interestrateripoff Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9117367/Navy-aircraft-carrier-plans-hit-by-further-delays.html The Defence Secretary is to reconsider plans for up to 50 new fighter jets, which have been billed as the world’s most advanced warplanes, after the government admitted it had no idea what the programme would cost.The rethink also comes amid fears that a design flaw in the new Joint Strike Fighter makes it unable to land on aircraft carriers. Leaked Pentagon documents found the plane had failed eight simulated landings. A redesign is likely to prove costly and delay the project meaning that when Britain’s only aircraft carrier comes into service in 2020 it may have no jets. Pure comedy genius, we've agreed to buy a plane with no idea of the cost and that can't land on a aircraft carrier. Awesome. I think monkeys could make better decisions pressing yes/no at random. When monkeys ask for my vote they are going to get it. I say vote monkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Pure comedy genius, we've agreed to buy a plane with no idea of the cost and that can't land on a aircraft carrier. I'm sure we used to have perfectly good aircraft and aircraft carriers. Someone needs hanging for treason on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyMe Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I'm sure we used to have perfectly good aircraft and aircraft carriers. Someone needs hanging for treason on this. A country gets the skills and dedication from the population that it deserves. This country and the US deserve none for what they have done to the people - lied to them, ripped them off, bent them over the usury barrel to the benefit of the few and well connected in return for back pocket benefits. I don't think there is any going back without a total clearout of the banking and political class that have excuted a total takeover of the decision making process here and elsehwere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I don't think there is any going back without a total clearout of the banking and political class that have excuted a total takeover of the decision making process here and elsehwere. hhmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evetsm Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Why do we need an aircraft carrier for instance? Quite. What the hell are we doing going around the world , kicking down doors and stealing resources for in 2012 ? Look where that has got us ! An aircraft carrier is an offensive weapon, in all respects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Quite. What the hell are we doing going around the world , kicking down doors and stealing resources for in 2012 ? Look where that has got us ! An aircraft carrier is an offensive weapon, in all respects. Most weapons are now. Firepower has vastly outstripped most defences beyond "skulk around without being seen". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lagarde's Drift Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Quite. What the hell are we doing going around the world , kicking down doors and stealing resources for in 2012 ? Look where that has got us ! An aircraft carrier is an offensive weapon, in all respects. You know why. We are here posting about this because of resources we stole in the past. Not trying to make anyone feel guilty, that's just the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Now, now, everyone knows we need an aircraft carrier to defend the Falkland Islands, which give us title to a trillion barrels of oil and half the Antarctic continent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Now, now, everyone knows we need an aircraft carrier to defend the Falkland Islands, which give us title to a trillion barrels of oil and half the Antarctic continent. Maybe they should have kept the old ones then, you know just until the super new massif one gets built and is service ready?! Should have kept those harriers as well. So obsolete that the US Navy bought them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 The carrier orders would have been cancelled had Labour not made the contracts watertight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 In a "proper" war, rather than just an "intervention" like in Libia, carries are little more than a large bullseye. However, like nuclear weapons, having them buys you a seat at the big boys table. If Iraq had had aircraft carriers, Kuwait would never have stolen all their oil and sparked the whole think off in the first place. Carriers are the ability to project force beyond the range of your normal air-force. For example if Iran put a carrier in the Med, Israel would simple have to STFU and behave like an adult instead of like a 10 year old bully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 In a "proper" war, rather than just an "intervention" like in Libia, carries are little more than a large bullseye. However, like nuclear weapons, having them buys you a seat at the big boys table. If Iraq had had aircraft carriers, Kuwait would never have stolen all their oil and sparked the whole think off in the first place. Carriers are the ability to project force beyond the range of your normal air-force. For example if Iran put a carrier in the Med, Israel would simple have to STFU and behave like an adult instead of like a 10 year old bully. Or sink it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 If Iraq had had aircraft carriers, Kuwait would never have stolen all their oil and sparked the whole think off in the first place. Eh? Is there something we haven't been told? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Or sink it That's what you do with bullseyes, isn't it?