Trident or Aircraft Carriers or JSF

[Superficial]

Wrong, it is one claim not claims you are disputing here - at least try to get it right.

are you serious? pluralising? - grow up - and lay off the rolleyes its getting silly now.

Again, why are you so caught up in one aspect of the various components of that point? Obviously the US will identify and accept the decline of the UK as well, what I read was not meant for politcal statement more just acknowledgement of what other nations were saying or complaining - other countries and collectives are growing far bigger and more powerful and that perhaps in future Britain/France etc is going to have to step asside. Rise and fall, and all that.

Why are we extremely valuable now?

Your point is simply that you believe the UK should have no place as a permanent member of the security council and I disagree - what exactly is wrong with that? how am i getting caught up exactly? its the only thing I take issue with Biohazard

You have made a huge and, in my opinion ubsubstatiated, point which is that we dont sdeserve to be there and that this rests on two issues: 1) that other countries are rising and 2) that some countries believe Britian should not be there.

You have provided no eveidence for the second of those points and the first would simply indicate that there is a possibility that the SC should be expanded with regard to VETO's - I further disagree that this should have anything to do with economics. I have made the point earlier that Russia and China, as i implied earlier, should not be there at all. I believe this because i think they are not proper democracies and have huge levels of corruption.

if being a permanent member of the SC had anything to do with the size of your ecomony or military commitment then Germany, which provides a great militray commitment also, would have been upgraded long ago.


EDIT: I will adjust my point of view towards Sc candidacy by saying that, because of the USA's view, that population and ecomic size play a part but are by no means second fiddle to other factors such listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform...ecurity_Council#The_United_States.27_position of which human rights is present and that Britain posseses all those factors in spades.

 

[Biohazard]

are you serious? pluralising? - grow up - and lay off the rolleyes its getting silly now.

Well yes, its easy for you to just throw a veil over everything I say dismissively as such.

It isn't hard to construct sentences correctly.

Your point is simply that you believe the UK should have no place as a permanent member of the security council and I disagree - what exactly is wrong with that? how am i getting caught up exactly? its the only thing I take issue with Biohazard

Shame, if you caught my point you wouldn't be so confused just now.

I've never said as such.

What I have discussed is that other countries, institutions and politicians have questioned our continuing power and veto as it stands. Mainly due to our declining influence in comparison to other countries now to some degree, but mainly in the future.

I have also said that given the world play in nuclear arms and power our removal would not significantly alter things.

I never blatantly said the UK shouldn't have its seat.

You have made a huge and, in my opinion ubsubstatiated, point which is that we dont service to be there and that this rests on two issues: 1) that other countries are rising and 2) that some of those countries believe Britian should not be there.

I never made that point we don't deserve to be there, I said others do. Why is this hard to grasp?

What I did say is that other certain countries perceive our continued position of over inflated influence to be perhaps unfair or unjustified now, and certainly so in the future when future world powers have grown in power and influence.

You have provided no eveidence for the second of those posts and the first would simply indicate that there is a possibility that the SC should be expanded - I further disagree that this should have anything to do with economics. I have made the point earlier that Russia and China, as i implied earlier, should not be there at all. I believe this because i think they are not proper democracies and have huge levels of corruption.

Your not being particularly clear here. Which second posts?

Power has everything to do with economics?

We are in a thread discussing the possibility of real cuts in military power, spending and man power because the government is broke, and we want to keep these nuclear weapons.

How can power and wealth be nothing together? They are intrinsically linked.

Ok, we have a seat just now and because of the power we had when the institutions were established.. In 50 years when other emerging strong economies have developed and we are then somewhat sidelined, can we compete with these countries then militarily? Unlikely.

It is plainly obvious to many countries that we only hold on because of our nuclear capability, trying to hold onto this power while still telling other countries to not produce these weapons in order to compete is somewhat hypocritical.

 

[Superficial]

Shame, if you caught my point you wouldn't be so confused just now.

I've never said as such.

Biohazard, I don't know who you think you're kidding but if i were you I'd forget it - it was the first quote of yours i took issue with here:

Even the US is questioning our postion now, I think the reality needs to set in eventially.

more than enough to imply that you side with that view - otherwise there is no reason for you to type it - so forget the BS because its not going to wash with anyone with half a brain not to mention it makes you seem really lame.

What I have discussed is that other countries, institutions and politicians have questioned our continuing power and veto as it stands. Mainly due to our declining influence in comparison to other countries now to some degree, but mainly in the future.

I have also said that given the world play in nuclear arms and power our removal would not significantly alter things.

I never blatantly said the UK shouldn't have its seat.

I never made that point we don't deserve to be there, I said others do. Why is this hard to grasp?

lame, for the reason stated above.

Your not being particularly clear here. Which second posts?

Power has everything to do with economics?

We are in a thread discussing the possibility of real cuts in military power, spending and man power because the government is broke, and we want to keep these nuclear weapons.

How can power and wealth be nothing together? They are intrinsically linked.

Ok, we have a seat just now and because of the power we had when the institutions were established.. In 50 years when other emerging strong economies have developed and we are then somewhat sidelined, can we compete with these countries then militarily? Unlikely.

