It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HMS Invincible sunk in 1982

page: 37
0
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
We are waiting for the member of the Invincible´s crew...


Just so you know, it would appear I e-mailed a forum Moderator for an answer and he has posted a new thread on

Comrades and Colleagues

I shall be watching it for a reply




posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
Yes, Mister Mojouk, you will sell teh New Invincible in 2010 to scrap in Alang India.

Here they can see our veteran carrier of the second war, the second Colossus class of the ARA, similar to the Centaur (ej Hermes) but without armored blinded protection.
It entered and it anchored without but the problem in Puerto Argentino / Port Stanley.
Which is the cause do not exist by which photos of the Vince , the Lusty or of both, in Stanley??






Yes, but where was it while the taskforce sailed south?

So much for the glorious Argentine navy.

We had a Colossus, too. Two, in fact, the Sydney and the Melbourne. And both saw more hazardous service than yours ever did.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   
[edit on 26-9-2005 by Red Rose]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojouk
she will be Indias in 2010 when we sell her to them

Mojouk!
Do you know this information for definite then!!! where did you hear that she will be being sold to India!
Is it due to the articles that have been saying this ?????

just wondering ?????



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:00 AM
link   
My word this nonsence has rumbled on for quite a while now. Very entertaining but surly its about time it was put to bed. I hope someone from the forum Stu mentioned gets back and finally puts a stop to this nonsence.
It all really just sounds like sour grape on the Argie side to be honest. Losing to a smaller, less well equipped ( but superbly trained ) armed force on your own doorstep must really stick in the old craw.
But perhaps its time to put away childish things 55Heros and see the stark reallity. We kicked your arse in your own back yard and you really need to stop grasping at straws to try and salvage some face. The Argentine Armed Forces ( especially the Airforce ) fought bravely but ultimatly lost the conflict, no amount of fairy stories will change that.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   
said In the portsmouth evening news that in 2010 Invincible will be bought off by the Royal navy then sold to India have read somewhere else that argentina might be interested
that would be ironic also heard it might used as spare parts for the Illustrous and Ark Royal. Cant wait for the appearence of the two new aircraft carriers should be a fine sight in Portsmouth naval base

[edit on 26-9-2005 by mojouk]

[edit on 26-9-2005 by mojouk]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   
I was speaking to the MOD last Tuesday on the phone! and they told me, that they have not yet decided what is happening with HMS Invincible as yet. There are a few theories running around on this one. There is one article that says they are selling her as soon as 2006 (to which I replied, I certainly hope not) there is a whole lot of discussion going on about this.
There have been other ideas for the Invincible and I am having a trip to discuss this. Everywhere on the Internet, there are different articles and it appears that none ot them at this moment in time, really confirm the truth.

L



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojouk
said In the portsmouth evening news that in 2010 Invincible will be bought off by the Royal navy then sold to India have read somewhere else that argentina might be interested
that would be ironic


Irony indeed, strange how to world turns isnt it? But then the Agentines would have a hard time launching Fighters from a Ship that apparently is rusting away at the bottom of the South Atlantic eh?



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Argentina mentioned aswell! yes very ironic



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   
anyway i think we should look to the future with the new carriers, if argentina did try anything again we could really cause some real damage to their airbases etc



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojouk
anyway i think we should look to the future with the new carriers, if argentina did try anything again we could really cause some real damage to their airbases etc


We should have taken out the Argentine coastal Bases the first time, and saved ourselves a lot of trouble and lost lives.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
there was a supposedly an SAS mission to fly to an argie main airbase in a c130 land it on the runway and destroy all aircraft and kill all personal on the base would have involved a full squadron but was rejected as would have been a suicide mission.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojouk
there was a supposedly an SAS mission to fly to an argie main airbase in a c130 land it on the runway and destroy all aircraft and kill all personal on the base would have involved a full squadron but was rejected as would have been a suicide mission.


