Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Google

Become a Subscriber!

Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!

Read more...

Why did we build a huge Aircraft carrier?

What's Hot
24567

Comments

  • SporkySporky Frets: 27568
    Can't we all just get along?
    "[Sporky] brings a certain vibe and dignity to the forum."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RavenousRavenous Frets: 1484
    Sporky said:
    Can't we all just get along?

    Floats my boat.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Errr...  Trident

    My Trading Feedback    |    You Bring The Band

    Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RavenousRavenous Frets: 1484
    Garthy said:

    The autonomous plane that can safely pull 15g but can only react to a situation, vs a human that can anticipate but at a lower performance envelope in an interesting quandary but the military tend to like pilots and operators because they can choose not to fire ordinance.

    Yes you're right - at least sensible forces would probably prefer to use people who have the common sense to act or not to act.

    My comment about faster jets, by the way, was because I read about a simulated study in the last year or so, where a group of AI-controlled jet fighters could defend a fixed base against a smaller number of well-trained human attackers. Just making the point that these are the sort of things being considered.

    (But I was going off the topic, as the defender group would need a carrier or base to operate from.)

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • cacophonycacophony Frets: 385
    this carrier highlighted yet again the cancerous nature of our press. when it reported that the carrier was leaking 200 litres of water an hour, and was in real danger of sinking (probably). until it was pointed out that the ship has the capacity to store half a million litres of aviation fuel, half a million litres of deisel, and untold tens of thousands of litres of drinking water, hydraulic oil, cooking fat, and other POL. and that the pumps down in the bowels of the ship can deal with 1000 litres a minute, without even having to switch on the emergency pumping system.


    but. let's not let facts get in the way of a sensational headline eh?, wankers.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 6reaction image Wisdom
  • ESBlonde said:

    It's good to know we still have the ability to create a navel vessel at home, so much ship building capacity has been moved elsewhere.
    The MoD are probably looking into it.
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    7reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • VimFuegoVimFuego Frets: 15475
    re protecting the falklands (assuming there is an actual credible threat to them and not just a bunch of strawmen) wouldn't it be cheaper just to station some jets down there? It wouldn't take many to show whoever may wish to invade some windswept islands stuck out in the middle of nowhere that we are willing to defend them. Hell, with the savings, we could also afford to buy a dedicated destroyer or something to patrol down there. 
    You know, if the government were serious about value for money.

    I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • SporkySporky Frets: 27568
    VimFuego said:
    re protecting the falklands (assuming there is an actual credible threat to them and not just a bunch of strawmen) wouldn't it be cheaper just to station some jets down there?
    I'd have thought so, along with some missiley things that obviously don't have the range to get to Argentina, but obviously have the range to make approaching the Falklands with malicious intent a jolly bad plan.

    Also a badger catapult.
    "[Sporky] brings a certain vibe and dignity to the forum."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • VimFuegoVimFuego Frets: 15475
    not sure about the badger catapult, mostly cos I've not seen one before. Is that a catapult operated by badgers or one that fires badgers at the enemy? If the latter I can see the value of that; flying badgers are not a thing to be trifled with (plus they are bio degradable, organic and free range, so the tree huggers will be onside) but I suspect the former would not work well. Badgers have very short and stubby fingers and I suspect would not cope well having to manipulate complex machinery in the heat of battle.  

    I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.

    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • munckeemunckee Frets: 12253
    VimFuego said:
    re protecting the falklands (assuming there is an actual credible threat to them and not just a bunch of strawmen) wouldn't it be cheaper just to station some jets down there? It wouldn't take many to show whoever may wish to invade some windswept islands stuck out in the middle of nowhere that we are willing to defend them. Hell, with the savings, we could also afford to buy a dedicated destroyer or something to patrol down there. 
    You know, if the government were serious about value for money.
    The carrier is in case we need to be somewhere other than the falklands
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • RavenousRavenous Frets: 1484
    Badgers are furious fighters. Do NOT mess with them!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • VimFuegoVimFuego Frets: 15475
    edited January 2018
    where else do we need to protect that can't be reached from either our own airbases or an allies?

    EDIT: and is it cost effective to protect these places with a carrier or can we find a cheaper way (like, oh I dunno, the one I already mentioned)?

