Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Reasons Why The Uk Doesn't Need An Aircraft Carrier


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 interestrateripoff

interestrateripoff

    Carry on banking.....

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 46,258 posts
  • Location:Ponzi Land

Posted 01 March 2011 - 08:52 PM

http://www.telegraph...yan-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.
Proof that Brown had repeated IMF / OECD / BIS warnings over house prices and did nothing!!!
Looting: The Economic Underworld Of Bankruptcy For Profit
The exponential growth of debt and the unsustainability of debt
The logic of HPI @ 10% YoY means your £100k house would be worth £1.38bn in 100 years
Paying down my mortgage with money found on the street

It's time to sue the Bank of England / Federal Reserve for GROSS NEGLIGENCE
If DEBT is the problem REPAYMENT is the solution or you default

"Northern unemployment is an acceptable price to pay for curbing southern inflation" Eddie George former Governor of the Bank of England

New digest on the credit crisis and economy Part2 Part 3

Posted Image

#2 Pent Up

Pent Up

    HPC Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,986 posts
  • Location:Essex

Posted 01 March 2011 - 08:55 PM

"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.
Remember that buying a house is a highly leveraged investment and can result in losses that exceed your initial deposit. Buying a house may not be suitable for everyone, so please ensure that you fully understand the risks involved.


"The time to buy is when blood is running in the streets" Baron Nathan Rothschild

#3 RichB

RichB

    HPC Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,734 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 01 March 2011 - 09:03 PM

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.

#4 hayder

hayder

    HPC Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts

Posted 01 March 2011 - 09:14 PM

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

#5 General Melchett

General Melchett

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,158 posts
  • Location:Essex
  • About Me:Spider-eating lunatic

Posted 01 March 2011 - 09:37 PM

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

Edited by General Melchett, 01 March 2011 - 09:37 PM.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

#6 Goat

Goat

    HPC livestock

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,810 posts

Posted 01 March 2011 - 09:57 PM

Reason 6: a multi billion pound weapon system to protect a few hundred islanders in the south atlantic seems a bit excessive.
Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware - anon 1523AD

Told you - Young Goat December 2007AD

We are all waking up to the reality that our houses aren't worth what we thought they were. - David Willetts MP 15 March 2011.

Join today: British Goat Society

#7 ken_ichikawa

ken_ichikawa

    I live on HPC!

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,536 posts
  • Location:Manchester / Bolton

Posted 01 March 2011 - 10:38 PM

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.

#8 the gardener

the gardener

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,860 posts

Posted 01 March 2011 - 11:34 PM

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.

#9 thod

thod

    HPC Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,213 posts

Posted 02 March 2011 - 02:34 PM

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.

#10 profitofdoom

profitofdoom

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,383 posts
  • Location:Norfolk

Posted 02 March 2011 - 04:14 PM

[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.

#11 pl1

pl1

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,188 posts
  • Location:Somewhere in time

Posted 02 March 2011 - 04:25 PM

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.


#12 Number79

Number79

    HPC Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,100 posts

Posted 02 March 2011 - 06:46 PM

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

#13 ken_ichikawa

ken_ichikawa

    I live on HPC!

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,536 posts
  • Location:Manchester / Bolton

Posted 02 March 2011 - 07:17 PM

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.

#14 MarkG

MarkG

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,743 posts
  • Location:Canada (ex-Surrey)

Posted 03 March 2011 - 05:12 AM

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.
"If the world operates as one big market, every employee will compete with every person anywhere in the world who is capable of doing the same job. There are lots of them and many of them are hungry." -- Andy Grove, Intel.

#15 Ruffneck

Ruffneck

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,478 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 03 March 2011 - 05:36 AM

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
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist , Earth Day 1970




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users