Why do we need these big boats?
26 July 2007, 11:42 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do we need these big boats?
The two 65,000 tonne Aircraft Carriers which have just been announced.
So what might we use them for in the future? I'd say it was time for UK to back off with its global policeman duties and leave it to the big boys like USA, China and Russia to tough it out.
They will no doubt be bristling with anti-missile defences but they would make an attractive target for a rogue state nuclear attack? Just needs one bomb/missile to get through.
What do you reckon? dl
So what might we use them for in the future? I'd say it was time for UK to back off with its global policeman duties and leave it to the big boys like USA, China and Russia to tough it out.
They will no doubt be bristling with anti-missile defences but they would make an attractive target for a rogue state nuclear attack? Just needs one bomb/missile to get through.
What do you reckon? dl
26 July 2007, 11:52 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two 65,000 tonne Aircraft Carriers which have just been announced.
So what might we use them for in the future? I'd say it was time for UK to back off with its global policeman duties and leave it to the big boys like USA, China and Russia to tough it out.
They will no doubt be bristling with anti-missile defences but they would make an attractive target for a rogue state nuclear attack? Just needs one bomb/missile to get through.
What do you reckon? dl
So what might we use them for in the future? I'd say it was time for UK to back off with its global policeman duties and leave it to the big boys like USA, China and Russia to tough it out.
They will no doubt be bristling with anti-missile defences but they would make an attractive target for a rogue state nuclear attack? Just needs one bomb/missile to get through.
What do you reckon? dl
Of course, everyone is dwarfed by the US, but Britain has the second highest military budget in the world, and the finest professional armed forces in the world.
Our carrier force is in need of updating - Just like trident is.
26 July 2007, 11:53 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 16,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd prefer it if we looked after ourselves. Keeping a position of military strength is good for other areas as well such as maintaining a trade position IMHO.
26 July 2007, 11:53 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are ships. not boats!
Wars being fought further away from home (currently not with Russia who where perceived to be the no1 threat for the last 40 years), need weapons platforms that can move to where the action is. We have lost 'friends' who used to let us in their airspace and use their airfields so this is the logical way forward.
Wars being fought further away from home (currently not with Russia who where perceived to be the no1 threat for the last 40 years), need weapons platforms that can move to where the action is. We have lost 'friends' who used to let us in their airspace and use their airfields so this is the logical way forward.
Trending Topics
26 July 2007, 12:08 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may well be correct but my guess is that our military budget is dwarfed by Russia and China. US being first I presume.
26 July 2007, 12:10 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
26 July 2007, 12:13 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russian spending is $18 billion Russian Military Spending
(scroll to bottom for latest figures)
Chinese spending is $30 billion BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | China to boost military spending
US Spending is $400 billion.
The only country anywhere near the UK is Israel in terms of military spending.
26 July 2007, 12:16 PM
#12
Scooby Senior
VSTOL is not necessary for large carriers and they are investigating the possibility of making Typhoon carrier compatible - which is ironic really as that was the main reason why the French pulled out of the EFA project and developed the Raphael!
Do we need them? Well, I think the Falkland islanders would say YES!
26 July 2007, 12:16 PM
#13
26 July 2007, 12:20 PM
#14
A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the next phase of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme was signed on 12 December 2006 by Minister of State for Defence Procurement, Lord Drayson, following a meeting with US Deputy Secretary of Defence, Gordon England, in Washington DC.
Lockheed Martin 'X-35B' Joint Strike Fighter on a 'Ferry flight' from Palmdale to Edwards Air Force Base, California, on 3 July 2001 [Picture: Kevin Robertson]
In 2001 the Government selected JSF to meet the requirement for a stealthy multi-role fighter to operate from the future aircraft carriers, replacing the Harriers. Lord Drayson said:
"After an excellent meeting with Gordon England, I am delighted to be able to sign this MoU which will take the UK into the next phase of the JSF programme. I have always been clear that the UK would only sign if we were satisfied that we would have operational sovereignty over our aircraft. I have today received the necessary assurances from the US on technology transfer to allow me to sign the MoU.
The Joint Strike Fighter is a US-led programme comprising nine partner nations; the US, UK, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Turkey. The Joint Strike Fighter is a stealthy, multi-role combat aircraft which will be a key component of the UK's expeditionary capability, operating from the future carriers, for decades to come.
Lord Drayson continued:
"This signature reflects our continuing commitment to providing our Armed Forces with battle-winning equipment; to procuring and supporting that equipment in the most cost-effective way; and to enhancing the UK's ability to operate effectively with our international partners."
