Just 2 Carriers

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I remember hearing this but the UK couldn't operate something like that because it would need a lot of people which we don't have




posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   
thats probably why they refused the offer



posted on Jun, 14 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by minimi
We need at least 3 carriers, so there can be at least 2 operational at all times.

BTW-to get the money for the 15, lets sell the Falklands - what kinda cash do you think we could get for them.

And in the best navy debate - Royal Marines. SBS.
Case Closed.

Sorry a bit off discussion but had to correct minimi.....
I can tell you why we dont sell the Falklands...one of the reasons we fought so damn hard for it in the first place is that it is laden we oil (far more valuable than selling the land) Why do you think the Argintinans wanted it back the land was only a simple answer they wanted the wealth of the oil simple as that. Whats the point in having our carrers thoulgh is Tony blair (A joke in my view) is going to appease everyone in Europe give up gibralta (We know it will happen) just so he can get chumie we the spanards......Give us up to the germans and french for a European supper state which will fail due to country differences and french and german anbishion to rule the whole thing....Just cause they spend more money on it than the rest of us they should get more voting rights what ever happened to democrocy..........it simple power over a country they are looking for and Tony Blair out to be rembmered in the histroy book and in my view for the wrong reasons why give up our military tax and law to the corrupt European goverment......Say good bye to our diplomatic and military support with America.

What happened to America they act the Emperial power when after they liberated them self from the british they acted for the soventry of each nation now they want the nations in there control (Oil Oil Oil is all te Americans care for)

If America didnt act such a fool in the middle east it wouldnt have these poblems it back peace plans there but backs isreals war antics its like walking in a circle to kick your own ass.

And to freemasons why we give up our Empiror well America asked us to do it during the war for there support so get off your horse and learn to work within one world for one goal.

(sorry for the spelling been up for 24 hours last night after being at the red hot chilli peppers gig in edinburgh and now up till 3 tonight im off to bed and see this tomo to see the slagging i will probably get for speaking my mind)



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   
2 carriers omg what has happened to ur navy ur government need a slap in the face englands proud symbol was their navy now u guys are going to build just 2 carriers

And uhh how do u put a picture in ur logo thing u kno the thing on the left side of the screen.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
2 carriers omg what has happened to ur navy ur government need a slap in the face englands proud symbol was their navy now u guys are going to build just 2 carriers

And uhh how do u put a picture in ur logo thing u kno the thing on the left side of the screen.


Did you know that UK has only 2 carriers now too?

These will be more advanced and for a small island as UK that is enough.

Out,
Russian



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
2 carriers omg what has happened to ur navy ur government need a slap in the face englands proud symbol was their navy now u guys are going to build just 2 carriers

And uhh how do u put a picture in ur logo thing u kno the thing on the left side of the screen.


A. who needs quantity when u have the best.
B. WE ARE NOT ENGLISH look up your bloody atlas and look in large letters across the island it says "UNITED KINGDOM". and that a racist remark 2 but look ill not rave and rant away just please dont call us enlgish.
C. our navy is still good and will always be no matter how many ships they have.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   
First of all that was not a racist remark and u call the new carriers the best they hold about 40-50 aircrafts when the us carriers hold 85+ aircrafts and its 2 carriers VS. 15+



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   
You need to compare the old to the new.Currantly Invincible class carrier has a crew of 650 20,600 ton displacment and 6 sea harriers aircraft.The new carrier will have a crew of 1000 40,000 ton disblacement and carry 50 aircraft.We are only keeping two carries but when you look at the maths we are increasing capacity by some 70%.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
First of all that was not a racist remark and u call the new carriers the best they hold about 40-50 aircrafts when the us carriers hold 85+ aircrafts and its 2 carriers VS. 15+

it is a racist remark and i know u didnt mean it but it is
also i didnt say our carriers were the best i said our navy was the best wich isnt all about the tech
what use is a carrier that can hold 85+ aircraft if ur crews are slow secodnly a small carrier is more effective than a large 1



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Of course the 2 medium UK carriers are not comparable to the dozen US Nimitz class ships (plus many marine Wasp and Tarawa class ships that could be compared to the todays UK carriers), but how many other countries have carriers able to operate normal aircrafts (not VTOL)? Maybe just french Chrles de Gaulle and russian Kuznetzov (and it can carry only 24 Sukhois).
It looks like the UK will have the second best Navy after US (with new destroyers and subs of course). So I think it is good for them if you realize, that many countries have bigger economy. And the two carriers could operate together with the US or other EU coutries against more powerfull.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by minority2000uk
Sorry a bit off discussion but had to correct minimi.....
I can tell you why we dont sell the Falklands...one of the reasons we fought so damn hard for it in the first place is that it is laden we oil (far mind)


Damn, why is that seemingly erased from history. Not mentioned on one tv documentary about the campaign, when there were loads about 2 years ago. Sell them once the reserves are completely depleted them.