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Eh? Is there something we haven't been told? I think Ruffles has started his weekend early on the piss / weed / crack pipe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 That's what you do with bullseyes, isn't it?! In the event the IRIN 'Imadinnerjacket' starts hovering off Israels Meditteranean Coast in a threatening manner I'd give it a life expectancy of about 3 days after which it would be forming a new artifical offshore reef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I think Ruffles has started his weekend early on the piss / weed / crack pipe Tuesday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 In a "proper" war, rather than just an "intervention" like in Libia, carries are little more than a large bullseye. However, like nuclear weapons, having them buys you a seat at the big boys table. Nuclear weapons allow you to blow entire countries away, or at least all of their decent sized cities. Aircraft carriers are basically high prestige targets unless your opponent has no modern weapons.. If Iraq had had aircraft carriers, Kuwait would never have stolen all their oil and sparked the whole think off in the first place. Iraq did have a massive army on the border, and it didn't stop the Kuwaitis doing some (*ahem*) completely accidental directional drilling. Carriers are the ability to project force beyond the range of your normal air-force. For example if Iran put a carrier in the Med, Israel would simple have to STFU and behave like an adult instead of like a 10 year old bully. I could decipher 'Sink The Freaking U'.. what does the U stand for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bingo Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 You know why. We are here posting about this because of resources we stole in the past. Not trying to make anyone feel guilty, that's just the way it is. We have a less than glorious record in foreign lands over the last 100-200 years. Lots of genocide and destruction of cultures. Of course our revisions of history mean we are the greatest nation in the world,,, ever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bingo Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Most weapons are now. Firepower has vastly outstripped most defences beyond "skulk around without being seen". We and our US 'allies' can spend all we like on firepower and 'defence',,, but we are still getting our asses severely handed to us in Afghanistan. Maybe our army should consist of bearded arabs armed only with AK47's (just kidding of course)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lagarde's Drift Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 We have a less than glorious record in foreign lands over the last 100-200 years. Lots of genocide and destruction of cultures. Of course our revisions of history mean we are the greatest nation in the world,,, ever... Yup. Securing cheap energy, that's what it is all about. And will continue to be so. As a beneficiary of this, I feel it is hypocritical to criticise our continuous war-mongering. We and our US 'allies' can spend all we like on firepower and 'defence',,, but we are still getting our asses severely handed to us in Afghanistan. Maybe our army should consist of bearded arabs armed only with AK47's (just kidding of course)... Not quite. It may well be a strategic occupation, or just practice for what is to come. Google Britain's small wars - we've always been fighting, just that lately we're a lot more hitched to the Americans and as such have had to deploy a larger proportion of our forces, and more visibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evetsm Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I feel it is hypocritical to criticise our continuous war-mongering. Yep, 300 years(and counting) of non-stop war. Pitiful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Great_Britain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 The planes are being built in America with expertise from Britain and other partner countries. However, the “carrier variant” of the F-35s require modifications to be made to aircraft carriers, including fitting them with catapults and arrestor gear for take-off and landing. http://www.fotosearch.com/CSP521/k5210521/ I'll bet the cataputs are made the wrong size too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bingo Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Yup. Securing cheap energy, that's what it is all about. And will continue to be so. As a beneficiary of this, I feel it is hypocritical to criticise our continuous war-mongering. Not quite. It may well be a strategic occupation, or just practice for what is to come. Google Britain's small wars - we've always been fighting, just that lately we're a lot more hitched to the Americans and as such have had to deploy a larger proportion of our forces, and more visibly. I'm not sure what you are infering here? A strategic occupation? If our leaders continue this pathetic 'sabre rattling' over Iran and expect to get everyone fired up to take them on, they have another think coming... I really think people are getting fatigued by the constant war of spin. We should just be getting on with business like the Chinese and Indians. Ok, so you can cast up some stuff they are involved in, but in the main they are two relatively peaceful nations more interested in building schools and roads in return for natural resources, than they are in regime change and population manipulation. William Hague talking up the situation in Iran? all he is doing is making life hard on us here by boosting the price of our oil imports. He is not speaking on my behalf... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Bear Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 We and our US 'allies' can spend all we like on firepower and 'defence',,, but we are still getting our asses severely handed to us in Afghanistan. Maybe our army should consist of bearded arabs armed only with AK47's (just kidding of course)... Maybe your not that far off the mark. Maybe our army should adapt the ROE of the bearded ones. That is NONE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.