Falklands/Malvinas
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Falklands/Malvinas
I note from today's Daily Telegraph that the Argentinians are stoking the "Malvinas" fires AGAIN!
Didn't take long for them to notice the demise of the Sea Harrier...... could even be the prelude from the book "Ghost Force".
I wonder what is going to happen next or will TB/GB just give it up?
Alwayz
Didn't take long for them to notice the demise of the Sea Harrier...... could even be the prelude from the book "Ghost Force".
I wonder what is going to happen next or will TB/GB just give it up?
Alwayz
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey! Hey! Hold on a mo!
Why drag Bush into this affair? It is sovreign British soil, a British concern, you think we always bungle anything we get involved with, its nothing to do with us Mate!
You did it on your own last time....carry on without us would you please. Your bunch in Iraq are getting ready to pull up stakes and fold their tents there....send home by way of the FI and sort out the Argies one more time will you.
Take all your carriers and cat launched aircraft and get on with it.
Now if you want a real deal on a Nimitz Class....wet lease deal...contract with us and we will be glad to take a cruise south for a bit.
Why drag Bush into this affair? It is sovreign British soil, a British concern, you think we always bungle anything we get involved with, its nothing to do with us Mate!
You did it on your own last time....carry on without us would you please. Your bunch in Iraq are getting ready to pull up stakes and fold their tents there....send home by way of the FI and sort out the Argies one more time will you.
Take all your carriers and cat launched aircraft and get on with it.
Now if you want a real deal on a Nimitz Class....wet lease deal...contract with us and we will be glad to take a cruise south for a bit.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless - ok I'll bite........
You will notice a distinct lack of 'w' between the 'G' & the 'B'. Whilst you may think the Brits always need to rely on you lot, I think in this case alwayzinit may well have been referring to the likely next 'president' of the United Kingdom rather than your man.....
I will of course stand corrected if required..............
You will notice a distinct lack of 'w' between the 'G' & the 'B'. Whilst you may think the Brits always need to rely on you lot, I think in this case alwayzinit may well have been referring to the likely next 'president' of the United Kingdom rather than your man.....
I will of course stand corrected if required..............
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Appartnly the Ark, on her last commission, sailed with all lower water tight hatches secured. To go below you had to get clearance from damage control to ensure that a limited number of hatches were open at one time.
My informant, at one point, opened up a hatch just above the water line to discover the compartment, and it was presummed correctly the 5 below, was filled with the wet stuff.
It seems a sea cock had sheered and they had to get a number of 12 inch pumps to pump it out enough to secure the leaking compartment.
The old Ark was rotting to pieces. Remember she was laid down in 1944 and not launched until about 1950-51.
She would have been great for a wet lease.
My informant, at one point, opened up a hatch just above the water line to discover the compartment, and it was presummed correctly the 5 below, was filled with the wet stuff.
It seems a sea cock had sheered and they had to get a number of 12 inch pumps to pump it out enough to secure the leaking compartment.
The old Ark was rotting to pieces. Remember she was laid down in 1944 and not launched until about 1950-51.
She would have been great for a wet lease.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Age: 57
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator
Appartnly the Ark, on her last commission, sailed with all lower water tight hatches secured. To go below you had to get clearance from damage control to ensure that a limited number of hatches were open at one time.
My informant, at one point, opened up a hatch just above the water line to discover the compartment, and it was presummed correctly the 5 below, was filled with the wet stuff.
It seems a sea cock had sheered and they had to get a number of 12 inch pumps to pump it out enough to secure the leaking compartment.
The old Ark was rotting to pieces. Remember she was laid down in 1944 and not launched until about 1950-51.
She would have been great for a wet lease.
My informant, at one point, opened up a hatch just above the water line to discover the compartment, and it was presummed correctly the 5 below, was filled with the wet stuff.
It seems a sea cock had sheered and they had to get a number of 12 inch pumps to pump it out enough to secure the leaking compartment.
The old Ark was rotting to pieces. Remember she was laid down in 1944 and not launched until about 1950-51.
She would have been great for a wet lease.
As regards flooding, don't want to worry you light blue chaps but we quite often open a compartment to be met with wet stuff - and not always below the waterline! Cross connections of magazine sprays is a fave...
Walts,
If that is correct....accept my most humble apology. I am so used to Georgie Boy getting blamed for everything from Gout to Tsunami's that am spring loaded to read that way out of habit.
Now as to the lease arrangement....take two and get one for half price for the first month and no interest accrues till 2008.
If that is correct....accept my most humble apology. I am so used to Georgie Boy getting blamed for everything from Gout to Tsunami's that am spring loaded to read that way out of habit.
Now as to the lease arrangement....take two and get one for half price for the first month and no interest accrues till 2008.
Suspicion breeds confidence
True, she sailed in condition Yankee and access to compartments below the waterline were controlled from the SCR on a tally basis, so that only a certain number fore and aft were ever open at once.
The present labour government will give them up; haven't you noticed how they hate our armed forces and will do anything to give them a 'slap in the face'? Armed forces cost money, money which Labour would much rather spend on more civil servants to boost their over inflated ego.
alwayzinit
Well done for mentioning the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier. As discussed at length here. Hopefully the ones sent down to SFDO at Culdrose will be looked after reasonably well - just in case, and to give dodgy regimes something to consider.
Well done for mentioning the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier. As discussed at length here. Hopefully the ones sent down to SFDO at Culdrose will be looked after reasonably well - just in case, and to give dodgy regimes something to consider.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator
Appartnly the Ark, on her last commission, sailed with all lower water tight hatches secured. To go below you had to get clearance from damage control to ensure that a limited number of hatches were open at one time.
My informant, at one point, opened up a hatch just above the water line to discover the compartment, and it was presummed correctly the 5 below, was filled with the wet stuff.
It seems a sea cock had sheered and they had to get a number of 12 inch pumps to pump it out enough to secure the leaking compartment.
The old Ark was rotting to pieces. Remember she was laid down in 1944 and not launched until about 1950-51.
She would have been great for a wet lease.
My informant, at one point, opened up a hatch just above the water line to discover the compartment, and it was presummed correctly the 5 below, was filled with the wet stuff.
It seems a sea cock had sheered and they had to get a number of 12 inch pumps to pump it out enough to secure the leaking compartment.
The old Ark was rotting to pieces. Remember she was laid down in 1944 and not launched until about 1950-51.
She would have been great for a wet lease.
Fairly drastic if it's rusting through after only 20-25 years...
