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: 38
0
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

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]


You should have learned through the last 37 useless, argie propoganda ridden pages that that simply is not the case here and yet again the UK is involved in a dastardly cover up to make the decent, law abiding countries out there, look bad.

The money saved by not having the extra defensive measures will be syphoned off to build two replacement carriers in secret. The contract has been won by a little known boatbuilder, Mr B O'Llocks. His shipyard, located in a small tributary of the river Avon is well concealed from the locals who might let the secret out ! Up till now he has mainly been known for building small pleasure cruisers and even the odd sailing boat, but he feels confident that he can get the order completed in no time at all. The main workforce will be comprised largely of well trained squirrells, who are remarkably manually adept, though Mr B O'Llocks has assured the MOD that security will be maintained by blindfolding each squirrell before its shift starts.

Thus, if ever one of our carriers should befall any disaster, it will be quite a simple premise to throw a tarp and a few branches over one of the carriers and float it out to sea without attracting too much attention. We can then roll out the two squadrons of naval fighter bombers that have been secretly training (in hang gliders to avoid attracting attention by noise), fly them out there and bang, nobody will be any the wiser ! Oh, the only thing that we have to do to complete this masterful bit of Naval Trickery is to evacuate the entire ships complement over to another carrier which will conveniently be in the near vicinity, before the 1st carrier is hit, but hey, thats what we have early warning radar and satellites for isnt it, and we've managed it before havent we!?




posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Well they must be distributing different parts to be built in different areas, although this does not surprise me! I received a letter from the MOD stating a name of a place that was in the offing for it, but clearly they have made their mind up! perhaps the bulk of the carriers, keel etc!!! are being built at these places with some parts being made at other shipyards! but it wouldn't be the first time they have said one thing and mean't another.

L



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
BAE could have! wonder which yard they are using >>>>
I know that we have no contract as yet ?????
But then again, there was a mention of some parts being made at this BAE systems, so will wait and see what happens.

L



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF)
Following a requirement stated in the Strategic Defence Review for a new larger class of aircraft carrier, as a replacement for the three existing Invincible class ships, the CVF was conceived.

In January 2003, the Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon announced that the Royal Navy's new generation of aircraft carriers will be designed and built by an alliance between the Ministry of Defence and BAE Systems/Thales UK.

The two vessels, will be the largest and most powerful surface warships ever built in the UK. The reduction in hull numbers is to be achieved through modern build and support techniques, which will dispense with the need for long refit periods and will allow required availability to be achieved from only 2 hulls.

CVF will be a Joint Defence Asset, and will focus specifically on Joint Force 2000 enabling operations from forces of all 3 services to contribute to sea, land and air battles. Lessons learnt from the successful build and early operating experience of HMS Ocean will be incorporated in the CVF programme.

The ships will be designed and built entirely in the United Kingdom, with shipyards at Babcock BES at Rosyth in Scotland, BAE Systems on the Clyde, Swan Hunter in the North East and Vosper Thorneycroft at Portsmouth potentially playing key roles, creating or sustaining around 10,000 jobs in the United Kingdom.

This makes me wonder why they mentioned BAE Systems Barrow in their letter and they did, when it appears that the above information was the case prior to their letter. At least they are being built in this Country! instead of abroad, which are still some of the rumours going around, to which I argued with, stating well at least I had heard that they were being built in the UK.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
The VT building in Portsmouth Docks where they are currently building sections of the type45s is massive its built over a dry dock which was filled in from shingle througha huge pipe from Portsmouth harbour, i believe this is where the sections of the aircraft carrier will be built in the future. This building certainly dominates the skyline when you drive into Portsmouth



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

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]



Not think, they SUNK it.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mojouk
The VT building in Portsmouth Docks where they are currently building sections of the type45s is massive its built over a dry dock which was filled in from shingle througha huge pipe from Portsmouth harbour, i believe this is where the sections of the aircraft carrier will be built in the future. This building certainly dominates the skyline when you drive into Portsmouth

is a cancelled program.... UK know which not is a good option.
the fear to lost a supercarrier is present in your minds.
some argentinian general can play to sunk your newest carrier.


[edit on 26-9-2005 by 55heroes]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezza
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................



Lat. 51º 42' S, Long. 55º 30' W

Go for it!!




posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Ohh my good, other photo of the return of the "clean clon"

In low, very very very low resolution?

Why?





posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
It will be so that phalanx in prow is not seen this?




Is very easy!!
Zooming this historical (low resolution too) photo of the return of the Clean Clon




posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I'd like to note that sinking a ship of that size and that modern construction with a 4 "50-5000 l.b" bombs, as I screened the claims and a anti ship missile seem difficult to believe. The missile would have to have struck some incrediby vital area if it could at all sink it, neither would free fall munitions damage the actual structure of the ship, even if they somehow penetrated into the internal areas. There isnt enough firepower cited to SINK a ship that big. Destroying a ship does not mean sinking it, and it takes ridiculuously large amounts of shells and missiles to sink capital ships, where as the idea is usually to destroy the superstructure on top or wreck the flight deck, making it useless, but not sinking it outright.

The ones arguing that it was sunk have not cited where the firepower to sink it came from, unless you suggest tghat it was hit by 4 5000 lb. bombs, which would require one hell of a strike aircraft to carry and delivier with any accuracy a monster munition like that.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I have the similar photo but in hi res on the cover of a book. Its clearly showing no phalanx.

Jeez give it a rest will you.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Ok Jim. I am waiting for your photo...and i am waiting for the member of the Invincible´s crew, too.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arkantos

Originally posted by Jezza
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................



Lat. 51º 42' S, Long. 55º 30' W

Go for it!!



i see 55s alt personalty is back, if the lat and long is known why has noone dived down there or sent a robotic sub down to find the wreck



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
It will be so that phalanx in prow is not seen this?




Is very easy!!
Zooming this historical (low resolution too) photo of the return of the Clean Clon



As we have said (many times before) that bit you circled is the Sea Dart. The Phalanx is (will be) positioned at the bow. It is not in that picture.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
is a cancelled program.... UK know which not is a good option.
the fear to lost a supercarrier is present in your minds.
some argentinian general can play to sunk your newest carrier


Does anyone understand what 55 has written above because i havent got a clue



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Stumason, you need eyeglasses urgent !!

This is a Phalanx, in the prow of the clean clon.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
"WTF did he just say...?"
Someone is speaking broken english, and its not the British....



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
why is the so called "" phalanx grey then i always thought it was white


and 55 why do you not answer me in the u2u and why do you not answer my question???





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join