Dave Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 Just wondered what forum members thought about the leaked (?) condem defence cuts. eg the two aircraft carriers, two RAF bases, army armour, Marines, aircraft etc. Q - after the cuts are Cameron and Clegg to defend us with a large white flag! Cheap but look at the Signapore pictures in 41. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 I am mixed on the Elizabeth Carriers project. I think they are massively expensive and pointless to have only 2. Proper carrier deployment requires 1 at sea, 1 in repair and 1 in training to be effective. You cannot do that with only 2. I think they are a waste of cash and a better option would be to build more Albion Class Landing Ship Docks or HMS Ocean. They are capable of multi-role deployment, humanitarian aide and moving men and equipment where nedded. You could in theory also base a VSTOL Joint Strike Fighter off the landing deck of one. I think everyone will hum and haw and demand the carrier with contracts already signed... possibly 1 will be built which is a massive waste of resource but would seem likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STUKA STEVE Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Well we certainly dont need three! Nor do we have the finance or the manpower for a third.It becomes an issue of simply fulfilling the contracts to keep the shipyards employed.Its politics.The bigger issue is trident..and frankly we only keep trident so we can sit around the big table with the the other nuclear powers.We dont even have the independence of Trident,the Americans call the shots and we could only ever use them on their authorisation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 The carriers are a status symbol and are meant to be used for power projection. They say that we can go anywhere in the world, on our own without any help from third parties, and attempt to impose our will or safeguard our interests. In reality we just do not have the manpower or political will to project that power again. The review needs to decide what we are. A player on the main stage or a supporting act. Politically we will maintain we are a major power when in reality we are a supporting act. We have already cut the budget to that extent. This round of cuts will just mean that we will play an even smaller role than we already do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Trident is an interesting issue Steve and I agree it is crazy. The UK needs to purchase parts from the US because you cannot afford or have the engineering to build the bits yourself. I actually think you could retain a nuclear deployment without Trident by switching from Ballistic Nuclear Missiles to Nuclear Cruise Missiles. These can be launched through a torpedo tube of an Attack Class Submarine without the need for Trident or the Boomers that carry them. Massive savings but a short range missile. Sure it will not take out the middle of Russia but honestly that is the job of NATO and the US in a massive nuclear war. You want a missile that can hit Iran... then use a Cruise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STUKA STEVE Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 I agree Greg,thats what i have thought would be the best way forward.We would save millions and still have our nuclear capability and be playing our part in Nato. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Andrew Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 I don't think we can afford Trident at the moment , it was necessary during the Cold War but now the situation is totally different. I think we should definitely have a nuclear deterrent but look at different more up to date options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme Posted September 22, 2010 Share Posted September 22, 2010 What do we need an independent nuclear deterrent for? Under what circumstances would you use it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Andrew Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 I think it's important to have a independent nuclear deterrent for prestige and also for the unknown circumstances of the future, could also be handy if a meteor is heading towards Earth and the US missiles miss it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 No worries Kenny, Iran and North Korea can shoot it down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Andrew Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Or Israel, India and Pakistan ..........and don't forget the Russians .................... mind you they just need to turn off our gas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 And what is everyone's thoughts on this thing New Ocelot They've bought it, they just have not decided who is going to pay for it... under that thinking, Kenny I'd like 1 of every FoV item you have, just bill it to the Treasury please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Andrew Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 I think this one is a good move,this is something we do need ,and it can be used in other theatres too should we ever get out of Afghanistan.Sending the troops to war in Snatch Land Rovers with not enough helicopter support was a disgrace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STUKA STEVE Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Yeah we could just scrap our missiles and become CND! Hell,why dont we just get rid of our armed forces...after all Russia,China,Iran,North Korea,and all the other unstable regimes that might get hold of a missile are NOT a threat! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.