 and still whip the bejesus out of any other navy in the world.
Dastyh is offline


Old 07-27-2007, 08:29 PM   #20
Morageort

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
454
Senior Member
Default
Zkrib,

In Lonestar's defense, he did bring up future ops (such as a theoretical crisis in Indonesia).

Carriers do allow for fast, flexible power projection.

I think we have enough of them, though.

-Arrian
Morageort is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:30 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity