Carrier to India?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Pork_Pie, Nov 15, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Grauniad

    I assume we'll also need fewer escort vessels if we only have 1 carrier?

    Perhaps we can flog that one, too?
     
  2. Why do people type things like "Grauniad" "Liabor" "Gobment" etc?

    It's not big, or clever, and pointless in my opinion.
     
  3. "Grauniad" was coined by Private Eye, in reference to the Guardians endless editorial errors and spelling mistakes, so it is quite clever.
     
  4. I thought with carriers you need two, or none. Considering what the Navy gave up in terms of ships to get the carriers it's a fooking outrage if they don't get two. Maybes if the government stopped throwing money at crap like RBS and diversity/equality/outreach jobs there might be a wee bit more for defence of the realm :?
     
  5. Then why don't we just build a third?
    Development costs spread over three ships, everybody wins
     
  6. Given the aid we give them,why not just give them the boat as well?
     
  7. Not really.
     
  8. What are you on about, why shouldn't minority groups get preferential treatment and thick people with degrees in finance who bring the country to its nees receive preferential treatment??

    Don't forget, a Priminister who cannot spell, who is brilliant at finance??

    Where would we be without these people????????
     
  9. All ready been covered, but the article in the guardian points to a shared navy!!
     

  10. Actually we needed THREE!
     
  11. consider the indians have been royally screwed over trying to buy an ex soviet carrier thats still not ready they may be keen so build three