interestrateripoff

Reasons Why The Uk Doesn't Need An Aircraft Carrier

29 posts in this topic

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8354829/Libya-David-Cameron-vows-not-to-abandon-Libyan-people.html

Dr Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, insisted that such criticism was a “red herring” because the base in Cyprus meant Britain could still operate jets over Libya if required.

Genius. I bet he said this with a straight face. Just as long as the country is within range of Cyprus it's all fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Reasons Why The Uk Doesn't Need An Aircraft Carrier"

Reason 1, we have sold on our sea harriers.

Reason 2, nice Mr Sarkozy said we can borrow his any time we want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason 3 - every time we significantly reduce our military capabilities we are plunged into a very expensive set of wars.

And boy, we could really do with a proper shooting war right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason 4 - Germany, Scandinavian countries etc... all seem to manage fine without them and the sky hasn't fallen on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason 5: We can call on the "faultless" logic of Injin to argue bore our way out of any situation.

Edited by General Melchett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason 6: a multi billion pound weapon system to protect a few hundred islanders in the south atlantic seems a bit excessive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chinese/Russians/Iranians and [insert smart dictator here] have bought large quantities of anti ship missiles. The Chinese Russians and Iranians in particular have fast deadly ones which they have 1000s of. Meaning they can only be used against countries with little military capability. Use them against India, China or Russia and a carrier would be sunk pretty darned quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chinese/Russians/Iranians and [insert smart dictator here] have bought large quantities of anti ship missiles. The Chinese Russians and Iranians in particular have fast deadly ones which they have 1000s of. Meaning they can only be used against countries with little military capability. Use them against India, China or Russia and a carrier would be sunk pretty darned quickly.

You overestimate the military capability of those nations. There is also a lot more to military success than equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Britain has always had the same strategy for defence. All the other European powers are obliged to maintain large armies to defend their land borders. Britain alone can forego a large army and instead build a large navy. This prevents any of them landing their army on British soil. Thus Britain's strategy for hundreds of years has been to prevent any other European power from growing large enough that it has the budget to build a strong army and a strong navy. An aircraft carrier does nothing for defence, it is a pure attack weapon. An airfield is vastly superior to an aircraft carrier sitting off the Kent coast.

The problem we have is the admirals have forgotten their place. They like to sail around the world on the bridge of giant ships dropping bombs on little brown men. They want these carriers so they will be invited along to the party by the Americans. They could not care less the about defence of the realm, their real job. Well I for one don't want to pay for their toys. We could have a whole submarine fleet for the same price. Small disposable subs cannot be nuked because they are cheap and they cannot be found. Yet they can still sink the biggest carrier. But what glory is there for an admiral in such a ship? Commanding 20 sailors whilst hiding under the sea. No lets build a carrier so we can stand on the bridge and salute the American admirals on their giant ships. Its ******** and has nothing to do with defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Britain has always had the same strategy for defence. All the other European powers are obliged to maintain large armies to defend their land borders. Britain alone can forego a large army and instead build a large navy. This prevents any of them landing their army on British soil. Thus Britain's strategy for hundreds of years has been to prevent any other European power from growing large enough that it has the budget to build a strong army and a strong navy. An aircraft carrier does nothing for defence, it is a pure attack weapon. An airfield is vastly superior to an aircraft carrier sitting off the Kent coast.

It's too late now.If they had really wanted to save Britain they should have blown up the runways at Heathrow.The invasion is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason 5: We can call on the "faultless" logic of Injin to argue bore thread-hijack and sidetrack our way out of any situation.

Reason 7: The Banks have taken all the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You overestimate the military capability of those nations. There is also a lot more to military success than equipment.

....as the yanks constantly demonstrate. All the gear and no idea :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You overestimate the military capability of those nations. There is also a lot more to military success than equipment.

Yes training, but I severely doubt Chinese/Russian/Iranian military is little more than handing people a rifle and telling then to rush the enemy.

