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.
Page 3 of 3
Re: Enterprise CVN-80
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:49 pm
Re: Enterprise CVN-80
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:54 pm
Re: Enterprise CVN-80
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:16 pm
RNZN Helen Clark... No thanks
Re: Enterprise CVN-80
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:21 pm
HMCS Stephan Harper?
Damn thing will sink, cause of the massive hole where the brain should be.
Damn thing will sink, cause of the massive hole where the brain should be.
Re: Enterprise CVN-80
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:07 am
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.
Re: Enterprise CVN-80
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:59 am
What you do in your spare time is up to you, mate 
Re: Enterprise CVN-80
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 4:26 pm
Well I love those cucumbers tickling the back of my throat.
Wait what?
Wait what?
Re: Enterprise CVN-80
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:51 pm
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.