Royal Navy

sunny91

Video Extraordinaire
5,202
134
Apr 2, 2005
sunny
 

Attachments

  • Royal_Navy.wmv
    26.8 MB · Views: 80

carpenoctem1689

Airman 1st Class
285
0
Sep 10, 2005
Interesting little video clip there. Though if i were in charge of the royal navy, i sure as hell would not name my new capital ships after ones that had served in the past and been sunk, like the POW. I like the idea of the three little carriers they have now, more than the future containing two large ones, which can only accomodate fourty five aircraft.
 

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General
19,937
16
Dec 20, 2003
good video, note when the current carriers were launched, having not been designed with the harrier in mind, did not have the "ski jump" fitted, these were a later addition, and Ark Royal's ski jump is angled (if i remember correctly) 2 degrees steeper than that of her sister ships.........

and i feel equally strongly about the names, but for slightly different reasons, firstly wont it seem a bit stupid having a ship called HMS Queen Elizabeth II that will outlive the woman she's named after? and if a war does occur and she is sunk before the queen kicks the bucket, what's that going to do for the country's moral when a ship named after our queen is sunk? i think that's a very bad call, and secondly this will spell the end of the Ark Royal, Illustrious and Invincible in as names in royal naval service, the current R07 is the 5th royal naval ship to bear the name Ark Royal, R06 is the 5th Illustrious (the current flagship of the RN) and R05 is the 6th Invincible in the Royal navy, and these names have traditionally gone to Aircraft Carriers since they have been around, and i don't think this should change

i do see what you mean about the idea of smaller carriers however, remember they were originally designed as an Anti-Submarine Class and have since evolved hugely, playing a fleet defence role and as a launch pad for assalts, they have time and again proved their worth and versatility, and while i look forward to the new super-carriers, i agree that not all situations justify the expense of sending a huge carrier, which is where a small fleet of small carriers like we have now would come in hugely useful, although this would be beyond the RN budget, hence why they have gone for the option of two larger ships...........
 

Glider

Captain
8,172
3,179
Apr 23, 2005
Lincolnshire
Re the names there are other names that deserve to have an airing, Eagle, Victorious, Hermes to name but a few.

As for the current carriers I have little doubt that there will be a number of countries lining up to buy them. Pakistan have a reputation for buying RN vessels and being more than satisfied with what they have for their money. India used to but now tend to build their own. Like the US the RN tend to keep their older vessels up to date right until the end of their service life.
 

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General
19,937
16
Dec 20, 2003
HMS Victorious is a Vanguard class submarine...........

and names such as Eagle and Hermes, whilst yes historic RN names, have little place in the modern navy where names are either supposed to be powerful and moral boosting (typically larger ships) such as Invincible, or in an attampt to strengthen links with the community, a British place name such as HMS Cornwall or HMS Lancaster, and it will be interesting to see what India do now they've got the Viraat i doubt they'll be interested.......
 

Users who are viewing this thread