Classic British Flight Sim

John wrote:If those carriers get scrapped I'm a Dutchman, the senior service will hold onto those like a woman to a new pair of shoes! And IMHO rightly so.

Too bl**dy right. In fact the country needs it. I was involved with the Type 45 last year, and I can tell you that the latest release will (probably) be 'just about' on schedule after some serious catching up and the very real prospect of total farce. The experience just wasn't there in some areas - we need big projects like the CVF to keep the skills there, otherwise we'll end up approaching India to buy back Hermes...... :roll:

To get back to the original post..

..in my day it was accepted than anything you were told wasn't true and families accepted that; you got back..well,..on the day you arrived on the doorstep ;-)

Perhaps things have changed since then and folks expect something more...

ATB,

Derek

jonesey2k wrote:At least some people have a sense of humor
http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/The_movements_game

If you click on the TriStar link you can see they are not very popular with the Army!

Tristars? Popular?

As an ex Pongo I couldn't resist it!

Re the carriers this is a serious point and completely in line with the original subject; more reliability means something more modern that 30 year + aircraft which means more money... something has to give and the carriers are the obvious choice. I noticed an article in The Times after my post that senior officers are being polled on the financial viability of the carriers - we have some fundamental choices ahead; commitment = size of forces = money required to meet commitment plus equip forces correctly for tasks faced. Something I have to face on a daily basis albeit on a substantially smaller scale but the basics are the same.

The carriers are absolutely necessary if we can fund an expeditionary type force with all the necessary equipment and have to assume that land based runways are not an option... if otherwise then we have to think again. BTW for those Navy types aboard what other Navy assets could be afforded (and are needed) if the carriers were dropped?

And given this is Escorts and Stewards any fans here of Patrick O'brian?

Regards,
Chris

I wonder if the Yanks would sell us Nimitz when they get their new Gerald R. Ford class carriers

We couldn't man a Nimitz class. That was one of the reasons given for not buying Arleigh Burkes instead of T45 too in that the US manning levels are much higher than the UK can provide.

To be honest the main expenditure you've got to question is replacing Trident, where the reasons for keeping it are entirely political. The funds that'd free up over the next decade would probably solve a lot of our (by which I mean UK Armed Forces not just RN) problems.

Only if they can stop them falling over Jonesy! (the Gerald R Fords that is)

Cheers,
Chris

I wonder why the VC10's don't seem to be having old age problems...(or are they, secretly?)

I think they are Chris.. even not so secretly :roll:

ATB

DaveB :tab:

A number have already been parted out and scrapped.

When coverted to tankers they were rebuilt so emerged effectively as new aircraft which that makes the age of the VC 10 and TriStar tankers a lot closer.

Garry