Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[24_Valve]

Martin Imber wrote:

Withdrawing the Harriers is just completely ridiculous

indeed, the harriers are second to none  We will now be seen like any other little european state  while trident sits there rusting away & polluting the otherwise beautiful scottish waters... It'd probably fail to deliver anyway. Royal Brittania, Brittania rules the waves... Hmmm maybe not anymore  :-/

[Nickbat]

Quote of the day:

""When it comes to military procurement, Israel spends £9 billion a year and administers its purchases with 400 people. Britain spends £10 billion annually on procurement and has a staff of 23,700 to do it."

Peter Snow, Channel 4

http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/a-revolving-door-that-knows-few-bounds/13930

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Martin Imber wrote:

Withdrawing the Harriers is just completely ridiculous

indeed, the harriers are second to none  We will now be seen like any other little european state  while trident sits there rusting away & polluting the otherwise beautiful scottish waters... It'd probably fail to deliver anyway. Royal Brittania, Brittania rules the waves... Hmmm maybe not anymore  :-/

With at least two Vanguard class nuclear powered submarines at sea, each capable of country / continental destruction, eventually 7 Astute class nuclear powered submarines, plus existing surface vessels, including the newest Frigates in the world, with type 45's still to be built, we still do have an amazing capacity to "rule the waves" if we really wanted to.

The old visions of numerous warships, including battlecruisers, battleships, along with lines of cruisers is just a piece of historal information!  Each one of the RN submarines, especially the Vanguard Class with its Trident missles, packs more punch than the fire power of all the world's naval fleets in WW2, WW1, and at all times before, added together.  Modern warfare, whether we like it or not, is about focusing on limited resource with maximum destruction.  The old rules of military expenditure is dead, and we live in a new age of threat.

Gone is the cold war with its need for hardware, like battle tanks galore, and long range strategic nuclear bombers.  In is the fight against terrorism and potential rogue states, that the UK and the USA, along with other UN members will be prepared for.  That is what the spending review has faced up to, and in fact the carrier question is the main odd factor, but that has been dictated by harsh commercial facts.

The UK has done what the USA has had to do, and countries like France and Italy will shortly have to as NO-ONE has got any spare cash; quite the opposite!

But even with all that has transpired the UK is still the FOURTH largest spender on its military budget in the World!

Yes, the UK  CAN still rule the waves, and a lot more besides if, heaven forbid, war was to break out

[24_Valve]

ok lizzie you're points I'm sure would sit happily with those of a cabinet minister...

The old rules of military expenditure is dead, and we live in a new age of threat.

A very astute answer indeed... I can only speak as a decorated veteran who previously served as a frontline combat medic... close (harrier) air support is often deemed more relevent to many servicemen/women than all the ins & outs of our nuclear capability imho. But I think we'll leave it there because everything you have said is quite clear & not disimilar to that which I hear on radio4. p.s. It hasn't changed as much as you think... It's still troops on the ground needing tanks, helicopters, air support & other hardware. We're not heading for any sort of nuclear conflict & never will be, the issues you refer to are all about deterents & politics.

btw lizzie I think you're going a bit off topic, the OP is about the Ark Royal/Harrier fleet not an OOF defence review