[interestrateripoff]

http://www.telegraph...yan-people.html

Quote

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.

[Pent Up]

"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.

[RichB]

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.

[hayder]

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

[General Melchett]

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

This post has been edited by General Melchett: 01 March 2011 - 09:37 PM

[Goat]

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

[ken_ichikawa]

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.

[the gardener]

ken_ichikawa, on 01 March 2011 - 10:38 PM, said:

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.

[thod]

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.

[profitofdoom]

[quote name='thod' timestamp='1299076492' post='2913454']
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.

[pl1]

General Melchett, on 01 March 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

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.

[Number79]

the gardener, on 01 March 2011 - 11:34 PM, said:

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

[ken_ichikawa]

the gardener, on 01 March 2011 - 11:34 PM, said:

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.

[MarkG]

pl1, on 02 March 2011 - 04:25 PM, said:

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.

[Ruffneck]

interestrateripoff, on 01 March 2011 - 08:52 PM, said:

http://www.telegraph...yan-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