Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ran

Yay we'll build a new aircraft carrier

Recommended Posts

Guest

I keep forgetting that you are still just a kid. I suppose that I was as arrogant when I was your age. I can't be bothered with to explain for you how ignorant and arrogant your statements are. I guess you will grow up and realise it for yourself one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 07 2002,01:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 07 2002,01:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 07 2002,00<!--emo&wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We have already started. I don't think having the means to defend ourselves is arrogant nationalism, lets face it France hardly ever embarks on missions with Britain.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, listening to you it sounds like arrogant nationalism is the only way you have to defend yourself. UK and France always embark on mission together. Have you heard of that little thing called NATO?<span id='postcolor'>

Fawklands, Sierra Leone, Afgainstan, etc. Why should Britain be compromised for the sake of union with Europe? Why should Britain lose control of it's armed forces?<span id='postcolor'>

No one is implying that Britain should lose control of her armed forces. What we are saying is that you can spend billions of dollars needed elsewhere for an aircraft carrier, or you can make an alliance that will let you have the same extension of power without those expenditures.

If the Canadian government started making noises about commisioning an Aircraft Carrier, I'd be more than happy to protest that, as we have a neighbour that we could work with who already has them.

And before you start beaking off that the UK is more of a world power than Canada... take a look at reality. biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 07 2002,02:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I keep forgetting that you are still just a kid. I suppose that I was as arrogant when I was your age. I can't be bothered with to explain for you how ignorant and arrogant your statements are. I guess you will grow up and realise it for yourself one day.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm ignorant? Don't give me that. Nothing you could possibly say will make a case for scrapping Royal Navy develpoment in favor of some sort of Euro Navy. Why is stating that Britain is a viable nation arrogant? I am part of a large majority of Britons who think the same way.

Maybe Sweden will benefit from Euro integration but please allow me to have a differing view on my own country without insulting me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Sep. 07 2002,02:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No one is implying that Britain should lose control of her armed forces.  What we are saying is that you can spend billions of dollars needed elsewhere for an aircraft carrier, or you can make an alliance that will let you have the same extension of power without those expenditures.<span id='postcolor'>

Well if you honestly think that the British government could have control over French carriers at request then you are ignoring reality. We have small carriers, we are going to have large ones too, The British government has done it, not me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And before you start beaking off that the UK is more of a world power than Canada... take a look at reality. biggrin.gif<span id='postcolor'> Please, are you really saying it isn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 07 2002,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm ignorant? Don't give me that. Nothing you could possibly say will make a case for scrapping Royal Navy develpoment in favor of some sort of Euro Navy. Why is stating that Britain is a viable nation arrogant? I am part of a large majority of Britons who think the same way.

Maybe Sweden will benefit from Euro integration but please allow me to have a differing view on my own country without insulting me.<span id='postcolor'>

Main Entry: hu·bris

Pronunciation: 'hyü-br&s

Function: noun

Etymology: Greek hybris

Date: 1884

: exaggerated pride or self-confidence

- hu·bris·tic /hyü-'bris-tik/ adjective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Sep. 07 2002,02:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 07 2002,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm ignorant? Don't give me that. Nothing you could possibly say will make a case for scrapping Royal Navy develpoment in favor of some sort of Euro Navy. Why is stating that Britain is a viable nation arrogant? I am part of a large majority of Britons who think the same way.

Maybe Sweden will benefit from Euro integration but please allow me to have a differing view on my own country without insulting me.<span id='postcolor'>

Main Entry: hu·bris

Pronunciation: 'hyü-br&s

Function: noun

Etymology: Greek hybris

Date: 1884

: exaggerated pride or self-confidence

- hu·bris·tic  /hyü-'bris-tik/ adjective<span id='postcolor'>

That's it is it, argument dried up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 07 2002,02:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's it is it, argument dried up?<span id='postcolor'>

There is no arguement. You are stuck in a 19th century vision of your nation.

There is nothing wrong with being proud of your country. Heck, I love Canada a great deal. But I accept that Canada will never be as strong militarily as our neighbours. I still have pride in my nations past acheivements, but I am not on some alfired bandwagon to put us back to where we were during WWII. I realize that politcal and economic expediency are more important than the size of ones armed forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Sep. 07 2002,02:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 07 2002,02:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's it is it, argument dried up?<span id='postcolor'>

There is no arguement. You are stuck in a 19th century vision of your nation.

There is nothing wrong with being proud of your country.  Heck, I love Canada a great deal.  But I accept that Canada will never be as strong militarily as our neighbours.  I still have pride in my nations past acheivements, but I am not on some alfired bandwagon to put us back to where we were during WWII.  I realize that politcal and economic expediency are more important than the size of ones armed forces.<span id='postcolor'>

It bothers me that you don't seem to read my posts as written but rather assume I am being jingoistic. I like most Britons I do not support an EU superstate, this is not part of a grand delusion of Britain's place in the world. Britain does and always has supported a high quality functioning navy, we would not have real control over an EU one; hence the benefit escapes me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot see how it would be anything other then a logistical nightmare to embark country A's airplanes on country B's aircraft carrier.

