[Kurt Barlow]

tinker, on 02 March 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

Eh? Is there something we haven't been told?

I think Ruffles has started his weekend early on the piss / weed / crack pipe

[Kurt Barlow]

PopGun, on 02 March 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

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

[fluffy666]

Kurt Barlow, on 02 March 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

I think Ruffles has started his weekend early on the piss / weed / crack pipe

Tuesday?

[fluffy666]

RufflesTheGuineaPig, on 02 March 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

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..

RufflesTheGuineaPig, on 02 March 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

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.

RufflesTheGuineaPig, on 02 March 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

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?

[Bingo]

Laguarde, on 02 March 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

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...

[Bingo]

Riedquat, on 02 March 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

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)...

[Lagarde's Drift]

Bingo, on 02 March 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

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.

Bingo, on 02 March 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

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.

[evetsm]

Laguarde, on 02 March 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

I feel it is hypocritical to criticise our continuous war-mongering.

Yep, 300 years(and counting) of non-stop war. Pitiful.

http://en.wikipedia....g_Great_Britain

[billybong]

Quote

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.fotosearc...SP521/k5210521/

I'll bet the cataputs are made the wrong size too.

[Bingo]

Laguarde, on 02 March 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

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...

[Rare Bear]

Bingo, on 02 March 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

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.

[billybong]

Quote

When a fighter lands on a carrier the arrestor cable catches a hook attached to the aircraft, preventing it from overshooting and ditching into the sea.

Doh - they forgot to put the nets up. Another £300 million down the drain each. Never mind it's free money.

This post has been edited by billybong: 02 March 2012 - 04:59 PM

[billybong]

.

This post has been edited by billybong: 02 March 2012 - 05:23 PM

[Lagarde's Drift]

Bingo, on 02 March 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

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...

The theoretical mineral wealth of Afghanistan notwithstanding, have a look at the American / Allied disposition forces and establishments in the area. What do you think is the next logical step?

Getting on with business like the Chinese and Indians? Relatively peaceful? Gosh. I would thank our lucky stars if either or both do not get involve in an almighty scrap during our lifetimes. Especially not with each other. Regime change and population manipulation? I think you need to look harder. I think you are naive if you call Chinese foreign investment anything but that. Once the Indians manage to quell their own backyard they will start.

I'm open to the idea of future or even current wars being technological or financial. For example, now that Iraq's oil reserves are being carved up, China steps in with mind-boggling amounts of cash, diminishing the West's returns of the occupation. The West wouldn't dare take it back by force. Equally China is in thrall to USD debt and that may prove a restrictive to her ultimate financial power.

billybong, on 02 March 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

Actually the story seems a bit of an invention as there's a carrier variant.


Assuming it's the same plane of course.

From popularmechanics.com

I think the carrier variant is where the problem is. The Americans lack a good reason to develop a VSTOL version. Catapults and arrestors allow relatively "normal" jets to be designed for carrier use. These still do not get away for the need for a large runway, hence the size of the US and French carriers. But they require far more training and are inherently more risky. Our philosophy is for cheaper smaller carriers with a ski jump and vertical landing. Our future carrier program is where these philosophies are in conflict, allowing plenty of opportunity to display feckwittery.

[Rare Bear]

Laguarde, on 02 March 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

I think the carrier variant is where the problem is. The Americans lack a good reason to develop a VSTOL version. Catapults and arrestors allow relatively "normal" jets to be designed for carrier use. These still do not get away for the need for a large runway, hence the size of the US and French carriers. But they require far more training and are inherently more risky. Our philosophy is for cheaper smaller carriers with a ski jump and vertical landing. Our future carrier program is where these philosophies are in conflict, allowing plenty of opportunity to display feckwittery.

The problem with going the VSTOL route is that you end up with a vastly more expensive aircraft which can carry much less of a war load then a conventional aircraft. The only reason that the UK had the Harrier and the ski-jump carriers was because Dennis the Menace cancelled the conventional carrier programme. At one point people were scared to refer to what became the Harrier carrier as a carrier of any sort in case it would be cancelled too, instead using the term 'through deck cruiser'.

The UK did in fact operate the F4 Phantom off smaller carriers than the US although the British F4s were the biggest, most powerful, most expensive and slowest Phantoms in the world at the time.