No Aircraft Carrier with Aircraft for 9 years

1984ReturnsForReal_2

FTBFun wrote: »

Again - its the MODs fault:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Chinook_(UK_variants)

I would rather blame the Americans thank you.

nearlynew

Most of the "threats" we hear of are largely non-existant and serve only to create an "us and them" situation with which to unite a country against an unseen enemy thus enriching the defence industry and taking our mind off the real problems we face.


It's a tactic as old as civilisation itself and is wasteful, corrupt and responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people.

Degenerate

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

The last time we bought anything that flies from the Americans it turned out they couldn't fly in the dark, in the rain, in the desert........

You realize we're buying the expensive J35s from the Americans too, right?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

degenerate wrote: »

you realize we're buying the expensive j35s from the americans too, right?

f35...............

Fiddlestick

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Kosovo. I'm not sure how you think begging the Americans to do something to stop a conflict on our own doorstep signifies much military autonomy.

We would have gone ahead without them, but having them onboard made the mission that much easier.

Sierra Leone. I can pretty much guarantee that the Americans are informed of operational deployments of UK forces. This would come under intelligence sharing if nothing else.

Of course they were informed - it's only right that we keep our allies informed of any planned deployments.

That's not the same as asking them for permission though.

There is no special reason why they would care about a peacekeeping mission in Sierra Leone.

Nobody is saying they would, but you said that we need their permission to deploy - we do not.

The UK's armed forces are inextricably linked with the Americans, and a good deal of money (on our side) has been spent on interoperability, which essentially means they can command British forces as part of an overall campaign.

I think you will find that this interoperability falls under the guise of NATO and is not specific to the UK or the US.

And of course a US General can command British forces - that's the whole point of having a unified command structure within NATO.

Any other nation's generals of the requisite rank would be able to command our forces in the same circumstances, but that doesn't mean we need their permission either.

The MOD frequently announces that a significant engagement of British forces without American assistance is "inconceivable". There are three meanings to that:

1) We are, purportedly, military partners.
2) We aren't militarily capable of projecting significant power beyond our borders.
3) We can't engage anywhere they don't allow us.

I disagree that we need anyone to allow us to mobilise our troops.

What the MOD refers to is that fact that states taking unilateral action has somewhat fallen out of favour.

It's far, far better to carry out engagements with broad multilateral support within the United Nations or NATO.

That still doesn't mean we need anyone's permission to take unilateral action.

Just what is it you propose the US would do?

Tell us we are not the messiah, just a naughty naughty boy that's past his bed time?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Fiddlestick wrote: »

Tell us we are not the messiah, just a naughty naughty boy that's past his bed time?

Splitter................

amcluesent

LOL. Aircraft carriers with no aircraft to provide perimeter defence. I hope that the French will be more forthcoming with the Exocet disable codes than when we were facing down the Argies. Well, we can hope...

Useless politicians say anything, promise everything so they can get a turn at the trough before being ejected, while non dare speak the truth to the sheeple about Britain's inevitable decline and fall.

Rochdale_Pioneers

As far as the rest of the world is concerned the UK just bowed out of being a major military player. Some of the cuts look sensible - we don't need an army of tanks in Germany to repel the Soviets, and we don't need to renew Trident yet.

My big two concerns are the carriers and Nimrod:
1. It appears that the Harrier may already have flown its final service flight according to some reports. We're binning both them and Ark Royal purely to cut costs. The fact that these are both very flexible and well used assets doesn't seem to matter. They get replaced in the short term with nothing. And in the medium term with what?
The new carriers are a critical tool in force projection. They couldn't be cancelled because they're already in production. I can understand the argument that they should be reconfigured to take standard marine versions of aircraft rather than the planned STOVL variant of the F35, so a delay in bringing them in is fine. Which is why we need Ark Royal to stay in service!
It appears that the carrier half built will be turned out as ordered - that'll be the one mothballed from launch as there will be no birds to fly from it. Anyone want to guarantee that we order any F35s for the one to be reconfigured and delayed?

2. The Nimrods. At the current time we have repeated Russian Bear bomber flights probing our northern Airspace. Not flying our new Nimrods reduces our ability to secure ourselves. And what money does it cut? The first of the production aircraft is already delivered and many others are essentially complete and all the parts and construction for the rest of the fleet has already been paid for.

amcluesent

Face the facts. All politicians are in the pocket of some elusive cabal, be it Jewish bankers, international socialists, Mohammedans etc.

Britain is being well and truly sold down the river; you only have to ask the question who benefits and why?

20 or max. 30 years from now, England will be on a par with Peru as they are going up and we are going down. For good.

chris_m

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

2. The Nimrods. At the current time we have repeated Russian Bear bomber flights probing our northern Airspace. Not flying our new Nimrods reduces our ability to secure ourselves

I don't think the Nimrods are looking out for Bears, or, indeed, any aircraft. Their role is/was maritime patrol - looking out for ships & subs, things which can "hide" under land-based radar.
The Bears usually get spotted by land-based radar and are given a Tornado escort until they go home.