Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 4  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 »
Author Message
Dreadnaught
Post subject: Re: Ark Royal decomissioningPosted: November 7th, 2010, 8:56 pm
Offline
Posts: 71
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 6:17 am
Geez if the Royal Navy gets any smaller me and a couple of my buddies can cruise on over in a bass boat with a cooler full of beer and a couple of shotguns and set up a blockade. lol


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Mitchell van Os
Post subject: Re: Ark Royal decomissioningPosted: November 7th, 2010, 9:18 pm
Offline
Posts: 1056
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:19 pm
Where are the Ark Royal And Invincible right now?

_________________
Fryssian AU with Lt.Maverick 114
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9802&p=193331#p193331
[ img ]
Embarked on: HNLMS Karel Doorman A833
To do list:
-Zeven Provincien class cruiser
-Joint support ship all sides
-F124 Sachsen class frigate
-F125 Baden-Württemberg class frigate
-Clemencau class aircraft carrier
-Zeven provincien class frigate
-Poolster class AOR
-Amsterdam class AOR
-Minas Gerais aircraft carrier


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Finfan
Post subject: Re: Ark Royal decomissioningPosted: November 8th, 2010, 12:32 am
Offline
Posts: 64
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:32 pm
MitcheLL300 wrote:
Where are the Ark Royal And Invincible right now?
Portsmouth


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: Ark Royal decomissioningPosted: November 8th, 2010, 7:00 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
I thought my duck pond looked different :P


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
nebnoswal
Post subject: Re: Ark Royal decomissioningPosted: November 8th, 2010, 10:44 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 43
Joined: August 14th, 2010, 5:50 pm
Location: Down under
I'm surprised the Poms didn't try to flog the Invincible off to us again, 25 years after their 1st attempt :lol:

Maybe they could offer one of the flat-tops as the consolation prize for losing the ashes (cricket reference for those who don't follow the sport of leather and willow) this summer. By the time the RAN recieves their new LHD's, they will have more air capability than the RN! No wonder they have been poaching RN's ranks for specialists in flightdeck operations the past 18 months!

_________________
cheers
Ben of Oz


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Mitchell van Os
Post subject: Re: Ark Royal decomissioningPosted: November 8th, 2010, 3:52 pm
Offline
Posts: 1056
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:19 pm
Finfan wrote:
MitcheLL300 wrote:
Where are the Ark Royal And Invincible right now?
Portsmouth
Any pictures of them togheter? :roll:

_________________
Fryssian AU with Lt.Maverick 114
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9802&p=193331#p193331
[ img ]
Embarked on: HNLMS Karel Doorman A833
To do list:
-Zeven Provincien class cruiser
-Joint support ship all sides
-F124 Sachsen class frigate
-F125 Baden-Württemberg class frigate
-Clemencau class aircraft carrier
-Zeven provincien class frigate
-Poolster class AOR
-Amsterdam class AOR
-Minas Gerais aircraft carrier


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: Ark Royal decomissioningPosted: November 10th, 2010, 12:23 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
A letter to The Times has been published, from retired senior officers, including two from the R.N.; pointing out, that with the decommisoning of the Ark Royal, and the loss of the entire Harrier force (in favour of retaining the Tornado's) it is in effect giving an invitation to Argentina to again invade the Falkland/Malvinas: as the U.K. would not be able to retake the islands afterwards. It also means that for at least 10 years the R.N. will no longer have any fixed winged aircraft embarked.

I was listening to the BBC this morning (as I sat in the customary traffic jam on my way to work) Dr Liam Fox (Defence) was being interviewed on this matter. He made my day when he claimed that we would not need an aircraft carrier to launch any aircraft during any possible conflict over these islands; presumably the surviving Tornado's (and Typhoons) would be able reach there by 'overflying' or using landing rights. The only nations that could possibly offer landing rights (apart from Argentina :lol: ) would be Chile or Uruguay, if we are talking about a realistic radius of action; but somehow I don't think they would want to annoy their neighbour by doing so.

This sounds like another 'time-honoured' stich up by the RAF lobby, who, historically, have made some pretty ludicrous assertions about the effectiveness of shore-based air power in a maritime conflict at any distance from home. Like it or not, the only really sensible way to get aircraft to where a conflict is taking place in a maritime environment, for a nation like the U.K. is by a floating airfield - an aircraft carrier. But hey, lets not upset the RAF and the politicians

:roll:


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Demon Lord Razgriz
Post subject: Re: Ark Royal decomissioningPosted: November 10th, 2010, 2:32 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 446
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 1:18 am
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Maybe the RAF is counting on the US to do as they did during the Falkland Islands War, offer up a Carrier Battle Group to do the hard work while they do a token raid with a single bomber.

Fat chance of that happening again...

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Finfan
Post subject: Re: Ark Royal decomissioningPosted: November 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Offline
Posts: 64
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:32 pm
Portsmouth Bill wrote:
A letter to The Times has been published, from retired senior officers, including two from the R.N.; pointing out, that with the decommisoning of the Ark Royal, and the loss of the entire Harrier force (in favour of retaining the Tornado's) it is in effect giving an invitation to Argentina to again invade the Falkland/Malvinas: as the U.K. would not be able to retake the islands afterwards. It also means that for at least 10 years the R.N. will no longer have any fixed winged aircraft embarked.

I was listening to the BBC this morning (as I sat in the customary traffic jam on my way to work) Dr Liam Fox (Defence) was being interviewed on this matter. He made my day when he claimed that we would not need an aircraft carrier to launch any aircraft during any possible conflict over these islands; presumably the surviving Tornado's (and Typhoons) would be able reach there by 'overflying' or using landing rights. The only nations that could possibly offer landing rights (apart from Argentina :lol: ) would be Chile or Uruguay, if we are talking about a realistic radius of action; but somehow I don't think they would want to annoy their neighbour by doing so.

This sounds like another 'time-honoured' stich up by the RAF lobby, who, historically, have made some pretty ludicrous assertions about the effectiveness of shore-based air power in a maritime conflict at any distance from home. Like it or not, the only really sensible way to get aircraft to where a conflict is taking place in a maritime environment, for a nation like the U.K. is by a floating airfield - an aircraft carrier. But hey, lets not upset the RAF and the politicians

:roll:

Theres no chance of Argentina doing anything, and the UK would have to fly its aircraft in via Africa. Continued integration and the like-mindedness of the Latin American governments would not allow British flights during a war situation. Not that there would be a war because if you think the RN is in a bad state then the ARA is non-existant.

edit: the kelpers think its a bunch of bs aswell: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/1 ... fence-cuts


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: Ark Royal decomissioningPosted: November 10th, 2010, 5:05 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Quote:
Maybe the RAF is counting on the US to do as they did during the Falkland Islands War, offer up a Carrier Battle Group to do the hard work while they do a token raid with a single bomber.
What!! :? Er, is this another Yankee myth? Whereby they fought on both sides of the Franco Prussian war, and still won :lol: Sorry cobber, Its just that I've never heard this one before; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt ;)
Quote:
Theres no chance of Argentina doing anything, and the UK would have to fly its aircraft in via Africa. Continued integration and the like-mindedness of the Latin American governments would not allow British flights during a war situation. Not that there would be a war because if you think the RN is in a bad state then the ARA is non-existant.
I'm not so sure; at this rate of attrition, a small launch with a bow and arrow might soon outclass the the Brits :(


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 4  [ 34 posts ]  Return to “Off Topic” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]