Yeah i remeber that one, i think they got as far as sending a small recon group in but they got rumbled i think and had to bail out of the mission. I always favoured the Vulcan option myself. We had Vulcans on Asention that could have done the job with refuling stops there and back.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   
do you mean the helicopter which crashed and the crew and passengers escaped to chile. Think that mission was for the task force to have real time threat warnings of argentine aircraft taking off from the air base, an sas team would covertly watch the base and report back.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by mojouk]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojouk
do you mean the helicopter which crashed and the crew and passengers escaped to chile. Think that mission was for the task force to have real time threat warnings of argentine aircraft taking off from the air base, an sas team would covertly watch the base and report back.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by mojouk]



Thats the one, my bad i thought they had been sent as an advance party to check the feasability of an attack on the main airfield.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Well yes, it does appear a little "dizzy=ness" from Argentina, if they have supposedly bid for the Invincible, seen as though they were supposed to of sunk it !!! perhaps 55 has never heard that they are interested

other than this, it has been rumoured that Vinci could be used for a museum and not sold. The Ship is supposed to be in a High State of readiness for the next 18 months! but I beg to differ on that one. The cost of the Iraq war is phenomenal and these new carriers aren't expected to be ready until 2012, and so far, nobody knows for sure who has the order. Seen as though, it took 7 years total to build the Invincible (including sea trials etc) they better get a move on, hence the fact, they are going to be bigger than the "though-deck" cruiser class.

L



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   
thought it said on the MOD website that BAE and THALES were the two main prinicpal contractors for the future aircraft carrier project quess the MOD site must have been mistaken



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by vinciR05
Well yes, it does appear a little "dizzy=ness" from Argentina, if they have supposedly bid for the Invincible, seen as though they were supposed to of sunk it !!! perhaps 55 has never heard that they are interested

other than this, it has been rumoured that Vinci could be used for a museum and not sold. The Ship is supposed to be in a High State of readiness for the next 18 months! but I beg to differ on that one. The cost of the Iraq war is phenomenal and these new carriers aren't expected to be ready until 2012, and so far, nobody knows for sure who has the order. Seen as though, it took 7 years total to build the Invincible (including sea trials etc) they better get a move on, hence the fact, they are going to be bigger than the "though-deck" cruiser class.

L


Official info seems to indicate that the Carriers have been ordered and at the very least they have a contractor in place, plus they know where they are building them:




The CVF Integrated Project Team is managing the procurement programme on behalf of the Ministry of Defence Procurement Executive.

In January 2003 the Ministry of Defence announced that the preferred prime contractor for the UK Future Aircraft Carrier is BAE Systems with Thales UK as the key supplier. The industrial partnership between BAE Systems and Thales UK is known as the Future Carrier Alliance. In February 2005, Kellogg, Brown & Root UK (KBR) was appointed as preferred "Physical Integrator" for the project and is responsible for developing the optimum manufacturing strategy. The carriers will be constructed at a number of different yards with a final integration site.

The Alliance is scheduled to submit a fully costed bid for the demonstration and manufacturing phase of the program by the end of the Assessment Phase in 2005, prior to a Main Gate decision and subsequent contract award by the Ministry of Defence.

The major contractors include BAE Systems - prime contractor; Thales Naval Ltd - key supplier; BAE Systems Insyte (formerly Alenia Marconi Systems) - C4IS; BMT Defence Systems - naval architecture; EDS - systems integration, fleet support, through life support; Lockheed Martin - programme management and engineering; QinetiQ - computer modelling and simulation, technology, test and evaluation; Rolls Royce - propulsion, life support; Strachan & Henshaw - waste management, munitions handling; Swan Hunter - construction; VT Group - naval architecture, construction, through life support.

The Maritime Group at QinetiQ have developed a suite of advanced modelling and simulation programs which are being used by the QinetiQ and DPA teams with BAE Systems and the major contractors to characterise the hull, flight deck, hangar deck, internal carrier design and other features.

Source





Lets see the Argies claim they sank one of these!

Although this bothered me.......



A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the design in order to comply with cost limitations.


Seems money always comes before lives. But then, the Type 45 should be able to counter most missile threats, along with any CIWS the Carrier has, but why take the risk?

[edit on 26/9/05 by stumason]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   
If it was sunk well where is the proof.

Lets have the co-ordinates of the sinking and send a salvage team
to send a mini sub to take pictures.......pure and simple.

They found the titanic................



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   
guess the money always has to be a factor be nice to have the best of everything, but i guess if you put more money into one project you have to take it from another one. Anyhow i think you are right when you say that the type 45s will defend the carriers well. The frigates and destroyers defended the carriers in 82 very well with no carriers hit as we all know


[edit on 26-9-2005 by mojouk]




top topics



 
0
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join