Who went ashore for a liquid lunch?

[Beneteau381]

If I told you they had all just been through a 300m refit programme would you be disappointed? Still at least the USMC were delighted to buy them.

Cheap as well!

 

[capnsensible]

It was all about money (of course).

The program HMG embarked upon of building the two huge white elephant aircraft carriers left the RN with no fixed wing capability since 2006 until the F35Bs become fully operational on HMS Queen Elizabeth.

The Harriers may have been a bit long in the tooth, but as Pete 7 points out, they had just been expensively refitted, and surely would have been better than nothing ?

That roll of the dice came off didnt it.

Some people may think 'white elephant'. Governments of course think of them as a critical part of the defence of the UK for the next 50 years.

But whatever, I was poking at the 737.

 

[Frogmogman]

But whatever, I was poking at the 737.

LOL. That went straight over my head.

 

[prv]

Hiya Slowboat. Get your point about tiedowns.....looks a bit carelesss. But arent nearly all superyachts configured like that for a helicopter landing area?

Superyachts can be a lot more picky than warships about their flying conditions, and probably rarely want to launch and recover under way anyway. So nothing wrong with putting the pad up there, but definitely a major cockup to have forgotten the tie-downs.

Pete

 

[PilotWolf]

Superyachts can be a lot more picky than warships about their flying conditions, and probably rarely want to launch and recover under way anyway. So nothing wrong with putting the pad up there, but definitely a major cockup to have forgotten the tie-downs.

Pete

Did they forget the tie downs or was it a landing accident?

If you have a link to
the investigation I’d be really grateful for it as a Helicopter pilot.

W.

 

[Skeffles]

That roll of the dice came off didnt it.

Some people may think 'white elephant'. Governments of course think of them as a critical part of the defence of the UK for the next 50 years.

There are two types of naval ships in current use, submarines and targets.

We're on the verge of having remote operated unmanned drones with global ranges, so putting expensive manned aircraft with people in them on massive floating targets which would all get sunk within the first few minutes of any truly global conflict by submarines, seems a little foolish.

They aren't even the worst waste, the government smashed to bits brand new Nimrod interception and reconnaissance aircraft which had never even flown, as part of their restructuring. Not even an attempt to either mothball or resell them. That was a criminal waste of money, then, if memory serves, had to pay more money to buy new aircraft with the same equipment from the Americans.

 

[capnsensible]

There are two types of naval ships in current use, submarines and targets.

We're on the verge of having remote operated unmanned drones with global ranges, so putting expensive manned aircraft with people in them on massive floating targets which would all get sunk within the first few minutes of any truly global conflict by submarines, seems a little foolish.

They aren't even the worst waste, the government smashed to bits brand new Nimrod interception and reconnaissance aircraft which had never even flown, as part of their restructuring. Not even an attempt to either mothball or resell them. That was a criminal waste of money, then, if memory serves, had to pay more money to buy new aircraft with the same equipment from the Americans.

Do you know that part of the Carrier Strike Group will include an SSN to counter the opposition submarine threat? Manned by professional, cool and debonair crew with a touch of pirate and Golden Dolphins on their chests?

Its unlikely that the carrier at the heart of such a group will be sunk within minutes.

The Nimrod, like the Harrier and the 737 belong to a byegone age. Clunkers.



Giant Carriers are Symbols of Our National Power - Rebuttal of Sir Max Hastings Times Article