Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Britain And France To Share Aircraft Carrier?  
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12321 posts, RR: 35
Posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7496 times:

Merde! Zut alors! Moulin Rouge, Folies Bergeres and other naughty French words!

The British media has reported this widely today. Lord Nelson would be spinning in his grave! The plan is that the second British carrier would be shared with France and it is rumoured that Sarkozy and Cameron will announce this at a summit in November. This move, if it were to go ahead, would have massive historical significance; Britain and France have a long history of sea battles and - barring fisticuffs between French and British ratings on board - this would mark a huge new step forward in Anglo French military co-operation.

It is also rumoured strongly, if not already confirmed, that the F-35s which would have operated from the new carriers are likely to be cancelled, so this would suggest that either French Rafales or RAF/RN Harriers would operate from the new vessel.

How the day to day operation of the vessel would be managed (British captain? French chief of flight operations? They might try and put the British in charge of catering, but I fear that this would probably put a permanent end to entente cordiale!)

And what about the name? The British had chosen Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales for their vessel, but these would probably not be acceptable to the French? How about HMS Trafalgar? May HMS Nelson? Or perhaps even HMS Mers El Kebir*?

I just can't see this working ... but I guess stranger things have happened!

(*This was the "battle" in which Churchill, fearing that the French fleet would fall into German hands - following the capitulation by the Vichy government, ordered that the French fleet in Algeria be scuttled.)

I can only leave the final word on the subject to Mr. Blackadder:

"Doesn't anyone know? We hate the French! We fight wars against
them! Did all those men die in vain on the field at Agincourt?
Was the man who burned Joan of Arc simply wasting good matches?"

60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2629 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7464 times:

I don't see a problem with this. The English provide the fighting sailors and pilots, the French provide the Sous-Chef. 

User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3613 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7432 times:

The original plan was to have a common aircraft carrier design to share and lower the development and construction costs.

There isn't enough money for that either now, so I suppose sharing a carrier wouldn't be a bad idea. The two countries would have to share a common military and political strategy for its use, but then they have done so for a while now, except for Irak, although they eventually came back on the same line.

The two navies would have to learn how to work together, but I guess it could work, and I'd love the irony that even though the UK is not in the EU, they would be the first two European nations to engage in such a join military venture, while the rest of the EU nations can't seem to be able to undertake the slightest amount of consolidation and cooperation between their armies.

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
so this would suggest that either French Rafales or RAF/RN Harriers would operate from the new vessel.

Why not both? How cool would that be...

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
"Doesn't anyone know? We hate the French!"

Well, likewise, but when the money runs out, you have to make sacrifices.  
Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
How about HMS Trafalgar? May HMS Nelson? Or perhaps even HMS Mers El Kebir*?

Dubious cynicism noted, but you'd have to drop the HMS thingy or replace it with Their Majesties, as I'm sure Sarkozy would love the title.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinekl671 From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7422 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 1):
and I'd love the irony that even though the UK is not in the EU

Irony is good, however the UK has been a member state of the EU since 1973.

http://europa.eu/about-eu/27-member-...-states/unitedkingdom/index_en.htm


User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 865 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7384 times:

I don't think that they would actually be sharing it at the same time. All ships require maintenance and refits. Between the two countries, they have 3 carriers. The second British carrier would be pulled out of mothballs whenever one of the two active carriers is in drydock.

User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7367 times:

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
I can only leave the final word on the subject to Mr. Blackadder:

"Doesn't anyone know? We hate the French! We fight wars against
them! Did all those men die in vain on the field at Agincourt?
Was the man who burned Joan of Arc simply wasting good matches?"

The funny thing is there would probably be less fuss if it was shared with Germany. Time as our beloved Ms Gillard would say to "Move forward"!

Wonder if the F-35 will survive.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8042 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7364 times:

What I cannot understand is how this can be effective when the two countries are not in agreement.

