Discussion in 'Royal Navy' started by The_Rattler, Jul 7, 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. thank god something has atleast started - even if it is only symbollic for now!
  2. "Through Life Cost Management" and "Sustainability"
  3. I sort of see what you mean, however how good is our credit, and can we only sail to places where we can get access to the gas pumps?
  4. So, will they get the nicknames HMS Brenda and HMS Brian?
  5. Greens wouldn't like it… constant protests at Plymouth, Pompey and Rosyth every time they entered port.
  6. Screw the greens, I want some decent boats that float and move, and not spend half their life waiting for the AA/RAC sea equivalent to come out with a jerry Can of diesel, or wait for the credit card bill to clear before they buy more fuel.
    If your going to have a floating airport at least give it some balls

    also the navy could do with a bit of street cred, give them a toy they can use with anger (and go for the option that has no I Pod docking stations)

  7. Green is the new religion of the Left…
  8. Nope they will take their own floating gas station with them. Do remember even the big nuclear carries used by the septics need a floating gas station for the planes. The extra though that they really need is a catapult.
  9. As has been pointed out in the countless other threads:
    We don't have any nuclear powered aircraft or escorts, nor do we have ordnance made purely from sea-water. If CVF were solar powered, it would still need to be RaS;
    8 - 10,000 miles is not an insignificant distance;
    CVF no more needs to operate within sailing distance of a gas pump than the RTR need to operate within driving distance of a Shell garage. The Army has the RLC, the RN has the RFA;
    Nuclear would triple the cost of the program, and for what?
    Nuclear vessels still need emergency diesels which, when used, reduce sailing speed to a crawl;
    There are huge security and infrastructure issues with nuclear;
    The territorial waters of some countries are no go areas for nuclear powered vessels.

    Nuclear being better is both simplistic and bollocks. In some areas it is better, in some worse. On the whole, it is just different.
  10. Under the current MARPOL regs, we will only be able to sail between places we can get "gas"; unless they make a plan for new FTs!
  11. Bit facile, "sustainability" ought to be the religion of anyone not planning on checking out in the next fifty years, I suggest. Or who cares about their children, their children's children and further dilution of the "herrenvolk" DNA that constitues their biological identity down the line!
  12. #

    I wonder how long it will be before the navy hits something with one of them or runs aground?
  13. Nuclear provides all kinds of good stuff, for starters with no fuel required to be stored for the 10,000 mile endurance, we can get more aircraft and ordance on board.

    Also (IIRC) don't US carriers have teh capability to resup their escorts? Not massively so, but still a capability.
  14. I suppose any weakness in an attack/mil operation is the supply line, if for an example we stretched ourselves a little too much and did not have a place to run too, the hope of an RFA ship with a Jimpy bringing up the rear with a can of gas does not really offer any more comfort.

    So from this I can only assume then all Navy activity will be within 100 miles of the uk shores, anything more will be speichel projects.

    As much as we need to look after the future of the planet and our kids, wars and conflicts tend to look at this as one of the latter options.

    should we not save today and prepare for tomorrow rather than assume it wont or cannot happen

    6 x P's