Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

One thing I do like about this ship is this:

 

 

Still amazed that something like this hasn't made it's way to colonial navy yet.

They named their bar The Queen's Bathroom!?! :-D

 

For you non-sailor types, the bathrooms on a ship are called "heads".

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GW8345 said:

They named their bar The Queen's Bathroom!?! 😄

 

For you non-sailor types, the bathrooms on a ship are called "heads".

LOL..  All things considered, it looks pretty damned cozy.   The Brits also commissioned a few types of craft beer specifically for the bar.  

 

Nice way to unwind after a busy day dropping bombs on bad guys.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 11bee said:

LOL..  All things considered, it looks pretty damned cozy.   The Brits also commissioned a few types of craft beer specifically for the bar.  

 

Nice way to unwind after a busy day dropping bombs on bad guys.   

 

The sound of a million US Naval officers shrieking in terror at alcohol let alone a bar lol

 

 

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2018 at 10:51 AM, 11bee said:

 

 

 

Still amazed that something like this hasn't made it's way to colonial navy yet.

 

Nor will it ever...nobody even drinks on base anymore. With good reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 82Whitey51 said:

 

Nor will it ever...nobody even drinks on base anymore. With good reason.

The age old question - Can a sailor be responsible enough to work on a $70 million dollar jet but not responsible enough to be trusted with a $5.00 beer?    Apparently the answer is now and will always be - no.  

 

Wonder how the Royal Navy has been able to remain functional all these years whilst still allowing the crew to imbibe on occasion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 11bee said:

Wonder how the Royal Navy has been able to remain functional all these years whilst still allowing the crew to imbibe on occasion?

 

Culture. In the U.S. drinking is vilified...ask a certain judge.

Edited by 82Whitey51
Link to post
Share on other sites

^ well I also think that Brits are introduced to it at an earlier age and casual drinking is a bit more ingrained in their culture than in the U.S. When your introduction into drinking is a few years of getting blackout drunk furtively in high school parties... it might not be the best marker to lay down. (its a bit of a stereotype, but its generally accurate).

 

Also consider that drinking age would prevent a significant portion of the military population from even joining in. 

Edited by -Neu-
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 11bee said:

The age old question - Can a sailor be responsible enough to work on a $70 million dollar jet but not responsible enough to be trusted with a $5.00 beer?    Apparently the answer is now and will always be - no.  

 

 

Ite right up there with the old, how can you be drafted at 18 but can't have a beer quandary...

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Whiskey said:

Thought this was a pretty interesting, if not amusing, read about the US F-35’s “combat debut.” The article originally comes from Task & Purpose.

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-35-‘combat-debut’-big-waste-time-such-deadly-stealth-fighter-32392

 

 

They all have to practise flying anyway and the place needed bombing so why not combine the two. Did he expect them to sneak in and bomb a Russian or Chinese base just to justify the cost of the program?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t believe that’s what he’s trying to say at all. If the aircraft was already out in a sortie or this was added onto a planned mission then I don’t see an issue. What I believe he’s trying to convey is, if there’s going to be target practice then make it a little bit more useful. Then again maybe testing out a 1,000 mile bomb run is something that has not been done yet and needed to be experimented on anyway. Like I said it’s an interesting read if not just amusing.

Edited by Whiskey
Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that regardless, they have to train and flying an actual real mission over other country's airspace and dropping real bombs is probably more useful than hitting a range in the States with practice bombs as there are only so many places you can actually bomb right now so it had to be done even if it could have been done some cheaper way......

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Whiskey said:

Thought this was a pretty interesting, if not amusing, read about the US F-35’s “combat debut.” The article originally comes from Task & Purpose.

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-35-‘combat-debut’-big-waste-time-such-deadly-stealth-fighter-32392

 

 

 

 

Its a little late to be complaining about how we use ship based naval air assets to do strikes in the Global War on Terror...

 

This just in: we are spending waaayyy too much money to bomb guys with RPGs!! 

 

LOL yeah we know. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 11bee said:

The age old question - Can a sailor be responsible enough to work on a $70 million dollar jet but not responsible enough to be trusted with a $5.00 beer?    Apparently the answer is now and will always be - no.  

 

Wonder how the Royal Navy has been able to remain functional all these years whilst still allowing the crew to imbibe on occasion?

 

Royal Canadian Navy is the same, they have drinking messes on the ships. I hear a lot of US sailors love serving on a Canadian ship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Scooby said:

 

Royal Canadian Navy is the same, they have drinking messes on the ships. I hear a lot of US sailors love serving on a Canadian ship.

On the other side of the house, Canadian grunts deploy to the field with a beer tent.  Always thought that was a really nice piece of kit.   

 

Enjoyed my stint with the Canucks at Gagetown, NB.   Great guys.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TaiidanTomcat said:

 

 

Its a little late to be complaining about how we use ship based naval air assets to do strikes in the Global War on Terror...

 

This just in: we are spending waaayyy too much money to bomb guys with RPGs!! 

 

LOL yeah we know. 

 

 

 

 

Told ya it was amusing lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Whiskey said:

 

 

Told ya it was amusing lol.

 

It was indeed. If you remember that PBS show carrier from 10 years ago the officers and pilots were complaining about the same thing.

 

Take off hit tanker twice, loiter until tanking, then duck out early for the ever important landing back on the ship phase and hit the tanker back twice on the way. 

 

The griping happens a few times when they hit the Persian gulf over the course of a few episodes. 

 

It's a paradox. You bought the stuff you might as well use it. If you dont use it people complain about that too. 

 

 

The ships are sailing and the planes are flying, might as well have them do something...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 1:39 PM, MarkW said:

Regarding the Brit ops--anyone notice they didn't pass over the stern?  The sidle up along mid ship then lateral over.  I know there was significant angst and hand wringing with the USN regarding the possible downwash effects passing over the stern of the LHDs, which like most of the Navy gross paranoia, turned out to be not an issue.  From what I can see of the QE design, it seems to be a much cleaner deck edge than our ships, so It's curious to see the side approach.

 

On ‎10‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 3:51 PM, 11bee said:

Pretty sure that in the longer term, the Brits will be also landing over the stern.  

 

AFAIK it's always been considered in the Royal Navy (since the Harrier went to sea anyway) that it was better to stop then land, rather than land then stop.

 

---------------------

Edited by barkin mad
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, barkin mad said:

 

 

AFAIK it's always been considered in the Royal Navy (since the Harrier went to sea anyway) that it was better to stop then land, rather than land then stop.

 

---------------------

Agreed. :thumbsup:

 

Another:

I can't see why the F-35's would land any different.

 

Regards,

Don

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not up on the B model.   Is there any advantage to a short, rolling landing on an small deck carrier vrs a vertical landing?    Is it even possible?  Just wondering if would allow higher “bring-back” capability?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, 11bee said:

I’m not up on the B model.   Is there any advantage to a short, rolling landing on an small deck carrier vrs a vertical landing?    Is it even possible?  Just wondering if would allow higher “bring-back” capability?   

 

 

That's exactly what it does. Short Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) is in the cards for the future. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...