The best that can be said is that it is a major step in an "EU Defense" Organization.


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5551 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 7358 times:

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
The British media has reported this widely today. Lord Nelson would be spinning in his grave! The plan is that the second British carrier would be shared with France and it is rumoured that Sarkozy and Cameron will announce this at a summit in November

Ah, the script for the new Monty Python movie!!! Excellent!

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2026 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7298 times:

Another step to joint European military forces.

It's about time! All member states would save billions.

A former step was done in 1987 with the Franco-German Brigade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-German_Brigade

And then the Eurocorps.
http://www.eurocorps.org/home_page/home.php?lang_default=ENG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps

Axel

[Edited 2010-09-01 00:56:54]

[Edited 2010-09-01 01:11:53]


Wer wenig weiss muss vieles glauben
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7236 times:

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 8):
Another step to joint European military forces.

It's about time! All member states would save billions.

The M I complex will be around to see you tonight I expect. Tell them to pay their taxes and mend the holes in the assembled budgets!!!   


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13792 posts, RR: 63
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7222 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 2):
nd I'd love the irony that even though the UK is not in the EU,

Britain is an EU member.

Jan


User currently offlineoldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2026 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7217 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 9):
The M I complex will be around to see you tonight I expect. Tell them to pay their taxes and mend the holes in the assembled budgets!!!

Yep, some would have to make sacrifices. 


Another interesting read. About reflections of the Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini on this issue.
http://www.eurodialogue.org/energy-s...Army-Of-Tomorrow-A-New-Perspective

[Edited 2010-09-01 02:47:08]

[Edited 2010-09-01 02:49:24]


Wer wenig weiss muss vieles glauben
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7194 times:

All this to preseve the jobs that building these carriers will provide to the French and UK economy.

There are other ways to build the carriers rather than cripple your military, there are reasons why nations have not done such before, but putting that aside, Russia wants to buy French amphibs, I'm sure there are customers who would be willing to purchase these ships once built, why not just sell them?

If you cannot afford operate a carrier why build one for yourself?


User currently offlineGrahamHill From France, joined Mar 2007, 2746 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7177 times:

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
And what about the name? The British had chosen Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales for their vessel, but these would probably not be acceptable to the French? How about HMS Trafalgar? May HMS Nelson? Or perhaps even HMS Mers El Kebir*?

What about "Entente Cordiale"? 
Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
I just can't see this working ... but I guess stranger things have happened!

There are a lot of things that people could not see working, and yet they did. Sharing an aircraft carrier with an old and respectable "enemy" is not more complicated than building Europe with Germany 10 years after the end of WWII, I guess.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 2):
replace it with Their Majesties, as I'm sure Sarkozy would love the title.


  



"A learned fool is more foolish than an ignorant one" - Moliere
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7149 times:

Quoting GrahamHill (Reply 13):
Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
And what about the name? The British had chosen Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales for their vessel, but these would probably not be acceptable to the French? How about HMS Trafalgar? May HMS Nelson? Or perhaps even HMS Mers El Kebir*?

What about "Entente Cordiale"?

Concorde.

Most of the EU states are taking an axe to their defense budgets -- the Americans are next in line, just wait for it. Not sure, as Baroque indicated, that the F-35 will survive this. Perhaps a mix of Harriers and Rafales. To accomodate the Rafales a lot of engineering work would have to be undertaken at considerable cost.

Perhaps it could work, but it would require a lot of open-mindedness and flexibility.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13792 posts, RR: 63
Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7143 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 14):
To accomodate the Rafales a lot of engineering work would have to be undertaken at considerable cost.

The british and the French carriers use basically the same blueprints. The French chose the option to have catapults and arrester gear added for their Rafales, while the British decided to use a skijump ramp for the F-35 in the same style as they used for their Harriers on their older aircraft carriers, but with the option to possibly convert the ship at a later stage to conventional carrier aircraft. All the British need to do is to copy the French design.

