The end to the UK's new carriers?

[wordy]

Are you saying the Tornadoes should take off in the UK, fly across to the complete opposite end of the Atlantic, engage in a fight for Ariel Supremacy and then fly home? I think fatigue might play a key role in our losses. And when we go to tactical bombing strikes I think our tired pilots may miss the target and hit a few schools. Not to mention, the time delays for when our boys call in air support and have to wait several hours for the plane to get there.

Yeah, friggin crabfats, it's not as though do anything normally!

Of course I'm not saying they should be removed.

*EDIT* ahh just seen above, nvm

 

[fadetoblack]

Which would cause tens of thousands of job losses and businesses to crumble, from first to third tier suppliers and smaller subcontractors who almost survive on orders from this industry.

People outside of the industry have no idea how important and how much of a negative impact stopping these programmes would have on the country.

The truth

 

[Manlove is my forte]

Every time the UK builds a new piece of military Hardware there seems to be a huge outcry over the costs. Does the UK no longer export military hardware to its allies?

It seems several Docks will be closed after this project is complete, do we not get other ship building business and if not why not?

 

[The Mad Rapper]

It's just a question of killing millions of innocent people with nuclear weapons because their govm'nt wants to own a lump of rock in the South Atlantic.

Defence of the Flaklands is a completely different thing than what it was in 1982. There are RAF Tornados complete with in flight refuelling aircraft, a company of infantry & support, and a Royal Navy Firgate or Destroyer & HMS Endurance.

Millions don't have to be killed, our submarines can fire Cruise missiles with a low yield nuclear warhead, it doesn't have to be Trident. I just said that they could use nuclear weapons if they wanted.

Having served 4 months in the Falklands I can tell you now that recapturing the islands would not be massively difficult.

There were four Tornados stationed there, of which only 2 worked and the other two were cannibalised for spares.

Rapier missiles were stationed around the airfield, but they gave me no confidence either. They fire a number each year and the percentage that either mis-fired or missed the drone was scary.

Everyone gets completely hammered on a Friday and Saturday night, so an attack then would go practically unchallenged.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Which would cause tens of thousands of job losses and businesses to crumble, from first to third tier suppliers and smaller subcontractors who almost survive on orders from this industry.

People outside of the industry have no idea how important and how much of a negative impact stopping these programmes would have on the country.

Can't argue this, we see it already with the demise of the UK motor industry.

 

[Bakedgoods]

The issue we have is that the defense industry needs long term commitment from the MoD and the Tresuary.

There are a few reasons these programmes always appear to be over budget. Partly because the Government will only accept a bid for a certain figure, knowing fine well it is going to cost more than that in reality. However, this way it gets approved and the work begins, but as the real costs come out they have 'no choice' but to increase the budget as a lot of work has already been completed.

Along with that is the fact that to be more effective at producing these carriers, warhips, subs etc, the industry needs to be sustained.

These are massively complex projects, and often when one finishes there is a large gap between the next starting, meaning that a lot of experience and skills are lost in the process and it becomes difficult for a business to find these skills again.

 

[peetee]

This is nothing about "defence" its about Britain being able to say oooh look how much we can contribute when america flexes its muscles and runs off to defend an oil field.

Its us keeping face trying to live up to our glourious naval days.

I say we scrap the army down to a minimum for sending out to god forsaken countries as part of a coalition/peace keeping force.

Dont need maned tanks any more - Dont any of you guys watch Future weapons on Discovery

What has the army got to do with anything?
"dont need maned tanks any more"
Errr and whos going to pay for this future weapons?? Muppet.

and a Royal Navy Firgate or Destroyer & HMS Endurance.

Have you ever seen the Endurance? Its an Icebreaker, Its not exactly a warship, it wouldnt take much to sink, it nearly sank itself a few months ago.

 

[sidthesexist]

Every time the UK builds a new piece of military Hardware there seems to be a huge outcry over the costs. Does the UK no longer export military hardware to its allies?

We make some parts of the eurofighter that gets exported to the Saudis ect but our arms industry is a fraction of what it used to be, if they do scrap these carriers that will effectively mean the end of our orders for the F35 which will mean the end of the technology deal BAE systems had with the aircraft's manufacturers, if that happens it isl likely that BAE systems will move their headquarters to the US which will result in thousands of job losses here.

 

[a1ex2001]

During the last Falklands war a nuclear strike was being prepared on Cordoba, apparently.

If it ever happened I doubt it was any sort of serious consideration, the world would have been outraged. I can believe that they considered diverting the Vulcans conventional bombing missions from the Falklands and that in a modern day war Buenos Airies could expect a few sub lauched cruise missles but I don't think we'd ever sanction the use of Nuclear force to defend the Falklands.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

If it ever happened I doubt it was any sort of serious consideration, the world would have been outraged. I can believe that they considered diverting the Vulcans conventional bombing missions from the Falklands and that in a modern day war Buenos Airies could expect a few sub lauched cruise missles but I don't think we'd ever sanction the use of Nuclear force to defend the Falklands.

Why would the World have been outraged? Our territory was invaded by a foreign power. It was OK for the US to bomb the Japs but we couldn't bomb Argentina?

 

[peetee]

you cant really compare the falklands to a world war..

 

[The Mad Rapper]

you cant really compare the falklands to a world war..

The principle is the same.

 

[fadetoblack]

If it ever happened I doubt it was any sort of serious consideration, the world would have been outraged. I can believe that they considered diverting the Vulcans conventional bombing missions from the Falklands and that in a modern day war Buenos Airies could expect a few sub lauched cruise missles but I don't think we'd ever sanction the use of Nuclear force to defend the Falklands.

