• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped ASAP"

Collapse

  • Moscow Mule
    replied
    Originally posted by SupremeSpod View Post
    What about the weevils? They're a bastard when they're in yer biscuits! Although any extra protein is a bonus.
    Given the choice, would you pick a larger or smaller weevil?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mich the Tester
    replied
    Originally posted by SupremeSpod View Post
    any extra protein is a bonus.
    A man who sticks his tongue out when saying that in a naval context can raise suspicions.

    Leave a comment:


  • SupremeSpod
    replied
    Originally posted by zeitghost
    We had real problems with shipworm on that one, I can tell you.
    What about the weevils? They're a bastard when they're in yer biscuits! Although any extra protein is a bonus.

    Leave a comment:


  • PRC1964
    replied
    Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
    I know; while the Frogs are on strike, which seems to be every day other than a random, unannounced rainy tuesday afternoon in february, why not nip in, nick a couple of their ships and bring them back to the UK?

    OK, the manuals will be in French, but I'm sure we can figure out a way round that.

    Henry the Fifth would have managed it!
    It's a good idea, but it would never work. They sail on the other side over there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mich the Tester
    replied
    I know; while the Frogs are on strike, which seems to be every day other than a random, unannounced rainy tuesday afternoon in february, why not nip in, nick a couple of their ships and bring them back to the UK?

    OK, the manuals will be in French, but I'm sure we can figure out a way round that.

    Henry the Fifth would have managed it!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mich the Tester
    replied
    Originally posted by Ignis Fatuus View Post
    Feck, I'm so old I remember the first Ark Royal
    Bloody hell, the average age around here must have gone up since you arrived.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_(1587)

    Leave a comment:


  • Ignis Fatuus
    replied
    Originally posted by gingerjedi View Post
    Feck I now feel old, I remember the last Ark Royal and I'm only 39.
    Feck, I'm so old I remember the first Ark Royal

    Leave a comment:


  • Moscow Mule
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll View Post
    steam catapult is passe... latest yank carriers will use Electromagnetic gubbins to launch planes
    If it works. Interesting articles on el reg over the last month or so. Using catapults / arresters makes the f35 variant much cheaper.

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Originally posted by SupremeSpod View Post
    Steam catapult?

    Strong elastic band?

    Btw, are these new carriers Nukes or Gas turbine?
    steam catapult is passe... latest yank carriers will use Electromagnetic gubbins to launch planes

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Cost $4.5 billion ( £2.84 billion) each
    General characteristics
    Type: Aircraft carrier
    Displacement: 100,000 to 104,600 long tons (100,000–106,300 t)[1]
    Length: Overall: 1,092 feet (332.8 m)
    Waterline: 1,040 feet (317.0 m)
    Beam: Overall: 252 ft (76.8 m)
    Waterline: 134 ft (40.8 m)
    Draft: Maximum navigational: 37 ft (11.3 m)
    Limit: 41 ft (12.5 m)
    Propulsion: 2 × Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors
    4 × steam turbines
    4 × shafts
    260,000 shp (194 MW)
    Speed: 30+ knots (56+ km/h; 35+ mph)
    Range: Essentially unlimited distance; 20 years
    Complement: Ship's company: 3,200
    Air wing: 2,480
    Sensors and
    processing systems: AN/SPS-48E 3-D air search radar
    AN/SPS-49(V)5 2-D air search radar
    AN/SPQ-9B target acquisition radar
    AN/SPN-46 air traffic control radars
    AN/SPN-43C air traffic control radar
    AN/SPN-41 landing aid radars
    4 × Mk 91 NSSM guidance systems
    4 × Mk 95 radars
    Electronic warfare
    and decoys: SLQ-32A(V)4 Countermeasures suite
    SLQ-25A Nixie torpedo countermeasures
    Armament: 16–24 × Sea Sparrow or NATO Sea Sparrow missiles
    3 or 4 × Phalanx CIWSs or RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles

    Armor: 2.5 in (64 mm) kevlar over vital spaces[2]
    Aircraft carried: 85-90 fixed wing and helicopters[3]

    & for £3.8 ($6.02) billion & rising we get two of
    Class and type: Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier
    Displacement: 65,600 metric tons (72,300 short tons) (full load)[2]
    Length: 284 metres (932 ft)[2]
    Beam: 39 metres (waterline)
    73 metres overall[2]
    Draught: 11 metres[3]
    Decks: 16,000 square metres[2]
    Speed: 25+ knots
    Range: 10,000 nautical miles (18,520 km)
    Capacity: 1,450
    Complement: 600
    Aircraft carried: 40 aircraft, including 36 F-35 Lightning II

    MOD didn't want the nuclear propulsion due to the extra costs!!

    Since we are having to import foreign workers to do the build why not just buy two Nimitz class ?

    Leave a comment:


  • SupremeSpod
    replied
    Originally posted by gingerjedi View Post
    Scaffolding and gaffa tape on one of 'em then.
    Steam catapult?

    Strong elastic band?

    Btw, are these new carriers Nukes or Gas turbine?

    Leave a comment:


  • gingerjedi
    replied
    The BBC has also learned that at least one of the new carriers will be redesigned so that it can deploy normal fighter aircraft that do not need a Harrier-style vertical lift capability.
    Scaffolding and gaffa tape on one of 'em then.

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by gingerjedi View Post
    Feck I now feel old, I remember the last Ark Royal and I'm only 39.

    Can you land a Tornado on a small aircraft carrier?
    nope , the harrier is VTOL, vertical take off and landing
    the Tornado is HTTP , home to Turin with Pasta



    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Originally posted by SupremeSpod View Post
    To help pay for the new carriers.

    Reduction in Harrier numbers. Gap before JSF comes online is acceptable.

    Tornado lifetimes to be extended
    I hope the Argies aren't listening....

    Leave a comment:


  • SupremeSpod
    replied
    Originally posted by gingerjedi View Post
    Feck I now feel old, I remember the last Ark Royal and I'm only 39.

    Can you land a Tornado on a small aircraft carrier?
    Nope I can't. But we know a man with a penchant for pasta who can.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X