Quoting par13del (Reply 12):
There are other ways to build the carriers rather than cripple your military, there are reasons why nations have not done such before, but putting that aside, Russia wants to buy French amphibs, I'm sure there are customers who would be willing to purchase these ships once built, why not just sell them?

Defnce items are not subject to normal commercial considerations. You want to make sure that you keep the best stuff for yourself and don´t arm a potential future enemy with the same or better equipment than you have yourself. When the Russians (and Soviets) sold more sophisticated equipment (e.g. at higher sophistication than an AK-47 or RPG-7) , they made sure that it was only versions of reduced capability, not the same version issued to their own troops.

Jan


User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5607 posts, RR: 45
Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7110 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Whilst I understand the issues that led to Trafalgar, Waterloo or even Mers El Kebir are well behind us what would be the protocol if the UK(if indeed it remained united) were to find itself toe to toe with her gallic neighbour across the channel?

Would there be an arrangement to have a ceasefire or truce period so the otherside could take their turn with the carrier?



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlinefca767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1724 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7097 times:

I Read an article and it said, instead of 4 vessals, just 2, the french patrol at one time and the uk another time

User currently offlineferengi80 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 685 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7076 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting photopilot (Reply 1):
I don't see a problem with this

If my father were still alive, he would be gobsmacked by this! He was not a big lover of the French, and said that the only reason the Channel Tunnel was built was so that if there was another War, the French could be in London that much quicker with their hands up! I can just imagine his quotes regarding this....

As for the name... It has got to be HMS something or other. Anything else would cause a diplomatic incident!



AF1981 LHR-CDG A380-800 10 July 2010 / AF1980 CDG-LHR A380-800 11 July 2010
User currently offlinewolbo From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 476 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7061 times:

Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 8):
Another step to joint European military forces.

It's about time! All member states would save billions.

A former step was done in 1987 with the Franco-German Brigade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-...igade

There's also a German/Netherlands Corps: 1GNC

http://www.1gnc.org


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1437 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7046 times:

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
And what about the name? The British had chosen Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales for their vessel, but these would probably not be acceptable to the French? How about HMS Trafalgar? May HMS Nelson? Or perhaps even HMS Mers El Kebir*?

How about the HMS Duke of Normandy since that was once one of the titles that past English Norman Kings had.
I read that the RN is thinking about used F-18's until the F-35 comes around.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7018 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 15):
Defnce items are not subject to normal commercial considerations. You want to make sure that you keep the best stuff for yourself and don´t arm a potential future enemy with the same or better equipment than you have yourself.

Quite true, but the ships have just started construction, no electronics, electrical or power plants have yet been installed, unless you believe that the design itself has new "methods / ideas" worthy of national protection, in which case, by sharing such with another nation friendly or not does open the door to much more "loose lips" which can "sink ships".  
Quoting oldeuropean (Reply 8):
Another step to joint European military forces.

Is this really the case or an after thought created by the current economic situation?
A copuple years ago a EU quick reaction force was proposed where member nations would put up troops and materials under a joint command, have not kept up but I believe it was done, kindly correct me if I'm wrong.

The UK initiated its two carrier program a few years ago, there was no joint anywhere, France initiated the joint due to the major issues they have had with their nuclear powered carrier, even then there was only joint construction no joint operations. Fast forward to the current economic crisis, the UK is looking to cut defense spending, if some brilliant Navy person could team up with a private contractor to show that one carrier could be made to work they would jump on that immediately.
So far operational requirements still indicate that a minimum of two carriers is the best option for training, deployment, operations etc. but running two carriers is certainely more expensive than one, so what to do? The US Navy ship building program for the next few years is in shambles, how about following the tanker program and offer to build US Navy ship's in my opinion the building of the ships and its economic impact is the issue, not how they will be operated.

