HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearing In Mind ...
... the endless posturing on this here site, and indeed throughout the English speaking media, wouldn't it be more appropriate to name the vessels
HMS Moaning
HMS Whinging
???
The JSF, should it ever materialise as something else as a support program for Lockheed-Martin and make it's way to front line service, could be called
Bitching
Thus establishing the -Ing class of Navy ships and Aeroplanes in one all-encompassing badging exercise.
Or is it just in public you lot bitch, whinge and moan?
HMS Moaning
HMS Whinging
???
The JSF, should it ever materialise as something else as a support program for Lockheed-Martin and make it's way to front line service, could be called
Bitching
Thus establishing the -Ing class of Navy ships and Aeroplanes in one all-encompassing badging exercise.
Or is it just in public you lot bitch, whinge and moan?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Good news
It looks like new carrier are on their way which is excellent news for the armed services. One dividend of the carrier force is that it will allow the elimination duplicate aircraft types in the RAF saving huge amounts of money for the tax payer. A reduced order for the Typhoon for UK air defence and hopefully an increased order for the F35 for mud moving and fleet air defence.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When they invent the unsinkable aircraft carrier is the time to invest in these outdated methods of waging limited war:
The logistic trail with its vulnerabilities are well documented.
The lose of one of these beasts to an asymmetric threat:
USS Cole – Boat full of chaps with a few pounds of explosives
HMS Nottingham – Boat full of chaps without a few pounds of common sense and a map. And a brief from their captain specifically not to bump into things!
Mines.
Etc etc.
Just think of the consequence of losing one of these things:
Lose of life.
The whole of the air wing.
Prestige. (Especially if named QE2 or PoW).
The drain on the Defence Budget is going to be massive for little gain.
How about HMS Marham/ HMS Kinloss/ HMS Leeming
Just to remind people of places where real capability exists.
The logistic trail with its vulnerabilities are well documented.
The lose of one of these beasts to an asymmetric threat:
USS Cole – Boat full of chaps with a few pounds of explosives
HMS Nottingham – Boat full of chaps without a few pounds of common sense and a map. And a brief from their captain specifically not to bump into things!
Mines.
Etc etc.
Just think of the consequence of losing one of these things:
Lose of life.
The whole of the air wing.
Prestige. (Especially if named QE2 or PoW).
The drain on the Defence Budget is going to be massive for little gain.
How about HMS Marham/ HMS Kinloss/ HMS Leeming
Just to remind people of places where real capability exists.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not just bin the Carriers and spend the money on large numbers of shares in the Marriot, Hilton and Holiday Inn hotel chains then our light blue bretheren will always have confirmed places to stay in host nations adjacent to the battlefield? 
Oggin
Oggin
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...an increased order for the F35 for mud-moving and fleet air defence".
It will not move much mud and there will be nothing for it to defend the fleet against. Waste of money!
It will not move much mud and there will be nothing for it to defend the fleet against. Waste of money!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Area 51
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To really secure the popular vote they should of course have opted for HMS Posh and HMS Becks.
That said I share the concern that these ships will simply be too vulnerable. With the US having withdrawn it's more potent carriers from ops in littoral waters due to the vulnerability to attack from small fast boats or shore based missile batteries, one wonders whether more tomahawks SLCMs would be appropriate.
That said I share the concern that these ships will simply be too vulnerable. With the US having withdrawn it's more potent carriers from ops in littoral waters due to the vulnerability to attack from small fast boats or shore based missile batteries, one wonders whether more tomahawks SLCMs would be appropriate.
Guest
Posts: n/a