UK companies are closely involved with the programme – over 100 companies have already won development contracts and will now be able to compete for work in the next phase. The expected value of work for the UK is over $29Bn.The MoU sets out the framework for purchasing JSF and supporting and upgrading it through life. It also provides for the pooling of the partner nations' collective buying power in a common support solution, and of their resources and technology in follow-on development. It does not, however, formally commit the UK to buying any aircraft. The UK's increase in financial commitment at this stage is £34M. 'Operational sovereignty' is defined as the UK having control over essential aspects of the aircraft such as the ability to integrate JSF into the UK operating environment; operate, maintain, repair and upgrade the UK fleet to meet evolving through-life requirements; and certify the aircraft as safe to fly. The MOD's current plan is to buy up to 150 of the Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant.
There you go.
Famine/disaster/huricane relief. Big re-supply. Sail up the Severn and help Gloucester.
The Army and RAF now fit inside the Wembley stadium and any less and we would fall down big style. Were all the money from the Defence Budget goes is "sustaining Operations" not the blokes or kit! If you take it that about 20,000 troops are on Ops, 20,000 are coming off Ops, and only slightly less (500 - by Xmas) that leaves about 15,000, many are support staff, training staff and recruits. But we are not overstretched
So, the Navy getting two big ships is a bit of a bonus but they did want three, one on Ops, one going and one for training, normal duties etc.
Hopefully they can fit in all the Media that the Navy like so much
26 July 2007, 12:23 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However much Labour politicians marched for CND in the past, they love to be in command of very strong military forces. Means they can have a voice in discussions with the world's powerful countries.
I also am glad to see us maintain effective defence forces.
Les
I also am glad to see us maintain effective defence forces.
Les
26 July 2007, 12:28 PM
#19
It's called Force Projection, and remaining a world power by retaining a blue-water Navy.
You might like the idea of sitting back and letting other countries decide our fate. I don't. (Although admittedly you could argue that with our Labour government its a bit too late for that..)
You might like the idea of sitting back and letting other countries decide our fate. I don't. (Although admittedly you could argue that with our Labour government its a bit too late for that..)
26 July 2007, 12:48 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh (ish)
Posts: 8,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, we need them. or rather, we're better off with them.
We're still 5th largest economy in the world (most Brits seem to imagine we're 5th smallest !). We should retain some influence in the world and this is an effective way of doing so.
Our navy is (understandably) fairly miniscule compared to what it was in the past, we shouldn't denude it any more !
We're still 5th largest economy in the world (most Brits seem to imagine we're 5th smallest !). We should retain some influence in the world and this is an effective way of doing so.
Our navy is (understandably) fairly miniscule compared to what it was in the past, we shouldn't denude it any more !
26 July 2007, 01:18 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We need to keep our military strength.
A weekend state gets pushed about.
Just a shame they can't spend a few extra pounds giving our lads in the field better kit.
There was just a report the other week stating that if something happened to Britain (attacked) we now don't have the military strength to defend our land, as most of our armed forces are abroad.
We should pull out of Iraq and spend the money we spend there, on strengthening our military. Look after Number 1.
A weekend state gets pushed about.
Just a shame they can't spend a few extra pounds giving our lads in the field better kit.
There was just a report the other week stating that if something happened to Britain (attacked) we now don't have the military strength to defend our land, as most of our armed forces are abroad.
We should pull out of Iraq and spend the money we spend there, on strengthening our military. Look after Number 1.
26 July 2007, 01:25 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SE15/EC4
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
26 July 2007, 03:01 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We need to keep our military strength.
A weekend state gets pushed about.
Just a shame they can't spend a few extra pounds giving our lads in the field better kit.
There was just a report the other week stating that if something happened to Britain (attacked) we now don't have the military strength to defend our land, as most of our armed forces are abroad.
We should pull out of Iraq and spend the money we spend there, on strengthening our military. Look after Number 1.
A weekend state gets pushed about.
Just a shame they can't spend a few extra pounds giving our lads in the field better kit.
There was just a report the other week stating that if something happened to Britain (attacked) we now don't have the military strength to defend our land, as most of our armed forces are abroad.
We should pull out of Iraq and spend the money we spend there, on strengthening our military. Look after Number 1.
I find it difficult to believe that the authorities were prepared to send our lads into Iraq with unsufficient NBC kit or personal body armour when they were telling us that Iraq possessed WMD. Or did they know something different!
Les
26 July 2007, 03:37 PM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
The navy must be rubbing their hands with glee now they've got their Two new carriers, their first Type 45 destroyer (most advanced warship in the world) is starting sea trials now, their new Astute class subs are being built (first launched a few weeks ago) and they're getting a replacement for the Vanguard/Trident subs too!
With all those new ships (and the F35), in terms of technology the RN will be on a level with and maybe even at a higher level than the US navy (although obviously well down on numbers) and certainly well above any other navy in the world
With all those new ships (and the F35), in terms of technology the RN will be on a level with and maybe even at a higher level than the US navy (although obviously well down on numbers) and certainly well above any other navy in the world
26 July 2007, 05:25 PM
#29
