Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USN Drinks Portsmouth Dry.

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #31
    Originally posted by Dissident
    I can't believe a carrier went up there though.
    You are quite correct Diisident. US carriers have to anchor about 5 miles offshore of Portsmouth because the water is too shallow to moor in the Port. Notice the reference to "the Solent" in the article. Every few years or so one drops by to wavr the flag and drink the pubs dry.

    This water depth thing is one reason why the proposed 2 new Brit carriers are smaller than the US varieties - they wouldn't fit in Portsmouth otherwise. And there's NO WAY the Uk navy would start a new base in a deeper port - the words "limpet" and "rock" come to mind. (They'd would have to move "Victory" as well - UNTHINKABLE!!!)

    For the record, I like Bud. The Czech variety, that is. Can't stand the US variety (but it is heavily overpriced in the UK, which could be part of the reason I don't like it).

    That and the flavour, of course.
    Last edited by Cruddy; May 12, 2003, 19:45.
    Some cry `Allah O Akbar` in the street. And some carry Allah in their heart.
    "The CIA does nothing, says nothing, allows nothing, unless its own interests are served. They are the biggest assembly of liars and theives this country ever put under one roof and they are an abomination" Deputy COS (Intel) US Army 1981-84

    Comment

    • #32
      Why don't you guys just dredge the port? The USN has been dredging San Diego harbor for years just so they can fit their aircraft carriers in the harbor.
      Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

      Comment

      • #33
        They can drink as much of that piss as they like...we'll keep the decent beer for ourselves. You couldn't get a cirrhotic seagull drunk with a gallon of the stuff, so should only take a bottle or two for a yank
        Speaking of Erith:

        "It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith

        Comment

        • #34
          I have no positive information to offer on dredging Portsmouth. I suspect at least part of the reason is geological, that is after a fathom or two you hit solid rock.

          On the other hand, the UK being what it is, partly because we don't want US nuclear carriers in our ports.

          Please note: the naval facility at Portsmouth was designed for sailing ships. You guys would scarely say it was a marina, let alone a naval base. It doesn't compare to San Diego at all.
          Last edited by Cruddy; May 12, 2003, 20:01.
          Some cry `Allah O Akbar` in the street. And some carry Allah in their heart.
          "The CIA does nothing, says nothing, allows nothing, unless its own interests are served. They are the biggest assembly of liars and theives this country ever put under one roof and they are an abomination" Deputy COS (Intel) US Army 1981-84

          Comment

          • #35
            I wasn't suggesting you do it for American ships but so you folks could have a place to birth your own carriers. That is if the RN ever gets around to making a proper one.
            Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

            Comment

            • #36
              What's the UK need a large supercarrier for, anyway?
              Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
              Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

              Comment

              • #37
                Why does any country need a large supercarrier?
                Some cry `Allah O Akbar` in the street. And some carry Allah in their heart.
                "The CIA does nothing, says nothing, allows nothing, unless its own interests are served. They are the biggest assembly of liars and theives this country ever put under one roof and they are an abomination" Deputy COS (Intel) US Army 1981-84

                Comment

                • #38
                  To kick the **** out of other countries. Why else?
                  Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                  Comment

                  • #39
                    Originally posted by David Floyd
                    What's the UK need a large supercarrier for, anyway?
                    So we can have a crutch next time we go to war.
                    Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

                    Comment

                    • #40
                      It's sad that they drank up all the Bud. I ALWAYS drank beer from the country I was in when I was in the Navy.

                      Drinking Bud is like going to an Italian restaurant,crap, eatery, and ordering a hamburger and fries.

                      ACK!
                      Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!

                      Comment

                      • #41
                        So now you know.

                        Actually, the RN has taken a lot of stick for not having a carrier whose aircraft are supersonic since.... 70s???

                        Current "Invincible" class is really just for ASW in the North Atlantic. The air threat it was designed to cope with - Soviet land based bombers with stand off missilbes - isn't really a threat.

                        So we have a few carriers with no mission anymore. Politically very embarrassing. OK, the Russian Navy has maintained boomers and HK nukes at expense of surface fleet.

                        Now, new levels of ship board aircraft are coming into production/off the design boards, especially JSF. These won't fit onto existing carriers. So we needed a couple of new ones (which won't be ready till 2015).

                        The short answer is - same reason we have a nuclear deterrent. To deal with an uppity France if necessary.
                        Some cry `Allah O Akbar` in the street. And some carry Allah in their heart.
                        "The CIA does nothing, says nothing, allows nothing, unless its own interests are served. They are the biggest assembly of liars and theives this country ever put under one roof and they are an abomination" Deputy COS (Intel) US Army 1981-84

                        Comment

                        • #42
                          Damn those French.
                          Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

                          Comment

                          • #43
                            I was joking, of course. The real reason for the new carriers is because the Navy feels very silly if they don't have any ships.

                            I should point out, that as a French firm has part of the contract to build these carriers, the French govt does not consider them a threat.

                            Here's a link with pix;-

                            Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF)
                            http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/
                            UK CVF Royal Navy aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, are the largest warships ever constructed in the country.
                            Last edited by Cruddy; May 12, 2003, 20:37.
                            Some cry `Allah O Akbar` in the street. And some carry Allah in their heart.
                            "The CIA does nothing, says nothing, allows nothing, unless its own interests are served. They are the biggest assembly of liars and theives this country ever put under one roof and they are an abomination" Deputy COS (Intel) US Army 1981-84

                            Comment

                            • #44
                              After how badly the French f'ed up the de Gual I wonder what the hell the Brits were thinking to let the Frogs touch one of their carrier projects.
                              Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                              Comment

                              • #45
                                Unfair! Most unfair. It is not easy to get the first example of a naval vessel correct - there have been many examples of UK naval design getting it wrong on the first attempt. Leander, type 22, the original Warrior - all were design disasters that should not have entered service.

                                EDIT: I could quote some old buddies of mine... Never mind, to get back on topic - sailors will be sailors.
                                Some cry `Allah O Akbar` in the street. And some carry Allah in their heart.
                                "The CIA does nothing, says nothing, allows nothing, unless its own interests are served. They are the biggest assembly of liars and theives this country ever put under one roof and they are an abomination" Deputy COS (Intel) US Army 1981-84

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                                Working...
                                X