It's not like you fly a squadron onto an aircraft carrier and that's it. 20 aircraft and 20 pilots. You have 20 aircraft, white and yellow gear to support 20 aircraft, and the technicians and tools to work on those 20 aircraft. Then you have the admin, ops, medical, intel, computer (ADP), ordinance, and various other people to support those technicians and pilots. The ship staff and squadron staff have to closely integrate and unless European countries start sending their military men and woman to the same boot camps and service schools that just will not work very well.

Then you get into who pays for the airplane fuel? Who does UNREPS (underway replenishments) and VERTREPS (airborne replenishments).

What about hardware? France is a large producer of electronic equipment, but the UK is more fond of their own or US equipment. How will a French Carrier data link with a Royal Navy Destroyer? Would they even want to share sensitive information like that with each other?

Also, as was mentioned before, what about the CBG (Carrier Battle Group)? It is all well and good to form a multinational Navy, but what happens if Country L can't send their frigates to protect the carrier because of a recent cut in defense spending. Or if Country F can't send their attack sub because it's laid up in the yards, and their Cruiser is off on a mission for the countries own interests? It would be a tasking nightmare right from the get go.

I know logistics are a nightmare here in the US Navy, nevermind trying to float a Navy made up of so many different countries and platforms. To me the whole idea seems a little altruistic. Multi-national ground troops are a proven effort. Even air forces can be somewhat aligned, but when you get to talking about ships and carriers you need to be alot more integrated then you all are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Sep. 07 2002,02:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I cannot see how it would be anything other then a logistical nightmare to embark country A's airplanes on country B's aircraft carrier.

It's not like you fly a squadron onto an aircraft carrier and that's it.  20 aircraft and 20 pilots.  You have 20 aircraft, white and yellow gear to support 20 aircraft, and the technicians and tools to work on those 20 aircraft.  Then you have the admin, ops, medical, intel, computer (ADP), ordinance, and various other people to support those technicians and pilots.  The ship staff and squadron staff have to closely integrate and unless European countries start sending their military men and woman to the same boot camps and service schools that just will not work very well.

Then you get into who pays for the airplane fuel?  Who does UNREPS (underway replenishments) and VERTREPS (airborne replenishments).

What about hardware?  France is a large producer of electronic equipment, but the UK is more fond of their own or US equipment.  How will a French Carrier data link with a Royal Navy Destroyer?  Would they even want to share sensitive information like that with each other?

Also, as was mentioned before, what about the CBG (Carrier Battle Group)?  It is all well and good to form a multinational Navy, but what happens if Country L can't send their frigates to protect the carrier because of a recent cut in defense spending.  Or if Country F can't send their attack sub because it's laid up in the yards, and their Cruiser is off on a mission for the countries own interests?  It would be a tasking nightmare right from the get go.

I know logistics are a nightmare here in the US Navy, nevermind trying to float a Navy made up of so many different countries and platforms.  To me the whole idea seems a little altruistic.  Multi-national ground troops are a proven effort.  Even air forces can be somewhat aligned, but when you get to talking about ships and carriers you need to be alot more integrated then you all are now.<span id='postcolor'>

Co-operation in a mission of shared importance is one thing, but neglecting to maintain a full navy because you are 'part of a bigger one' can only harm the nation's defence; or worse force the nation into dependancy with another country it has no influence over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 07 2002,02:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It bothers me that you don't seem to read my posts as written but rather assume I am being jingoistic. I like most Britons I do not support an EU superstate, this is not part of a grand delusion of Britain's place in the world. Britain does and always has supported a high quality functioning navy, we would not have real control over an EU one; hence the benefit escapes me.<span id='postcolor'>

I am not assuming you are being jingoistic. I am assuming that you're willing to spend at least 4.5 billion dollars to produce a carrier. How many programs will have to be cut and how many taxes will have to be raised to do that. And is the shipbuilding industry as it stands in the UK capable of producing one? (I am not being flippant, I honestly dont know)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Sep. 07 2002,02:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 07 2002,02:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It bothers me that you don't seem to read my posts as written but rather assume I am being jingoistic. I like most Britons I do not support an EU superstate, this is not part of a grand delusion of Britain's place in the world. Britain does and always has supported a high quality functioning navy, we would not have real control over an EU one; hence the benefit escapes me.<span id='postcolor'>

I am not assuming you are being jingoistic.  I am assuming that you're willing to spend at least 4.5 billion dollars to produce a carrier.  How many programs will have to be cut and how many taxes will have to be raised to do that.  And is the shipbuilding industry as it stands in the UK capable of producing one? (I am not being flippant, I honestly dont know)<span id='postcolor'>

Then I'll tell you, The UK is a rich nation that can afford it, the carriers are under production as we speak. This isn't something I made up, the MoD has started it.

