You know as you are on my ignore list what ever petty rant you have just typed out is pointless….

Ho hum.

Maturity is clearly one of your qualities.:rolleyes:

Well I’m not going to bother with argument.

Because you dont have one, hence your earlier switch to insults.

Firstly plenty of money was spent on FRES as a program up to this point.

Really? How much and on what?

Secondly if no carrier was a capital vessel up to this point then there should be no issue with using a non monarch based name now.

Not at all. All previous carriers were constructed when battleships remained in the RN inventory or procurement plans. Or were regarded as cruisers and thus not capital vessels. As you have already been told CVA-01 was to be called Queen Elizabeth II, if anything that makes the name even more appropriate.

Finally its very easy to say another poster knows nothing and you certainly don’t like it when someone suggests it of you!

We all not it is easy and that is why you decided to do it when you were called out.

I certainly am well versed in RN history and I suggest that you show a greater degree of humility. YOU WERE very happy to call ME a PETTY REPUBLICAN for just EXPRESSING AN OPINION!

Not to someone who so rapidly jumps to insults.

All I can say is GROW UP!

Hypocritical in the extreme.

The fact is the government have utterly wrecked our armed forces over the last ten years…rather then the steady drumbeat of orders for all three services instead we have delay and deferment until its cancelled, transferred to PFI or purchased in smaller numbers at an increased cost….Or even worse the capability just taken away without replacement!:mad: Remember the report that stated the minimum number of AAW destroyers in the fleet should be 12! FRES has now been cancelled….what an utter waste of time and money!

So what if FRES has been cancelled. The Army is getting the vehicles it needs anyway in the form of some far more appropriate platforms. Frankly the utility version should have been killed earlier, it became irrelevant in about 2004.

On another note I was never happy with the chosen CVF names felt like a political choice to me. Queen Elizabeth II and Prince of Wales? We have far better historical carrier names. I would of preferred the first of class being called Hermes and the second in class Ark Royal to ensure the name is kept in the fleet in time for the current Arks out of service with any Ocean replacement being called either Eagle or Invincible again to keep that name in the fleet.

Why do they have to be named after carriers? The RN is after all the Royal Navy and has a history of naming capital units after Monarchs. Queen Elizabeth II evokes memories of the illustrious Queen Elizabeth battleship and there is a certain irony to naming an aircraft carrier prince of wales given the circumstances of the loss of the last ship to bare that name. Only a petty republican could really dispute the current names. After all the RN’s battleship names are far more evocative than any of the carrier names.

[QUOTE=Aurel;1334413]

They have no capability issue, sure. But it shows the Tornado can take over the job.

So? Can Tornados fly from carriers?

My point is you have either a capable enemy where you would want more the kind of a fleet carrier (E-2, F-35B, CATOBAR, more escorts), or you have an inferior opponent where a smaller carrier or LHD would be sufficient.

Your point is wrong, the UK already has a sizable amphibious fleet including an LPH. What they want is power projection and CVF will provide that.

And stop posting nonsense videos that do nothing but underline your own ignorance of the issue.

1998 the MoD had obviously more money. Since then the surfacefleet has been cut in numbers, and other programmes are deep in trouble.
60kt helicopter carriers are a luxury in my opinion. What do they offer over a Wasp or Cavour ?

The UK MoD has more money than it did in 1998, check the UK defence budget for that fact. The number of cold war era escorts may have decreased but the amphibious fleet has grown substantially in line with shifting doctrinal requirements.

Which enemy (that couldn’t do anything against your 3 1/2 escorts) would require the extra sorties you get from your oversized “through deck cruiser” ?

That does not make any sense, the ships are about power projection, the larger they are the more aicraft they carry and the more power they can project.

The potential to be fitted with catapults is great, but won’t turn B-model JSF into C-models, to explore the full potential of that change.

The B model is perfectly adequate.

Given the financial situation I think it is not the best decision to go on with the project in it’s current shape.

Going on with it is good decision. it will be beneficial to the UK economy and provide the RN with an excellent capability that the latest defence review has shown to be affordable.

What use is a carrier force, if you can’t efford enough escorts for it ? The UK military has only the purpose to support US forces anyway, so some more LPD’s would do the job as well.

Escort it against what? What enemy is the British Navy preparing to fight that has either a large navy of its own or hordes of missile carrying aircraft and submarines?:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=flex297;1334065]

That’s not true. Most dynamic companies employ young people plus few veteran workers as advisors / lectors. There is no need to employ people with 20+ years of experience, a talented welder will learn everything he needs in two-three years of intensive training.

No he will not.

Royal Marines are not necessarily better soldiers than locals.

There was an interesting article written by a Czech 601SKSS guy who spends his free time taking part on various courses (he went thru Rangers and Gebirgsjager course and had extensive contacts with SASR, KSK or GSG9). He had great respect to local rag-tag militia whose specialization to certain tasks makes them better than many spec ops guys. According to his experience, European and American soldiers are usually better equipped, more disciplined, better fed and thus physically far more developed but they too have drawbacks – their morale is limited (so called from 8-to-4 soldiers), they are often overmotivated and emotionally less stable and their overreliance on equipment makes them an useless bunch of scaried sheep once their radios run out of batteries.

Untrue fantasy.

I agree that a well trained SpecOps guy with armor vest, MOLLE carrier, kevlar helmet and ESS goggles holding an M4 with VLTOR handguard stuffed with EOTech, DBAL-A laser and PVS-22 tactical NV attachment module looks much more impressive than a tiny 150lb Malaysian bloke dressed in trousers and violet shirt holding an ancient G3 in his hands but don’t get deceived, that alone does not mean much. Let them stuck in the jungle for three weeks, plagued by heat, moisture, mosquitos, sleep deprivation and nevrending diarrhea and then let them fight.. 🙂

Any idea of the amount of training that a western soldier undergoes compared to say a Georgian?

BTW, a good portion of SAS guys are between 24-26, they do not have years of experience behind them, they are simply creative, adaptable and talented for the job they’re doing, that’s the point..

But they are overseen by men who are considerably older who are themselves the product of a continuous institution that retains its lessons and skill bases within itself.