Trident or Aircraft Carriers or JSF

scorza

scorza

scorza

Caporegime
Joined
22 Jun 2004
Posts
26,684
Location
Deep England
With the chancellor's announcement that the proposed Trident replacement must be paid for out of the MOD budget (as opposed to some sort of central government fund), it's looking increasing likely that we won't be able to have all three of the above big defence projects.

Pure speculation, but let's assume we can only afford one, which one is the most important and therefore should be saved? Personally I reckon the Aircraft Carriers, I reckon that'll be better for British jobs and we'll just have to make do with Harriers.
 
Harriers are too old now. To me its tirdent.

Aircraft carriers are more for show than any real detterent. JSF is overpriced we should have used that French plane that is much cheaper imho.
 
irrelevant if thats the case then the aircraft carriers have already won as the steels been cut and one is in the process of being constructed I think. And the JSF is part of the Queen Elizabeth i.e. its the whole point of (at least one...) of the new aircraft carriers.
 
IMHO our Nuclear deterrent is a must.

However, as a cost saving compromise, I'd sacrifice the JSF's for either Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets or (perhaps controversially) Dassault Rafale M. The French are desperate to sell the Rafale since they've had no takers so far, perhaps so much so that a very favourable deal for the Navy could be negotiated.
 
Indeed. Non all aspect stealth, no supercruise, limited top speed, questionable air-to-air combat capability and the ability to carry only an extremely limited payload when trying to remain stealthy, one wonders why the Navy's fixated on the JSF at all, especially when developments in long-wave radar technology are probably going to render stealth obsolete one day anyway.
 
What use is Trident against an ideology considered to be the world's biggest threat? We live in a world where the only ones capable of attacking with such ferocity that calls for nuclear deterrence are so entwined with us economically and globally, and where the biggest foes are ethereal in terms of presence and ever stark in terms of danger. The world's biggest nuclear stockpile can do nothing against bitter and angry men who can simply walk on our doorsteps.
 
or pull out of Afghanistan / Iraq

KNiVES said:
What use is Trident against an ideology considered to be the world's biggest threat? We live in a world where the only ones capable of attacking with such ferocity that calls for nuclear deterrence are so entwined with us economically and globally, and where the biggest foes are ethereal in terms of presence and ever stark in terms of danger. The world's biggest nuclear stockpile can do nothing against bitter and angry men who can simply walk on our doorsteps.
Click to expand...
Wow, consider yourself completely and utterly scare mongered.

Also, did anyone else mistake JSF for JSRF?
 
Last edited:
Superficial said:
which one are you saying is sub-par? all three of them are very good but i suppose there are the most doubts about the JSF
Click to expand...

I twisted it to mean the F-35. IMHO the F-35 will be fine as a strike aircraft. However, as a fleets primary means of air defence it's just too much of a compromise and should not be relied upon to take on the likes of advanced SU-30 and MiG-29/35 variants.
 
Skyfall said:
or pull out of Afghanistan / Iraq

Wow, consider yourself completely and utterly scare mongered.

Also, did anyone else mistake JSF for JSRF?
Click to expand...

You see scaremongered people, I see occam's razor. Defense expenditure on tools against nations we will never lift a finger against is utterly pointless - all the meanwhile as the army is stretched and resources run scarce for current conflicts.
 
Whos to say whats going to happen in the next 10 - 20 years, you only seem to be looking very short term and at "current threats", whos to say NK (if not sorted out soon) for example, won't be trying to hold us to ransom in the future.
 
KNiVES said:
You see scaremongered people, I see occam's razor. Defense expenditure on tools against nations we will never lift a finger against is utterly pointless - all the meanwhile as the army is stretched and resources run scarce for current conflicts.
Click to expand...
Well that's really two different arguments, personally if we're trying to cut money out of armed forces and defense then they should pull our troops out of those conflicts which really do not concern us, I'd rather stop policing the world and going after threats that have killed very few people in the UK than leave ourselves much more open to conventional attack which could actually result in many more casualties.

The way I see it, especially in today's political and economic climate it's better to be safe than sorry.

I don't want to get into a massive argument about Terrorists and stamping it out, I may be misinformed but it seems to me that many more people have died in the pursuit of eradicating terrorism than have actually died from it in the UK, bar the IRA which obviously aren't the target in the Terrorist agenda.
 
Firestar_3x said:
Whos to say whats going to happen in the next 10 - 20 years, you only seem to be looking very short term and at "current threats", whos to say NK (if not sorted out soon) for example, won't be trying to hold us to ransom in the future.
Click to expand...

exactly, as well as nuclear deterrent stops against all threats, not just nuclear.

Would any one go to war with us, when if it looked like we were losing we could use nuclear weapons to massacre there armed forces in seconds.

I have no doubt that nuclear weapons have stopped many wars in the past 60 years before they even got to the planning phase.
 
Skyfall said:
I don't want to get into a massive argument about Terrorists and stamping it out, I may be misinformed but it seems to me that many more people have died in the pursuit of eradicating terrorism than have actually died from it in the UK, bar the IRA which obviously aren't the target in the Terrorist agenda.
Click to expand...

Those pursuits of eradicating terrorism have done nothing but increase the risk of domestic attacks though. Over 300 have died in Afghanistan as a pursuit of eradicating terrorism - yet everyone and their mother knows their presence there isn't making it better, it's making it worse.

If we didn't engage in such pursuits, there'd be no need for it.
 
Given the nature of this question, I'd assume we'd also be looking at a new approach, mainly around defence of the UK and our few territories rather than being the world's policemen along with the USA.

With that in mind, Trident is the most useful. Neither aircraft carriers or the JSF are great for defending the UK, as opposed to projecting the power elsewere.
 
what were we meant to do though, not invade and allow Afghanistan to harbour terrorists and terrorists camps.

we did try diplomacy and they refused to help out or hand over the key players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom