Re: Enterprise CVN-80
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:47 pm
Shut up! Someone might read this!Captain Seafort wrote:At least you haven't got a USS George W Bush to serve on. Yet.
Shut up! Someone might read this!Captain Seafort wrote:At least you haven't got a USS George W Bush to serve on. Yet.
Yes the Big Grey Bush. I was on it when it was still so shiny new that nothing worked. Food sucked more than usual.Tsukiyumi wrote:Shut up! Someone might read this!Captain Seafort wrote:At least you haven't got a USS George W Bush to serve on. Yet.
This would be good. The name should always be carried on the best the RN can provide.GrahamKennedy wrote:There's been some talk of doing just that.Captain Seafort wrote:That's why I'm miffed about the QEs - they're proper fleet carriers. Not up to the scale of a Nimitz, but the largest warships we've ever built, and far more impressive than the Invincible-class escort carriers (which included the fifth Ark Royal).Deepcrush wrote:With the Ark Royal, if I were the RN, I'd wait until a ship worthy of the history came along. Putting the name to a jeep carrier or a destroyer would be just plain insulting to a legacy of that scale.