Just 2 Carriers

The damage is from the palne hitting the ground a crash maybe you have heard of it. and this plane has been flying since early 80's and one went down wow yeah that makes our tech bad cuz one plane went down. get real!



[edit on 22-6-2004 by WestPoint23]

PLEASE REFRAIN FROM INSULTS

so cause we dont have the top gen fighters or planes our tech sucks?

Originally posted by The_Clansman
Just admit it your 'superior' aircraft got shot down by a bunch of peasants and farmers armed with 20 year old technology.

Actually serbs had rather new russian equipment, maybe even slightly better than Hussein had in 91.

Originally posted by devilwasp
stealth aircraft are basically only effective at sub sonic speeds cause i think the radar operator would notice a small bird flying at mach 2

Well, I don't think that so many birds fly even 200 kts.

It's just that with enough power to detect stealth aircrafts radar shows also birds and other objects with very small RCS. (in short everything that reflects even little of radar "rays")
That's where signal processing comes to play, computer have to determine from those returns which is which and which one goes so slow that it must be bird which is then propably filtered out of radar picture. (radar picture with every bird would be rather messy)

Originally posted by devilwasp
so cause we dont have the top gen fighters or planes our tech sucks?

No just our military aviation. Who said anything about all our technology being bad?

p.s Sentences start with a capital letter, use it sometime

Originally posted by The_Clansman

Originally posted by devilwasp
so cause we dont have the top gen fighters or planes our tech sucks?

No just our military aviation. Who said anything about all our technology being bad?

p.s Sentences start with a capital letter, use it sometime

Look back in the thread.
Also sorry i got on your nerves i frankly dont bother with sometimes on posting and i aint gona change

That is nice of you, a lesser man woulnt have apologised. Merely stood back and let a feud continue

People talking about the planes - Do you have an opinion about the main question

Are 2 Carriers for the UK enough?

Originally posted by Hyperen
People talking about the planes - Do you have an opinion about the main question

Are 2 Carriers for the UK enough?

Yes.

With the new F-35s...

And why would you need more?

Its not that big of an island.

Also it better have enough support ships for these two carriers.

Out,
Russian

As it is we wont be needing carriers for long time. With the EU set up we can hardly go for a toilet break without voting on it. But in a war situation a belive batleships would be more useful, with carrier support of course.

I got a question which version of the F-35 is the rest of the world going to get i think its the D version but not sure.

Originally posted by The_Clansman
With the EU set up we can hardly go for a toilet break without voting on it.

No... it's without reporting it to Brussel.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I got a question which version of the F-35 is the rest of the world going to get i think its the D version but not sure.

www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...

The Marine Corps, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force need and want a short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft, dubbed the F-35B.

Part of the additional cost would be to add anti-tampering technology to the plane, which would prevent foreign buyers from replicating sensitive systems.

I read somewhere that the USAF are also going to get some STOVL versions. Don't know anything about a 'D' version. Maybe it is the one they plan for export.

The_Clansman
As it is we wont be needing carriers for long time. With the EU set up we can hardly go for a toilet break without voting on it.

You seem like someone who believes the crazy British press.


[edit on 18/8/04 by Hyperen]

I think that 2 aircraft carriers is plenty. That is more than 99% of countries in the world have, so why is everyone trying to give them such a hard time about it. Sure, if the Britain was trying to build its empire back to what it once was, then yes it would need more carriers. But as far as protecting the country and participating in select campaigns around the world when needed it is fine.

People are talking about what if one carrier gets sunk then their is only one more, who is going to sink it? Most countries that have the capability are allies, and if a country that isn't one sinks it, then those allies will help Britain out. I would suggest that the only way it is going to get sunk is if a conflict goes nuclear, in that case they can build 10 carriers and it is probably not going to make much of a difference.

Every country can't simply go and buy unlimited amounts of weapons. You have to assess the threats to your country and try to find a balance that gives adequate defence yet still maintains an adequate standard of living for the citizens.

Don't you think that is bad depending on your allies what if the US has ongoing operations and cant help the British out what are they going to do then.

Here is a good site where you can see the difference in size between carriers of France, US and UK.

www.stoatys.net...

Carrier nearest top is a Nimitz Class of the USA (USS John C Stennis)

Carrier below that on left is FS Charles de Gaulle from France

Carrier bottom right is the USS John F Kennedy

and the smallest carrier (behind Charles de Gaulle) is the Royal Navy's HMS Ocean which is not a fixed wing carrier but a helicopter carrier.

Despite being the smallest carrier there, it is still bigger than any of the Invincible Class.



[edit on 26/6/04 by Hyperen]

how is it bigger than any invincible class it is half the size of the nimitz.

yeah and?
the invinceable class is a small boat.
the reason they dont give the marines any is cause they dont need em.

whatever your country can keep its little ships but we americans like things big so the nimitz carrier is the pride of the country

America needs a high number of carriers to project decisive airpower into a prospective naval battle in defense of American shores. Britain is able to defend the east entirely from land-based aircraft. Aircraft operating from Iceland and Spain could do most of the job of sealing off naval threats against Britain from the West. Two carriers does the job of defending Britain and projecting airpower to small engagements. Unless they are worried about China making a move on Australia and America refusing to help, or Iran trying to blockade its neighbors oil exports with a mighty fleet it doesn't have, the Brits can't justify massive spending on naval airpower. The truth is, most of the world needs to be standing down militarily right now and putting their money into anything they think will be good for their economies. I can only name 3 nations off the top of my head who need to be paranoid about their defense. Pakistan, Iran, and Syria. Iran could cure this any time it wanted to if it would just stop screwing with the United States and try to be more like Turkey, Pakistan, or even Saudi Arabia (in the last case, that is to say anti-USA but bound by greedy rulers.) Syria is probably safe, and they really can't build enough weapons to change anything, so they might as well eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we get bombed to dust by G-dub. And Pakistan is a long ways off from being able to fight India by conventional means anyway, so maybe they should just hide behind their nukes. When you look at it that way, I can't name any nations that will put their fate on the line by not building large military items right this minute.