I'm not saying that it cannot work, I question whether it's worth it to essentially get a minimum at best carrier force, say one and a half ship. If they are proposing merging the French and UK Navies from firgates all the way up to the carriers then fine, true EU integration, how about getting other countries on board especially the smaller Baltic nations who have good "brown water" capabilities. If only the carriers are megred, the crew set will be speciliazed which could create additional issues if for example the joint carrier is used for training, not insurmountable but do you need these additional issues to be carrier capable?
The UK did pretty well with smaller carriers, perhaps going back to what they perfected?


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1437 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7014 times:

I don't know why a NATO owned CV could not work. With 2 old oil burners sitting in US ports Kitty Hawk and the JFK NATO could project power with true cost sharing. The question is are those 2 ships have any useful life in them to be modernized and equipped. NATO owned E-3's and C-17's seem to be working well.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlinepetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3309 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7002 times:

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 22):
The question is are those 2 ships have any useful life in them to be modernized and equipped.

The main problem with those two ships, and dare I say it a lot of US ships, is that they require a lot of manpower. A single US carrier, nuke or conventional, requires almost as much personnel as half the entire Dutch navy including the marine corps!

According to Wikipedia the USS Kitty Hawk CV-63 has a crew of 4.582 men and women. According to the site of the Dutch navy and marine corps they employ roughy 10.500 men and women. That's 6.640 with the navy, 2.840 with the marines and the rest are civilians.

Even if you combine all European naval forces you'd be hard pressed to find enough men and women to run those two ships along with their support vessels, and still maintain their current obligations.



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7002 times:

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 22):
I don't know why a NATO owned CV could not work

It could, except so far they are only talking about the UK and France.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 22):
With 2 old oil burners sitting in US ports Kitty Hawk and the JFK NATO could project power with true cost sharing.

Metal has already been cut, these ships are being built, so if NATO is going to get any carriers it will have to be these two or 3 however many they finally settle on building.