And the days of enemy pilots having less than 100 hours is long gone. The funnest story is the Icelandic wargames where NATO went against former warsaw pact pilots back in the 1990s. The NATO pilots thought they'd walk it. Their aircraft and training was supposed to be the best in the world. What really happened surprised them, MiG29 pilots would eat them for breakfast time and again and the Mig29s were power restricted AND flew with a full load. It took 100s of mock dogfights before the NATO pilots could adapt to the tactics of the Mig pilots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reason 7: The Banks have taken all the money.

Reason 8: in a few years the Royal Navy will be handed over to Brussels to become part of the EU Navy, so why would any sensible government waste money buying hardware that they'll be giving away shortly? Let the French pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8354829/Libya-David-Cameron-vows-not-to-abandon-Libyan-people.html

Genius. I bet he said this with a straight face. Just as long as the country is within range of Cyprus it's all fine.

yes because Libya will be the last war the Uk is involved in , they won't have enough money to fight in anything after that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Britain has always had the same strategy for defence. All the other European powers are obliged to maintain large armies to defend their land borders. Britain alone can forego a large army and instead build a large navy. This prevents any of them landing their army on British soil. Thus Britain's strategy for hundreds of years has been to prevent any other European power from growing large enough that it has the budget to build a strong army and a strong navy. An aircraft carrier does nothing for defence, it is a pure attack weapon. An airfield is vastly superior to an aircraft carrier sitting off the Kent coast.

The problem we have is the admirals have forgotten their place. They like to sail around the world on the bridge of giant ships dropping bombs on little brown men. They want these carriers so they will be invited along to the party by the Americans. They could not care less the about defence of the realm, their real job. Well I for one don't want to pay for their toys. We could have a whole submarine fleet for the same price. Small disposable subs cannot be nuked because they are cheap and they cannot be found. Yet they can still sink the biggest carrier. But what glory is there for an admiral in such a ship? Commanding 20 sailors whilst hiding under the sea. No lets build a carrier so we can stand on the bridge and salute the American admirals on their giant ships. Its ******** and has nothing to do with defence.

Nicely put. I was hearing about weekly helicopter trips by navy officers to play golf, this was from a friend of a friend who was a civilian navy instructor. He thought it was entirely fair since (I paraphrase) "these people are prepared to die for their country". Unbelievable arrogance, he'd only been there a few months and had swallowed it whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicely put. I was hearing about weekly helicopter trips by navy officers to play golf, this was from a friend of a friend who was a civilian navy instructor. He thought it was entirely fair since (I paraphrase) "these people are prepared to die for their country". Unbelievable arrogance, he'd only been there a few months and had swallowed it whole.

+1

The only deaths in the Navy since WWII have been from Cirrhosis of the liver :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

The only deaths in the Navy since WWII have been from Cirrhosis of the liver :lol:

A few Falklands veterans would probably like to talk to you about that statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few Falklands veterans would probably like to talk to you about that statement.

True enough and good point......since the Falklands then :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

The only deaths in the Navy since WWII have been from Cirrhosis of the liver :lol:

The objective is not to die for your country. The objective is to make the other b*stard die for his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check it out for yourself.....

http://www.naval-history.net/xDKCas1003-Intro.htm

Edit: I did spot one CPO who died of natural causes. Could possibly have been one rum too many!

I know, I know. Jeez you take one pop at our bell bottomed botty boys and everyone comes out in their defence :rolleyes:

I am just jealous tbh, wish I had spent my time floating around, seeing the world and getting a wicked tan :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Carriers are easy targets for new generation of carrier sinker missiles.

Cyrpus is a fair punt from Libya even for a Typhoon. Malta is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Carriers are easy targets for new generation of carrier sinker missiles.

quite. Carriers are obsolete until missile defense catches up with the missiles available. But then, are we making assumptions that that has not already happened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.