994847028m.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 06 2002,17:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Sep. 07 2002,02:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 07 2002,02:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It bothers me that you don't seem to read my posts as written but rather assume I am being jingoistic. I like most Britons I do not support an EU superstate, this is not part of a grand delusion of Britain's place in the world. Britain does and always has supported a high quality functioning navy, we would not have real control over an EU one; hence the benefit escapes me.<span id='postcolor'>

I am not assuming you are being jingoistic.  I am assuming that you're willing to spend at least 4.5 billion dollars to produce a carrier.  How many programs will have to be cut and how many taxes will have to be raised to do that.  And is the shipbuilding industry as it stands in the UK capable of producing one? (I am not being flippant, I honestly dont know)<span id='postcolor'>

Then I'll tell you, The UK is a rich nation that can afford it, the carriers are under production as we speak. This isn't something I made up, the MoD has started it.

994847028m.jpg<span id='postcolor'>

They definately have. I wonder what they're going to choose for a carrier borne airplane. I've heard that they're considering the F-35 SVOTL, the conventional F-35 that the U.S. Navy is going to use, or the Typhoon. Personally I think the conventional F-35 would be the best choice since it is a generation newer then the Tranche-3 Typhoon and would be cheaper to maintain then the SVOTL F-35 variant. Not to mention it has a higher payload.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Sep. 07 2002,02:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 06 2002,17:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Sep. 07 2002,02:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 07 2002,02:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It bothers me that you don't seem to read my posts as written but rather assume I am being jingoistic. I like most Britons I do not support an EU superstate, this is not part of a grand delusion of Britain's place in the world. Britain does and always has supported a high quality functioning navy, we would not have real control over an EU one; hence the benefit escapes me.<span id='postcolor'>

I am not assuming you are being jingoistic.  I am assuming that you're willing to spend at least 4.5 billion dollars to produce a carrier.  How many programs will have to be cut and how many taxes will have to be raised to do that.  And is the shipbuilding industry as it stands in the UK capable of producing one? (I am not being flippant, I honestly dont know)<span id='postcolor'>

Then I'll tell you, The UK is a rich nation that can afford it, the carriers are under production as we speak. This isn't something I made up, the MoD has started it.

994847028m.jpg<span id='postcolor'>

They definately have.  I wonder what they're going to choose for a carrier borne airplane.  I've heard that they're considering the F-35 SVOTL, the conventional F-35 that the U.S. Navy is going to use, or the Typhoon.  Personally I think the conventional F-35 would be the best choice since it is a generation newer then the Tranche-3 Typhoon and would be cheaper to maintain then the SVOTL F-35 variant.  Not to mention it has a higher payload.<span id='postcolor'>

The S/VTOL JSF and a Eurofighter variant are being considered amoung others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it looks like the Ministry of Defence, Admiralty and CDS are ignorant and arrogant too, I'm in good company as far as I'm concerned.  wink.gif

In fact even if I was a European federalist I would be hard pressed to find a problem with France and Britain having complete modern navies. More capability for Europe surely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paratrooper´s just calmly stating his own personal opinion and everyone starts calling him a kid and generally attacking him, WTF is up with that?

And Paratrooper doesn´t even flame back, now I think denoir & co are the real kids here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Sep. 07 2002,02:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then I'll tell you, The UK is a rich nation that can afford it, the carriers are under production as we speak. This isn't something I made up, the MoD has started it.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, perhaps you should bother to read what they say at the MOD site, instead of making things up:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">  

Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF)

Following a requirement stated in the Strategic Defence Review for a new larger class of aircraft carrier, as a replacement for the three existing INVINCIBLE class ships, the CVF was conceived. The new ships are expected to be among the largest warships ever built in the UK.

Initial estimates are that the ships could be 300 metres long and displace about 40,000 tonnes capable of carrying up to 50 aircraft, resulting in a ship that would be twice as large as the current INVINCIBLE class. It is intended that 2 hulls of the new class will replace the 3 INVINCIBLE class hulls currently in service. This reduction in hull numbers is to be achieved through modern build and support techniques which will dispense with the need for long refit periods and will allow required availability to be achieved from only 2 hulls.

Each vessel is expected to have a manpower requirement of about 1200 personnel which is roughly equal to that of the INVINCIBLE class CVS. CVF will be a Joint Defence Asset, and will focus specifically on Joint Force 2000 enabling operations from forces of all 3 services to contribute to sea, land and air battles. Lessons learnt from the successful build and early operating experience of HMS OCEAN will be incorporated in the CVF programme. The vessels, expected to cost around Å2.2 Billion, will be built and outfitted in the UK and their construction is expected to create many new jobs throughout UK industry.