25 Post contains links Starbuk7 : Apparently the UK is not too happy about it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hare-aircraft-carriers-French.html
26 KiwiRob : Not a problem the CVF was designed wih conversion to cats from the get go, also the French version the PA2 was going to use cats, so I'm pretty sure
27 Post contains images sw733 : I heard that the default speed of the ship would be "Retreat"
28 Venus6971 : Not sure how a CV is crewed or any USN ship is staffed since I was a USAF guy but I am guessing triple reduncency plus alot of crew are used as suppor
29 gatorfan : Admiral Lord Nelson is rolling over in his grave.
30 GST : I really hope this is true, the UK and France are very closely aligned militarily and even politically (though few care to admit it unfortunately. Thi
31 photopilot : How ODD that I can be "quoted" as saying something in Reply 1 THAT I NEVER SAID AND ISN'T WRITTEN. Tell me, do you often go around and fake quotes fo
32 par13del : US Navy carriers embark in excess of 80 combat a/c, takes a lot of support personnel, most anything that can go wrong with the a/c can be fixed on bo
33 Post contains images breiz : I do not see this as a problem. The British can use the left side of the flight deck while the French use the right side. Likewise, the ship may be n
34 Shmertspionem : That particular name would be unfortunate given that Britain occupied large tracts of France for the best part of 500 years given the Plantagenet cla
35 GST : Well the Normans weren't exactly French in the strictest sense, being at that time a separate kingdom, so Hastings would be irrelevant in my eye. Wou
36 Zeke : France is also in discussions with Airtanker (the new tanker provider to the RAF) to lease excess capacity.
37 bikerthai : There are a several French/English combined naval engagements during the Crimean war. Nothing spectacular, but things to consider. bikerthai
38 bikerthai : Or "Ouistreham" the town on Sword Beach, Normandy where the French Commandos landed with the British contingent. bikerthai
39 328JET : Wow, if this would come true, it could really mean the first step to a single european navy. This would make perfect sense. And IF it will happen, i c
40 garnetpalmetto : What would the costs (both financial and aircraft performance) be to navalize the Eurofighter? After all, we're talking about having to beef up the s
41 Post contains links 328JET : A good point, but a carrier based version is under consideration. India seems to show interest: http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories419.htm
42 Shmertspionem : 1) The real costs may not be as much as the political costs 2) First political cost - you piss off the US by saying no to the F-35 3) Second politica
43 Post contains links windy95 : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...including-a400m-to-save-costs.html
44 Eagleboy : The Daily Mail represents the xenophobic bigoted section of the UK. The fear that Euro as the want to keep the Queen's image on their money! Wasn't t
45 garnetpalmetto : Probably because that would have meant designing the Queen Elizabeths from the go to actually include CATOBAR equipment (not just to have a provision
46 flagon : I just cannot believe that, given the involvement of the british industry in the F35 I find that very hard to believe, but we will see. After all whe
47 Post contains links Shmertspionem : I think that had a lot to do with the Nuclear propulsion issue - The Brits couldn't afford nuke power and the French thought conventional power was a
48 Post contains links Lumberton : No carriers, but they might share A400Ms. Whether or not this "pooling" would result in a reduced buy is not discussed here. http://www.dodbuzz.com/20
49 connies4ever : In the large strokes I agree. However, below deck I believe there are some significant differences w.r.t. quartering, storage, and so forth. Perhaps
50 flagon : The Rafale M does not have folding wings, hence I bet the Eurofighter would not need that feature either. However the beefing up of the Eurofighter n
51 Post contains links flagon : Well, now it's time to get our feet back on the ground: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/forei...ench-carrier-sharing-$21383530.htm
52 Thumper : I guess they could put 3 forward gears in it for the British and 1 reverse for the French!
53 garnetpalmetto : Backtracking on the issue or not, I'm still skeptical that the idea will ever take off, or take to the seas, as it were. Sharing a common design is on
54 ebj1248650 : I suspected that would be the way it would work out. The fighting will take place when the next nation takes over the boat and starts finding all kin
55 francoflier : Well, the carriers are ruled out, which is not really a surprise. Of all the military hardware a nation might have, a carrier is probably one of the l
56 Post contains links 777 : Interesting news and a new way to imagine the European cooperation. It reminds me that a naval cooperation between UK, France and Italy has born, at l
57 Post contains links Lumberton : This could warrant a thread of its own, but Defense News reports that the UK MOD is considering all options WRT the new carriers, including ending the
58 Burkhard : I read about this plan years ago, nothing new. Britain and France each need one carrier for immediate reaction, 365 days a year. Not more. But carrier
59 Post contains images columba : I have a suggestion for a name "Concorde" at least worked once with french british co-production
60 ThePointblank : How about 'Formidable', which is a ship's name that has long histories in the French and Royal navies. The last the name was used in the French Navy
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Britain And France To Share Aircraft Carrier?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Aircraft Carrier Questions posted Thu Sep 10 2009 07:01:49 by NA
USN Aircraft Carrier With Island On The Left? posted Sat Aug 1 2009 22:34:31 by Max Q
France To Buy C-130J If A400M Further Delayed posted Fri Jun 5 2009 14:30:43 by N328KF
Mig And Sukhoi To Merge posted Tue Nov 25 2008 07:37:50 by Columba
Heaviest Thing Taking Off An Aircraft Carrier posted Tue Feb 26 2008 14:00:58 by AF1624
Landing On A Aircraft Carrier. posted Sat Feb 16 2008 12:20:28 by FXramper
Boeing And LM To Team-Up On Bomber RFP posted Fri Jan 25 2008 09:06:42 by Stitch
U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier Utilization/Security posted Tue Aug 14 2007 03:53:09 by JohnJ
Was The Aircraft Carrier I Saw In 2001 CV-64? posted Thu Feb 15 2007 01:11:49 by 747400sp
Russian Aircraft Carrier Crash posted Fri Feb 2 2007 23:07:19 by LMP737

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format