No Aircraft Carrier with Aircraft for 9 years

1984ReturnsForReal_2

shortchanged wrote: »

I think it's better to have 2 large aircraft carriers than to waste billions renewing trident.

We will keep nuclear weapons.

We won't however have anything more than a hunk of worthless metal for years.

dunstonh

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Now tell me our Country is being run by competent people

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593

If it had been run by competent people in the last 13 years then it wouldnt be needed now.

Unfortunately, the Govt cant use dodgy claims companies to try and claim back money on their debts.

vivatifosi

FTBFun wrote: »

I bet the Argentinian government is rubbing their hands with glee at this announcement.

Saw one of the government (Liam Fox?) being interviewed on this point this morning. It was early, I only had one eye open so can't remember who it was. Anyway...

They said that the issue with Argentina isn't down to aircraft carriers and that the UK now has a garrison on the Falklands making it substantially harder to invade. They also pointed out that Argentina was no longer under the rule of a military junta, making an invasion less likely, whatever the noises are in the country.

ruggedtoast

vivatifosi wrote: »

Saw one of the government (Liam Fox?) being interviewed on this point this morning. It was early, I only had one eye open so can't remember who it was. Anyway...

They said that the issue with Argentina isn't down to aircraft carriers and that the UK now has a garrison on the Falklands making it substantially harder to invade. They also pointed out that Argentina was no longer under the rule of a military junta, making an invasion less likely, whatever the noises are in the country.

The Falklands, being basically a big aircraft carrier itself, with very few civilian areas to worry about, should by definition be pretty hard to invade.

It took the spectacular incompetence of Thatcher and her government to allow it to happen the first time.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

dunstonh wrote: »

If it had been run by competent people in the last 13 years then it wouldnt be needed now.

Unfortunately, the Govt cant use dodgy claims companies to try and claim back money on their debts.

What exactly is your point?

That you support having NO functional carriers for a decade?


You must be nuts.



Oh, I have just seen you are an independent financial advisor.


Do you go around telling people they shouldn't bother with insurance either?
:rotfl:

desaber

FTBFun wrote: »

I bet the Argentinian government is rubbing their hands with glee at this announcement.

The carriers arent needed to protect the Falklands as the land based fighters on the island are more than capable of shooting down the entire Argentinian airforce (which is actually worse than the version we faced in the 80's). What the lack of operational carriers will do is leave the UK short of any force projection but the likelyhood of us having the funds for such an operation are non existant anyway. The carriers will go out on training exercises and will likely be "borrowed" by the US at times so the crews can get practice supporting operational aircraft.

In the mean time they will be great troop transporters and very useful in humanitarian missions. They can pull up off the coast of somewhere like Haiti after an earth quake unload a huge amount of supplies and hook their generator up to the local grid/hospitals

Its a stupid idea not having the aircraft ready to use along side them though

shortchanged_2

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

We will keep nuclear weapons.

Well if that's not a waste of billions of pounds of taxpayers money I don't know what is.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

shortchanged wrote: »

Well if that's not a waste of billions of pounds of taxpayers money I don't know what is.

So is wasting money discussing the matter.

They are keeping them.

They will never go.

shortchanged_2

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

So is wasting money discussing the matter.

They are keeping them.

They will never go.

So what are benefits of keeping what is essentially an obsolete weapon, particularly in such tough economic times AND when many of the defence chiefs believe such a system to be tactically useless?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

shortchanged wrote: »

So what are benefits of keeping what is essentially an obsolete weapon, particularly in such tough economic times AND when many of the defence chiefs believe such a system to be tactically useless?

My point is it is a worthless discussion.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay until something more powerful comes along.