And keep gibraltar - at any cost. We need to control shipping.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weirdo
We are only keeping two carries but when you look at the maths we are increasing capacity by some 70%.


Yeah but the point is there is a limit to how low a number of carriers you should have. We need to be able to have enough on standby and what if one got sunk. That would be half the carrier force and it'd take years to build another.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   
what would u rather have people a small well trained force or a large lumbering in capaple force
and i have 2 say this but most cbg's are quite poorly gaurded one 1000 torpedo with a nuke on the end wil say bye bye to ur carrier
hell just a normal 1 hitting the prob would wreck the shaft and thats the boat outa comision for a while at least
a VTOL aircraft i must say are better than conventinal. cause they can stop causeing the enemy 2 over shot the target and get a stinger up his ass
besides the US navy CBG are just a magnet for attention.



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by WestPoint23
First of all that was not a racist remark and u call the new carriers the best they hold about 40-50 aircrafts when the us carriers hold 85+ aircrafts and its 2 carriers VS. 15+

it is a racist remark and i know u didnt mean it but it is
also i didnt say our carriers were the best i said our navy was the best wich isnt all about the tech
what use is a carrier that can hold 85+ aircraft if ur crews are slow secodnly a small carrier is more effective than a large 1






What do u mean our crews are slow and how is a small carrier better than a nimitz class carrier ?
And for the other member who said their new carriers will have 1000 men big deal the us carriers hold up to 5000
:



posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 11:57 PM
link   
More men in a carrier is a bad thing, that's more money spent.
I think that for the U.K. 2 carriers is ideal as it allows reasonable force projection through the area that directly concerns them North sea and North Atlantic. Everything else is just a colony and is correspondingly less important. Given that the U.K. won't ever be able to beat the U.S. in naval power keeping things 2ed best is not bad at all, especially when they have one of if not the best trained Navy in the world.


E_T

posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
a VTOL aircraft i must say are better than conventinal. cause they can stop causeing the enemy 2 over shot the target and get a stinger up his ass
besides the US navy CBG are just a magnet for attention.

Sorry to drop you back to ground but in a time that you use for slowing speed you're sitting duck.
Especially for missiles like this: (watch that video)
www.raytheon.com...

And every carrier is "bomb magnet", because it threatens enemy and that makes it primary target.
Other difference between small carriers and big carriers is that with small carriers you'll have to have lot escort ships for air defense, otherwise you might have to use all fighters for defending it against attack. (instead of using them to project force)
With big carriers you can use 20, 30 or 40 fighters for defending it and still have available fighters which to use to attack enemy targets.
Against countries wich have very small air forces/only couple aircrafts smaller carriers would work but against country that has real air forces it's entirely diffrent case.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
and i have 2 say this but most cbg's are quite poorly gaurded one 1000 torpedo with a nuke on the end wil say bye bye to ur carrier


Is that how much they cost then?


[edit on 16/6/04 by Hyperen]



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 08:37 AM
link   
to some ppl bitching at us British being a less army than other countrys LOL, do other countrys building next gen Nuclear weps ie micro nuclear warheads, have elctric armour for tanks ie force fields, we also have new next gen SUBs being built along with the carriers, pff we British can pff most countrys off the planet with nuclear weps an secret weps we have would be far superior to france or Germany may i say WW2 we an usa got most nazi scientists and technology go figure France didnt get any an Germany deff didnt.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 08:41 AM
link   
well also i forgot the nuclear missile defence systemwe are getting from USA too, and lasers, as for that torpedo with nuke on it BYE BYE zap zap laser boom bye sub that shot it.. along with any other enemy vessels.



posted on Jun, 16 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Hyperen.

I will keep saying it that we have NATO and UN to back us up.There is no threat that would require Britain to deploy large carrier fleet.America ideology is to go big and intimidate.Would this work for Britain no cause it hasn`t stopped America from being attacked.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join