HMS Ark Royal

Message boards : Politics : HMS Ark Royal
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1182514 - Posted: 3 Jan 2012, 1:11:40 UTC
Last modified: 3 Jan 2012, 1:21:25 UTC

I fully agree. The best thing that could happen to it would be for some veterans to get together and turn it into static display in some port. We have turned a number of ships from several wars into display ships from destroyer and aircraft carriers to liberty ships. The additional advantage is a land based display will draw far tourist dollars than one under water. We even have your Queen Marry and have done much the same with it.
ID: 1182514 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1182523 - Posted: 3 Jan 2012, 2:21:07 UTC - in response to Message 1182517.  

modern in the sense that it can launch harrier jump jets. Its pretty small compared to other modern aircraft carriers. IIRC the brits are moving to a newer generation of fighter is in the works or is currently being employed which makes this carrier useless for the British Navy. It is sad to see such a nice ship going to waste but a Modern ACC is needed for the newer planes


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1182523 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1182528 - Posted: 3 Jan 2012, 3:03:49 UTC - in response to Message 1182517.  

I fully agree. The best thing that could happen to it would be for some veterans to get together and turn it into a WW II static display in some port. We have turned a number of ships from several wars into display ships from destroyer and aircraft carriers to liberty ships. The additional advantage is a land based display will draw far tourist dollars than one under water. We even have your Queen Marry and have done much the same with it.


Except that the Ark Royal isn't a WW II ship. It was launched in 1981, and is still a modern carrier.

HMS Ark Royal

I edited before you posted. What I had in mind was something like this and this .
ID: 1182528 · Report as offensive
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 3387
Credit: 4,182,900
RAC: 10
United States
Message 1182532 - Posted: 3 Jan 2012, 3:53:04 UTC

I understand the displeasure with the proposed fate of the Ark Royal. The USS Forrestal CV59 was the first "super" carrier and generally the pattern for all of the US oil powered carriers to follow. My father was a member of the first crew to take her to sea and my older brother was a member of the airgroup that deployed with her in the 1980s. For several years they have been trying to find a port city that would give her a home as a museum. Baltimore came close but eventually backed out of the picture. Now it looks as if she will either be sunk as a reef or scrapped. The are so many ships that served their country with distinction and there just isn't room to save very many of them.
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1182532 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1182618 - Posted: 3 Jan 2012, 15:34:32 UTC

Unfortunately, the decimation of the Royal Navy's capability has been going on for many decades, starting with that sop for a Secretary for Defence John Nott, back in 1980. He nearly left us with no Falklands capability.

As to the fate of the Ark Royal ... I agree with Chris.
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1182618 · Report as offensive
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 16,982,517
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1182878 - Posted: 4 Jan 2012, 23:51:33 UTC - in response to Message 1182618.  

I agree with you on this. Regarding the Falklands, if significant oil is found off the Falklands (there is test drilling going on now), I fear the Falklands might well (notwithstanding the inclination of the long time residents of the islands) become the Malvinas as the British lack the capability to resist a combination of South American countries.

Unfortunately, the decimation of the Royal Navy's capability has been going on for many decades, starting with that sop for a Secretary for Defence John Nott, back in 1980. He nearly left us with no Falklands capability.

As to the fate of the Ark Royal ... I agree with Chris.

ID: 1182878 · Report as offensive
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 16,982,517
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1183239 - Posted: 6 Jan 2012, 16:24:54 UTC - in response to Message 1183215.  

Right, you must be thrilled that the Conservatives are in power -- that means no budget cuts for defense -- oh wait.

There are reasons to not like Blair, after all, he was the PM and often enough, PM's get hated by one faction or another.




Another reason why I hate Tony Blairs guts .....

I think we still have a Royal Train, although I wouldn't give much for its future if Labour get in again.

Royal Yacht

ID: 1183239 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24875
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1183241 - Posted: 6 Jan 2012, 16:32:37 UTC - in response to Message 1183215.  

Yep! Typical Labour Govenrment.

Not long after the end of this series....

HMS Ark Royal & Sailing

HMS Ark Royal was decommissioned & rather than let it be scrapped A local rich scrap dealer put in a bid for it so that he can turn it into a floating muesum....

GUESS WHAT?

He was denied......

I just wonder why as he would have covered all the costs with no government intervention.....
ID: 1183241 · Report as offensive
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 16,982,517
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1183251 - Posted: 6 Jan 2012, 18:37:32 UTC - in response to Message 1183245.  

Fair enough indeed. After all, the decommissioning of the Ark Royal has occurred under another's watch.

As a note, from one American's perspective, it seems that Europe does have some minor funding issues including defense (eg Ark Royal) -- I'd note the rest of Europe is somewhat more pronounced in its rejection of the military than the UK.

Over the coming decade, I expect the US will reduce it's European military investment significantly -- that should thrill folks on the other side of the pond.




But we digress here, this thread is about the proposed fate of the Ark Royal, and it seemed reasonable to add in a bit about another famous ship that shouldn't have been de-commissioned either. We'll leave Blair bashing until another time.


ID: 1183251 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24875
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1183271 - Posted: 6 Jan 2012, 20:20:44 UTC

Hmmn...very interesting....it'll be even more interesting if they win the bid......

Ark Royal bid causing concern
ID: 1183271 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1183960 - Posted: 9 Jan 2012, 5:17:39 UTC - in response to Message 1183245.  

There are reasons to not like Blair, after all, he was the PM and often enough, PM's get hated by one faction or another.


10 years of Blair and "New Labour" brought this country to it's knees. Now he's off swanning around the world earning millions on the backs of the British people. Something no previous PM has done. Also PM's wives knew their place and didn't embarrass their husbands while in office, unlike his one.

But we digress here, this thread is about the proposed fate of the Ark Royal, and it seemed reasonable to add in a bit about another famous ship that shouldn't have been de-commissioned either. We'll leave Blair bashing until another time.



Apologies for adding the the digression, but Chris let's get real. Something no previous PM has done? Right. And where is the place of a PM's wife? How did Cherie embarrass Tony?

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1183960 · Report as offensive

Message boards : Politics : HMS Ark Royal


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.