It is plainly obvious to many countries that we only hold on because of our nuclear capability, trying to hold onto this power while still telling other countries to not produce these weapons in order to compete is somewhat hypocritical.

i edited way before you posted subsitute post for point.

as for the rest of that - i have no desire to debate that area to be honest the requirements by members of the Sc for new members are listed in the link i gave earlier - some theoritical debate is not going ot get anyone anywhere.

 

[Biohazard]

Biohazard, I don't know who you think you're kidding but if i were you I'd forget it - it was the first quote of yours i took issue with here:

Forget what exactly?

more than enough to imply that you side with that view - otherwise there is no reason for you to type it - so forget the BS because its not going to wash with anyone with half a brain not to mention it makes you seem really lame.

What view do you think "I think the reality needs to set in eventually." actually means and represents in the context of the discussion you plucked it out of now?

I said I agreed that the seat was valuable. That wasn't what I was talking about though, that was Tefals argument. I agreed, then moved back onto my own about the unviability of the UK strategically as we stand in the long term. I'm not bothered about SC seat, I never brought the bloody thing up.

We can't afford to have these weapons in the long run, and our power is gradually fading. That is the reality that needs to set in. Not keeping up a pretense that this isn't happening. I don't care for your misrepresentation now, I'm just bored with nothing else to do.

Its not about your laughable suggestions of 'agreeing with the other side' nothing like it; it’s about looking at reality and what the probabilities of the future world that Britain will probably face.


Oh and "BS"..."not wash with anyone with half a brain"... "makes you seem really lame" etc

Erm, grow up!

lame, for the reason stated above.

i edited way before you posted subsitute post for point.

as for the test of that - i have no desire to debate that area to be honest.

Way before?

"Last edited by Superficial; 31st Jul 2010 at 03:47."

"Last edited by Biohazard; 31st Jul 2010 at 03:47."

Exact same time, but anyway sorry I didn't see your edit. Neither is it relevant anyway its some charge your holding me against that I haven’t directly said, and you obviously don't want to talk about it now anyway..

 

[Over Clocker]

It's great how people say scrap Trident, it probably won't ever be used.....

Trident is an insurance policy. Think about it.

Nuclear weapons ARE THE SOLE REASON there has not been a world war 3.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Aside from the F-22, is there any western plane that can do that cobra manouvre that the SU-27 can perform ?

 

[KatanaDV20]

Aside from the F-22, is there any western plane that can do that cobra manouvre that the SU-27 can perform ?

Im no expert but while that move makes for great airshow eye-candy but it would be neat to hear frontline SU-27 series fighter pilots speak about its value in combat. The view is that this Cobra causes a pursuing fighter to overtake and then the Russian jet drops its nose and fires off an AAM.

But the loss of energy is huge and the SU-27 series are big planes....energy=life to a fighter pilot and I dunno if many would be comfortable hanging in the air like that (even tho its for a short time) with enemy planes and missiles scooting around.

 

[Stelly]

Aside from the F-22, is there any western plane that can do that cobra manouvre that the SU-27 can perform ?

I might be wrong about this but didn't BAE systems demonstrate this on a retrofitted Typhoon to the MOD to show a possible future upgrade path?

Stelly

 

[Efour]

Cant the Mig-29 also pull it off ?

just reading there are also prototype F16s and F18s that have thrust vectoring retro fitted too.

interesting.

 

[Allnamestaken]

lol but what if the russian jet pulls the manaouver pulls up and the following jet pulls up to follow realises the russian jet is actualy slowing down really fast doesnt have enuff time to divert to avoid the russian jets decreasing velocity and plows through it lol.

 

[Zarf]

The argument for replacing Trident seems to be boiling down to "We can't trust America". Which is ridiculous. The modern world is economically tied together and allowing a nuke to go off anywhere is in none of the first and second worlds best interests.

Anyone crazy enough to launch a nuke in the first place is not going to care about their civilians being retaliated against.

 

[Flukester]

I'm not going to quote every biohazard post here but people like you make my blood boil. Will you stop belittling our country. Sure was have cut our forces over the last 40 years but we are still very much a major player on the world stage.

I like that, I like to think our ideals are correct, it's down to countries like us to police the world, for the sake of everyone on this little planet

Oh no we are in decline you shout, but it's doom mongers like you that spoil the country for everyone

I'm not rich myself or very successful, but I work 70+ hrs a week and have doubled my wages in the last year... Every penny of the 40% tax I pay I'm happy with paying, it keeps us strong...be it for the people or for the military that keeps out fellow countrymen safe.

Replace trident, stay strong... We are one of the few countries that provides stability for the entire planet.

We can do, we do do it, it's our duty as a civilised western democracy.

Please excuse iPad typos lol

 

[Castiel]

The argument for replacing Trident seems to be boiling down to "We can't trust America". Which is ridiculous. The modern world is economically tied together and allowing a nuke to go off anywhere is in none of the first and second worlds best interests.

Anyone crazy enough to launch a nuke in the first place is not going to care about their civilians being retaliated against.

