Shipbucket

Geez if the Royal Navy gets any smaller me and a couple of my buddies can cruise on over in a bass boat with a cooler full of beer and a couple of shotguns and set up a blockade. lol

Where are the Ark Royal And Invincible right now?

MitcheLL300 wrote:Where are the Ark Royal And Invincible right now?

Portsmouth

I thought my duck pond looked different

I'm surprised the Poms didn't try to flog the Invincible off to us again, 25 years after their 1st attempt

Maybe they could offer one of the flat-tops as the consolation prize for losing the ashes (cricket reference for those who don't follow the sport of leather and willow) this summer. By the time the RAN recieves their new LHD's, they will have more air capability than the RN! No wonder they have been poaching RN's ranks for specialists in flightdeck operations the past 18 months!

Finfan wrote:

MitcheLL300 wrote:Where are the Ark Royal And Invincible right now?

Portsmouth

Any pictures of them togheter?

A letter to The Times has been published, from retired senior officers, including two from the R.N.; pointing out, that with the decommisoning of the Ark Royal, and the loss of the entire Harrier force (in favour of retaining the Tornado's) it is in effect giving an invitation to Argentina to again invade the Falkland/Malvinas: as the U.K. would not be able to retake the islands afterwards. It also means that for at least 10 years the R.N. will no longer have any fixed winged aircraft embarked.

I was listening to the BBC this morning (as I sat in the customary traffic jam on my way to work) Dr Liam Fox (Defence) was being interviewed on this matter. He made my day when he claimed that we would not need an aircraft carrier to launch any aircraft during any possible conflict over these islands; presumably the surviving Tornado's (and Typhoons) would be able reach there by 'overflying' or using landing rights. The only nations that could possibly offer landing rights (apart from Argentina ) would be Chile or Uruguay, if we are talking about a realistic radius of action; but somehow I don't think they would want to annoy their neighbour by doing so.

This sounds like another 'time-honoured' stich up by the RAF lobby, who, historically, have made some pretty ludicrous assertions about the effectiveness of shore-based air power in a maritime conflict at any distance from home. Like it or not, the only really sensible way to get aircraft to where a conflict is taking place in a maritime environment, for a nation like the U.K. is by a floating airfield - an aircraft carrier. But hey, lets not upset the RAF and the politicians

Maybe the RAF is counting on the US to do as they did during the Falkland Islands War, offer up a Carrier Battle Group to do the hard work while they do a token raid with a single bomber.

Fat chance of that happening again...

Portsmouth Bill wrote:A letter to The Times has been published, from retired senior officers, including two from the R.N.; pointing out, that with the decommisoning of the Ark Royal, and the loss of the entire Harrier force (in favour of retaining the Tornado's) it is in effect giving an invitation to Argentina to again invade the Falkland/Malvinas: as the U.K. would not be able to retake the islands afterwards. It also means that for at least 10 years the R.N. will no longer have any fixed winged aircraft embarked.

I was listening to the BBC this morning (as I sat in the customary traffic jam on my way to work) Dr Liam Fox (Defence) was being interviewed on this matter. He made my day when he claimed that we would not need an aircraft carrier to launch any aircraft during any possible conflict over these islands; presumably the surviving Tornado's (and Typhoons) would be able reach there by 'overflying' or using landing rights. The only nations that could possibly offer landing rights (apart from Argentina ) would be Chile or Uruguay, if we are talking about a realistic radius of action; but somehow I don't think they would want to annoy their neighbour by doing so.

This sounds like another 'time-honoured' stich up by the RAF lobby, who, historically, have made some pretty ludicrous assertions about the effectiveness of shore-based air power in a maritime conflict at any distance from home. Like it or not, the only really sensible way to get aircraft to where a conflict is taking place in a maritime environment, for a nation like the U.K. is by a floating airfield - an aircraft carrier. But hey, lets not upset the RAF and the politicians

Theres no chance of Argentina doing anything, and the UK would have to fly its aircraft in via Africa. Continued integration and the like-mindedness of the Latin American governments would not allow British flights during a war situation. Not that there would be a war because if you think the RN is in a bad state then the ARA is non-existant.

edit: the kelpers think its a bunch of bs aswell: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/1 ... fence-cuts

Maybe the RAF is counting on the US to do as they did during the Falkland Islands War, offer up a Carrier Battle Group to do the hard work while they do a token raid with a single bomber.

What!! Er, is this another Yankee myth? Whereby they fought on both sides of the Franco Prussian war, and still won Sorry cobber, Its just that I've never heard this one before; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt

Theres no chance of Argentina doing anything, and the UK would have to fly its aircraft in via Africa. Continued integration and the like-mindedness of the Latin American governments would not allow British flights during a war situation. Not that there would be a war because if you think the RN is in a bad state then the ARA is non-existant.

I'm not so sure; at this rate of attrition, a small launch with a bow and arrow might soon outclass the the Brits