Wrong :Thatcher did threaten to use nukes,she was threatening to use them if the french didn`t give vital info on the exocet missiles that the Argies where using,the french caved in and gave the info needed.

Thatcher Had real Balls unlike the muppets we have today

 

[knowlesy]

Yes, so it's not codes but navigational data and GPS. Without accurate GPS the missiles are pretty useless.

Now why don't you FO? No idea what your problem is, other than living on the wrong side of the river of course

gps will all change once the galileo system is in place ....

 

[Fusion]

The principle is the same.

A worldwide conflict of unprecendented proportions cannot be compared to a minor skirmish over a lump of rock thousands of miles away. I can't believe that anyone would consider using nuclear weapons in an attempt to resolve such a conflict either, they are an absolute last resort, not to throw around like grenades.

Anyone who thinks we would use ours in anger in a Falklands-esque scenario is seriously misguided. The US have been the sole superpower since 1991 and have not yet had cause for their use, and they are on a totally different plane of global power than we will ever be.

 

[a1ex2001]

Why would the World have been outraged? Our territory was invaded by a foreign power. It was OK for the US to bomb the Japs but we couldn't bomb Argentina?

Slightly different circumsances.

Wrong :Thatcher did threaten to use nukes,she was threatening to use them if the french didn`t give vital info on the exocet missiles that the Argies where using,the french caved in and gave the info needed.

Thatcher Had real Balls unlike the muppets we have today

Threats are slightly different to actually really seriously considering, I'm sure the cabinet were happy to sanction her threatening the French with anything she liked had she actually wanted to use them for real I suspect the answer would have been somewhat different, launching a polaris missile at an Argentine city is sligtly different to sabre rattling to scare the French.

 

[Angilion]

We can't allow it to fail, a showing of trust would have to be the first step in trying to create peace between nations, and the risk it's necessary to take in order to try and make things better. I think we'd get by without a huge aircraft carrier and nuclear weapons. We have to rely on the people of these countries wanting peace and an end to war too.

It's just a shame the world has come to this now we're so technologically advanced and more than capable of living together in peace.

I know you're right though, it won't happen, we will re-arm and things will escalate, as this country is full of cowards who'd rather try to hide behind machines of war than actually sort the problems out. That's life eh, great.

Having a lot of weapons of war has caused a lot of peace. It doesn't matter if most of the people in any country want peace - that doesn't stop war. Peace can be very expensive when anyone with enough power wants what you have, because they'll just take it.

If there was no possibility of anyone getting power and taking what they wanted, then we could all safely disarm. That isn't true, so we can't. We'll get more peace by being able to wage war. We'll also be able to make more peace elsewhere, because sometimes peace only comes when someone steps in and tells the aggressors "attack these people and we will kill you". The military is also good for aid work, as that requires a large, well-organised group with plenty of transport.

The people you need to worry about will not see a lack of military capability as a bold and noble gesture. They'll see it as weakness by idiots, to be exploited.

 

[wordy]

Millions don't have to be killed, our submarines can fire Cruise missiles with a low yield nuclear warhead, it doesn't have to be Trident. I just said that they could use nuclear weapons if they wanted.

Having served 4 months in the Falklands I can tell you now that recapturing the islands would not be massively difficult.

There were four Tornados stationed there, of which only 2 worked and the other two were cannibalised for spares.

Rapier missiles were stationed around the airfield, but they gave me no confidence either. They fire a number each year and the percentage that either mis-fired or missed the drone was scary.

Everyone gets completely hammered on a Friday and Saturday night, so an attack then would go practically unchallenged.

Why not use TLAMS then? I'm sure they would be adequate to attack the Argies defense infastructure, even low yield nuclear weapons cause a large number of innocent deaths.

I never got that far south while in the RN, but Friday/saturday nights sounds blissfully similar to what goes on around Plymouth/Portsmount/Faslane

Having said that if tensions did start to increase then the parts for the Tornados, rapair ammo would be on the 1st tristar out there.

Have you ever seen the Endurance? Its an Icebreaker, Its not exactly a warship, it wouldnt take much to sink, it nearly sank itself a few months ago.

As I say never got that far south so never seen it, but the Lynx's it carries would be able to be armed with anti ship missles, obviously it won't do the job of a Type 23 but it's better than nothing.

 

[fadetoblack]

Slightly different circumsances.



Threats are slightly different to actually really seriously considering, I'm sure the cabinet were happy to sanction her threatening the French with anything she liked had she actually wanted to use them for real I suspect the answer would have been somewhat different, launching a polaris missile at an Argentine city is sligtly different to sabre rattling to scare the French.

Why take nuke bombs on board British navy warships heading towards the falklands then?

 

[a1ex2001]

Why take nuke bombs on board British navy warships heading towards the falklands then?

Because they were standard armement for some vessels performing some duties at the time, they had to be moved bettween ships to keep them out of the Latin America treaty zone, they were only onboard as ships were diverted from other exercises and it was never imagined that they would be used. I'm also not sure how you think the navy were going to deliver them to the Argentine mainland without engaging the entire Argentine Airforce? The only realistic option for the Navy would have been Polaris but the patrol subs never officially left the North Atlantic and even rummours only put them at Ascension island. Technically the RAF could have diverted one of the Vulcan missions but the risks would have been massive in Argentine Airspace and the range extreme.

The Navy were also carrying Nuclear Depth Charges does that mean they planned to use those too?