    I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • VimFuegoVimFuego Frets: 15475
    I mean, we currently have airforces operating in Syria (flying from cyprus) we recenty had air forces operating over Afghan, operating I assume from Saudi or mebbe India (somewhere friendly to us anyways), all without rather expensive aircraft carriers. 

    I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • munckeemunckee Frets: 12253
    VimFuego said:
    where else do we need to protect that can't be reached from either our own airbases or an allies?

    EDIT: and is it cost effective to protect these places with a carrier or can we find a cheaper way (like, oh I dunno, the one I already mentioned)?
    Who knows how big an area can we hit with our current capacity, not enough I suspect is the answer.  Not sure of the average speed of a badger in flight but I can't see us hitting North Korea for example (other crazy countries are available).
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • SporkySporky Frets: 27568
    VimFuego said:
    not sure about the badger catapult, mostly cos I've not seen one before. Is that a catapult operated by badgers or one that fires badgers at the enemy?
    Most definitely the latter.
    "[Sporky] brings a certain vibe and dignity to the forum."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • VimFuegoVimFuego Frets: 15475
    edited January 2018
    munckee said:
    VimFuego said:
    where else do we need to protect that can't be reached from either our own airbases or an allies?

    EDIT: and is it cost effective to protect these places with a carrier or can we find a cheaper way (like, oh I dunno, the one I already mentioned)?
    Who knows how big an area can we hit with our current capacity, not enough I suspect is the answer.  Not sure of the average speed of a badger in flight but I can't see us hitting North Korea for example (other crazy countries are available).
    so we're building these very expensive things with no clear plan or idea of where they will be used. Are we that wealthy that we can afford to spunk away 700 very large just on a whim? I thought we were skint and we had to do a bit of the old belt tightening. If we've got enough money to give some overgrown children big toys to play with, we can probably also bung a bit more to the NHS and get a few more bobbies on the beat.

    I'm not locked in here with you, you are locked in here with me.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • SporkySporky Frets: 27568
    munckee said:

    Not sure of the average speed of a badger in flight but I can't see us hitting North Korea for example (other crazy countries are available).
    That's part of the point. A badger catapult isn't a sabre-rattling threat to other countries. It does, however, adequately demonstrate a bat-shit-crazy approach to home defence, and bat-shit-crazy can be a pretty good defence.
    "[Sporky] brings a certain vibe and dignity to the forum."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • RavenousRavenous Frets: 1484
    Sporky said:
    munckee said:

    Not sure of the average speed of a badger in flight but I can't see us hitting North Korea for example (other crazy countries are available).
    That's part of the point. A badger catapult isn't a sabre-rattling threat to other countries. It does, however, adequately demonstrate a bat-shit-crazy approach to home defence, and bat-shit-crazy can be a pretty good defence.

    Kinda like our Trident Nukes (wouldn't dare use them either, would we?) - and a lot cheaper.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • munckeemunckee Frets: 12253
    VimFuego said:
    munckee said:
    VimFuego said:
    where else do we need to protect that can't be reached from either our own airbases or an allies?

    EDIT: and is it cost effective to protect these places with a carrier or can we find a cheaper way (like, oh I dunno, the one I already mentioned)?
    Who knows how big an area can we hit with our current capacity, not enough I suspect is the answer.  Not sure of the average speed of a badger in flight but I can't see us hitting North Korea for example (other crazy countries are available).
    so we're building these very expensive things with no clear plan or idea of where they will be used. Are we that wealthy that we can afford to spunk away 700 very large just on a whim? I thought we were skint personally, and we had to do a bit of the old belt tightening. If we've got enough money to give some overgrown children big toys to play with, we can probably also bung a bit more to the NHS and get a few more bobbies on the beat.
    I gather that the theory is that we need to shake our c0ck at the world otherwise they will be all over us like a cheap suit.  The old cardboard cut out trick is old hat ruined by Egypt.  Having an aircraft carrier has always put us at the top table.  Whether we need to try and be at the top table is another point entirely.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • WolfetoneWolfetone Frets: 1479
    I find that the planes fall into the sea without the big aircraft carrier underneath them. Always been a problem...
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.