Contracts to assess options for the Future Aircraft Carrier have been placed with consortia led by British Aerospace Land and Sea Systems, and Thales. The four year "Assessment" study phase plans to place an order with a single Prime Contractor for delivery of the first of two vessels in 2012

<span id='postcolor'>

Place an order in 2012. That is far from being in production. They don't even have a design yet!

Gollum1:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Paratrooper´s just calmly stating his own personal opinion and everyone starts calling him a kid and generally attacking him, WTF is up with that?

<span id='postcolor'>

If you come with arrogant and incorrect statements you must count on them being criticized. Perhaps you should bother to read the entire thread before jumping to conclusions. And about me calling him a kid - it's not an attack - it is the truth. According to his profile he is 18 years old. It doesn't mean he is not entiteled to his opinion, but it means that he most likely has very little life experience (and this is evident by his posts).

I hope that you see the irony of your post. You are not bringing any relevant addition to this thread but only a half-assed attempt of a flame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be a good idea to just let britain handle the european navy aspect. They have allways been a great seafaring nation (we the dutch too but we dont have the resources seeing we are a rather small country). France ..... well hey nice that they have a navy, but i cant honestly recall a single time when they actually won in a naval engagement. Let who's best at something do that thing.A single european army is the best way to go i think. Right now we are far to dependant on the US for defense, certain things we just cant afford on our own as member nations (like C-5 galaxies for instance) we should just all chip in and buy them together and put them under joint control. Look at NATO's E-3's based in geilenkirchen. That system is working great. Seeing what kind of people the americans "elect" as presidents i think it would be better if we just let them be and start working towards a europe which doesnt have to listen to the occasional idiot american president. The relationship should be more one between equal partners and friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Sep. 07 2002,12:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">... i think it would be better if we just let them be and start working towards a europe which doesnt have to listen to the occasional idiot american president. The relationship should  be more one between equal partners and friends.<span id='postcolor'>

that´s exactly the way i think! and that's the reason why it's necesary to put the uropean militairy together.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I didnt think french fries were really a french inovation? <span id='postcolor'>

i think it's a belgian inovation

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">maybe Germans will stop thinking about invading France again <span id='postcolor'>

we're not interested in france anymore. we're concentrating on the USA. your automobile-industry already belongs to us! biggrin.giftounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 07 2002,02:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I keep forgetting that you are still just a kid. I suppose that I was as arrogant when I was your age. I can't be bothered with to explain for you how ignorant and arrogant your statements are. I guess you will grow up and realise it for yourself one day.<span id='postcolor'>

Behave Denoir, dont insult this forums members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Espectro @ Sep. 07 2002,14:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 07 2002,02<!--emo&wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I keep forgetting that you are still just a kid. I suppose that I was as arrogant when I was your age. I can't be bothered with to explain for you how ignorant and arrogant your statements are. I guess you will grow up and realise it for yourself one day.<span id='postcolor'>

Behave Denoir, dont insult this forums members.<span id='postcolor'>

Bye bye posting rights espectro for 48h. I have overlooked you bitching on moderators a couple of times now, but enough is enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 07 2002,03:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, perhaps you should bother to read what they say at the MOD site, instead of making things up:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">  

<Snip>

Contracts to assess options for the Future Aircraft Carrier have been placed with consortia led by British Aerospace Land and Sea Systems, and Thales. The four year "Assessment" study phase plans to place an order with a single Prime Contractor for delivery of the first of two vessels in 2012

<span id='postcolor'>

Place an order in 2012. That is far from being in production. They don't even have a design yet!<span id='postcolor'>

Denoir, it looks like you didn't read that page correctly.

Based on the information you cited you are correct in that the carrier isn't under construction yet. However, the MoD wants to take delivery of the first of two carriers by 2012, and not place an order for them at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Sep. 07 2002,16:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, it looks like you didn't read that page correctly.

Based on the information you cited you are correct in that the carrier isn't under construction yet. However, the MoD wants to take delivery of the first of two carriers by 2012, and not place an order for them at that point.<span id='postcolor'>

True, I stand corrected. I misread that last thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mistook the CVF production with another one. I am capable of forming a valid opinion about the future of the Royal Navy though and I'm sure that your age Denoir makes you neither sage nor character judge. I am not arrogant because I want a good navy for Britain.

I think we can just agree to differ on the European project, can't we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 07 2002,13:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

So you´re a better person than Paratrooper because you´re older than him.

And that thing with Espectro...

If you put two and two together, I´d say that you´re behaving like a...

Bul..

No wait, just forget I said anything!

NOT THE FACE, DENOIR! NOOO, NOT THE FACE! tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×