PeteMorris   10 #25 Posted April 9, 2015 No we will defend the Falklands conventionally, which we couldn't do the last time they were taken.  Yep..and sod anything else....Oh!...No...We'll send canal barges to defend it...  But the Falkland is merely an example....Do you not really give a toss about any other place?  I really don't care what you think...or anyone else...But I want aircraft carriers (which incidentally can carry thousands of troops)....But you're happy to rely on the French (forgive me for not having any faith there)...and the Americans...Who are usually 3 years too late for pretty much anything.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
retep   68 #26 Posted April 9, 2015 Russias economy is collapsing. They dont even have that clout anymore. Threat from the middle east but they arent unified...china maybe but then again china are a capitalist country, what could be gained from alienating other countries,  But they have control of the gas tap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
taxman   12 #27 Posted April 9, 2015 We've been told for the last five years that the country is so poor and destitute that lolly-pop patrols can no longer operate and libraries have to shut and sure start schemes closed down etc etc but the money is there for Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Also when Britain does come under attack, most likely by returning Jihadis how exactly is a Trident sub sat in the mid Atlantic going to help? The money would be better used on intelligence and enforcing non-proliferation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
evil woman   10 #28 Posted April 9, 2015 Yep..and sod anything else....Oh!...No...We'll send canal barges to defend it... But the Falkland is merely an example....Do you not really give a toss about any other place?  I really don't care what you think...or anyone else...But I want aircraft carriers (which incidentally can carry thousands of troops)....But you're happy to rely on the French (forgive me for not having any faith there)...and the Americans...Who are usually 3 years too late for pretty much anything....  Isn't that the problem. An obsolete aircraft carrier can carry thousands of troops, and hundreds of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel. Unfortunately when it gets hit by a guided missile it will blow up & sink killing thousands of those troops. Which is why we are replacing old dangerous tubs with modern safer ones. In the meantime we have agreements that should we require an aircraft carrier one will be available.  Serious question... Would you want your son to serve on an obsolete carrier that wasn't designed to cope with missile attacks from aircraft 70 miles away? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
The Joker   10 #29 Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) Also when Britain does come under attack, most likely by returning Jihadis how exactly is a Trident sub sat in the mid Atlantic going to help? The money would be better used on intelligence and enforcing non-proliferation.  have you not seen the opening scene for Tomorrow Never Dies?  You just wait for all the terrorists to line up on the Russian border, then nuke conventionally bomb them all in one go! Edited April 9, 2015 by The Joker conventional bombs, not nukes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
PeteMorris   10 #30 Posted April 9, 2015 Isn't that the problem. An obsolete aircraft carrier can carry thousands of troops, and hundreds of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel. Unfortunately when it gets hit by a guided missile it will blow up & sink killing thousands of those troops. Which is why we are replacing old dangerous tubs with modern safer ones. In the meantime we have agreements that should we require an aircraft carrier one will be available. Serious question... Would you want your son to serve on an obsolete carrier that wasn't designed to cope with missile attacks from aircraft 70 miles away?  You seriously think that any Aircraft carriers we had didn't have the most sophisticated weaponry?...Or did you think they still had a crossbow and bow and arrow?...Get real...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #31 Posted April 9, 2015 You seriously think that any Aircraft carriers we had didn't have the most sophisticated weaponry?...Or did you think they still had a crossbow and bow and arrow?...Get real......  The Falklands was the example you used - there are plenty of resources out there that will keep the argies at bay. And an aircraft carrier is on its way - but have we needed one recently?  A nuclear deterent would be handy. But surely there's a cheaper way of delivering them than expensive submarines? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
PeteMorris   10 #32 Posted April 9, 2015 The Falklands was the example you used - there are plenty of resources out there that will keep the argies at bay. And an aircraft carrier is on its way - but have we needed one recently? A nuclear deterent would be handy. But surely there's a cheaper way of delivering them than expensive submarines?  Yes...it is...in 2020...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
whiteowl   54 #33 Posted April 9, 2015 Just to get Pete a bit more depressed....  We actually sold all the Harriers to the Americans in 2011 so the carriers we have had since then have only been carrying helicopters....  But I digress. Trident, would rather have it and not need it, that need it and not have it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
loraward   10 #34 Posted April 9, 2015 The Falklands was the example you used - there are plenty of resources out there that will keep the argies at bay. And an aircraft carrier is on its way - but have we needed one recently? A nuclear deterent would be handy. But surely there's a cheaper way of delivering them than expensive submarines?  Land based nukes can be targeted, subs can change their location and are hard to detect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
JFKvsNixon   11 #35 Posted April 9, 2015 I'm astounded that the conservatives criticise labour party defence strategy (which is actually the same as theirs)....While making us totally defenceless in terms of Aircraft carriers until 2020.... Does nobody remember the Falklands?....Pretty much, the first thing launched was the aircraft carriers....Now we have NOTHING....  But it's ok we can nuke em!!!  The Labour government retired the fighters that protected the aircraft carriers in 2006, then it seemed a waste of funds to keep the aircraft carriers going until the new fighters come on line. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
evil woman   10 #36 Posted April 9, 2015 You seriously think that any Aircraft carriers we had didn't have the most sophisticated weaponry?...Or did you think they still had a crossbow and bow and arrow?...Get real......  It seems like you are the one who isn't getting real. The last generation of aircraft carriers were deigned for the war of the 1960 when the biggest threat was being hit by aircraft. The current threat is being hit by a missile. If you are old enough to remember the Falklands you will probably remember what happened to ships hit by the missiles of the day. The previous generation of carriers were also designed to fight with the aircraft that we have now scrapped.  I note you didn't answer the question about letting your son go to war in an outdated aircraft carrier. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
