egafd.com

Rodders:

I didn't see that one, but I do remember cameron poncing about on the Ark in Canada, playing the big man. What a cunt.

Anyway, I don't think our ships have short lives, it's just that we tend to get rid of them before we need to. Hermes was laid down during the war, completed in 1959, sold to India in the 80s and is still in service. That's an extreme example, but there was nothing stopping Ark Royal staying in service for a few more years, that was always the plan, even when the SDSR was being written. Then. literally days before publication, the RAF bomber barons got at Cameron privately and convinced him that keeping Tornados was better value for money, one of the most crass decisions ever made by a PM whose only real world job was as a PR spiv. If he thinks Britain can throw its weight around in places like Libya, at least have the decency to give the forces the kit they need, in this case a carrier. An air base in Sicily is too far away to provide meaningful air support, which is why the French are doing most of the work, because they do have a carrier.

Its also been listed on Ebay with a ?0.99 starting price so go grab yourself a bargain, you may need a big bath tub to play with this one !wink!

I take your point re Hermes, but, at the end of the day the hull life is down to build quality.
Of the O class submarines all built around the same time by different builders some were deemed unseaworthy before others were.
Builders of a class may work from the same plans but, their quality is a deciding factor. The Ark may well have been scheduled to serve for another 3 years but looking at the state of the steelwork in the ships bottom one has to wonder how she managed to get that far.
Strange thing but a lot of war built ships and boats were scrapped before their time because of the advance in technology, especially in anti submarine warfare and war built stuff couldn't have stood up to the weapons then produced.
Cameroons visit in Canada was on Arks final deployment and was part of the documentary that I saw.

Rodders:

All I can say was that the Ark was due to stay in service for a few more years until the new carriers were ready, and had just been refitted to make that happen. Until the very last few days of the SDSR that was the plan, until the RAF bomber barons convinced Green Dave to keep the Tornados and get rid of the Harriers. With no Harriers, Ark Royal ceased to have any function, and was decommissioned, but that was a political consequence of the RAF's Tornado mafia knobbling Call Me Dave, nothing to do with the Ark's condition. Indeed, if the Ark had been in a poor state you can be sure Dave would have made something of it, because he has caught a shitstorm of criticism over this decision. He didm't make such a claim, because the Ark was fresh out of refit, ready for several more years of service when he did what the Germans were always trying to do, that is, sink the Ark Royal!

They did sink her. The 3rd one that is in November 1941, 150 miles East of Gib.
I get your point re the refit, but, as the cameras showed, her hull was in poor condition in places. The refit would have probably been to upgrade some systems and replace some worn out machinery, ie, engines and gearboxes for example.
But, Cameroon certainly did for her, as would have Broon or Tony B Liar.
Twatts all.

I can't disagree with your last comment.

have to agree he was got at by thr R.A.F.

The days of hundred plane dog fights and carpet bombing are over and the R.A.F should be scrapped.
The Army & Navy should get their own planes, the R.A.F in Lybia are taking out ground targets after the navy has taken out the Airbases and missile defence with cruise missiles.

But as per normal we do it the wrong way we are building two super carriers with no planes and scrapping Harrier
Yet the americans are building new amphibious ships, LHA-1 Tarawa and LHD-1 Wasp class ships to catter for the AV- 8B harrier.

we could scrap the new carriers, pay off the builders and buy 3 new amphibious ships from the americans and the planes to man them and it would be cheaper than finishing the two carriers.

Sorry, as mentioned above, the contracts agreed with the Carrier Alliance mean that scrapping the programme will save no money at all. As it happens, I think the carrier programme is a very important one, and the decision to go for conventional take off F35s is very sensible. What is mental was Green Dave's decision (and it was certainly his, Dr Fox would never have gone for it) to get rid of our existing two carriers and their Harriers and have a ten year capability gap. If we still had Ark Royal she would be just the ship for this current engagement in Libya. The decision to send another four Tornados to Sicily just shows how bankrupt our policy is. Dave is a tosser who doesn't know what he's doing.

He's not that fucking good matey.