It's not about trust, it is about having an independent deterrent. Overall costs are not as great as everyone makes out, and the political, economic and research connected to a nuclear deterrent more than justify it's cost in my opinion.

I'm not going to quote every biohazard post here but people like you make my blood boil. Will you stop belittling our country. Sure was have cut our forces over the last 40 years but we are still very much a major player on the world stage.

I like that, I like to think our ideals are correct, it's down to countries like us to police the world, for the sake of everyone on this little planet

Oh no we are in decline you shout, but it's doom mongers like you that spoil the country for everyone

I'm not rich myself or very successful, but I work 70+ hrs a week and have doubled my wages in the last year... Every penny of the 40% tax I pay I'm happy with paying, it keeps us strong...be it for the people or for the military that keeps out fellow countrymen safe.

Replace trident, stay strong... We are one of the few countries that provides stability for the entire planet.

We can do, we do do it, it's our duty as a civilised western democracy.

Please excuse iPad typos lol

I don't think that Biohazard is belittling the Country exactly, I disagree with his stance on a nuclear deterrent but each to their own.

The problem with these kind of threads is the 'top trumps' attitude people use to compare.

We as a nation are and never have been in a position to have an enormous Armed Services (with the exception of the Navy during the height of the British Empire, although our Army was limited to expeditionary forces and conscription when neccessary), we make up for our lack of manpower with training and specialisation, at which we are the best in the world to this day.

The Royal Marines, for example, are often compared to the US Marine Corps and yet they are not even remotely the same, not in numbers (9000 RM to 250,000 USMC) or in specialist training.

It is time some of us stopped comparing and looked at the reality of the UK Armed Forces and how respected they are Globally, I have 17 years experience in the RM and we have trained everyone from US Navy Seals to Israeli IDF and Iraqi Security Forces. There is a reason for that, We are the best at what we do and we should be proud of that at least.

 

[The Funktopus]

Aside from the F-22, is there any western plane that can do that cobra manouvre that the SU-27 can perform ?

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which infact probably has better all-round high angle of attack handling than any other non-thrust vectoring fighter aircraft of that generation. And both the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon are insanely manoeuvrable as well. However as others have pointed out, massively dumping energy like that is the last thing you want to do in air combat, especially in an aircraft as large as an SU-27.

 

[Flukester]

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which infact probably has better all-round high angle of attack handling than any other non-thrust vectoring fighter aircraft of that generation. And both the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon are insanely manoeuvrable as well. However as others have pointed out, massively dumping energy like that is the last thing you want to do in air combat, especially in an aircraft as large as an SU-27.

Not forgetting if a pilot has got into a dogfight he's prolly messed up. It's all fire and forget from beyond visual range, something our typhoons do far better than nearly every other plane. That's if they get fully equipped with the right missiles

Things have moved on from firing sidewinders up the engine of your enemy

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Thanks for the answers folks.

I understand the cobra not being an efficient manouvre in a dogfight but when the SU-27 first performed this at an airshow some years back ( Paris ? ), the US and western powers must have been taken aback at such astounding agility.

 

[scorza]

I don't think that Biohazard is belittling the Country exactly, I disagree with his stance on a nuclear deterrent but each to their own.

The problem with these kind of threads is the 'top trumps' attitude people use to compare.

We as a nation are and never have been in a position to have an enormous Armed Services (with the exception of the Navy during the height of the British Empire, although our Army was limited to expeditionary forces and conscription when neccessary), we make up for our lack of manpower with training and specialisation, at which we are the best in the world to this day.

The Royal Marines, for example, are often compared to the US Marine Corps and yet they are not even remotely the same, not in numbers (9000 RM to 250,000 USMC) or in specialist training.

It is time some of us stopped comparing and looked at the reality of the UK Armed Forces and how respected they are Globally, I have 17 years experience in the RM and we have trained everyone from US Navy Seals to Israeli IDF and Iraqi Security Forces. There is a reason for that, We are the best at what we do and we should be proud of that at least.

I asked this question before in SC and didn't receive a satisfactory answer; if the RM and British Army are the best in the world, why are the Taliban being so effective against them? If it's only because of IED's (I prefer to call them land mines) then why aren't they adequately prepared for that particular tactic being used against them? What is the use of having the best troops in the world if they can't actually win wars?

I appreciate that's a difficult question, especially with our troops still fighting and dying in Afghanistan, but nevertheless I think it needs to be asked and addressed if we're going to meet the 2015 deadline.

 

[meghatronic]

I asked this question before in SC and didn't receive a satisfactory answer; if the RM and British Army are the best in the world, why are the Taliban being so effective against them? If it's only because of IED's (I prefer to call them land mines) then why aren't they adequately prepared for that particular tactic being used against them? What is the use of having the best troops in the world if they can't actually win wars?

I'll let a former serving answer you thoroughly, but come on - it hardly takes a brain to figure out why IED's are so effective. Troops need to patrol. Think about it....

 

[Von Smallhausen]

IEDs and guerilla tactics are all the Taliban have.

In a straight firefight they would be annihilated by modern trained and equipped infantry surely and as meghatronic says, infantry has to patrol and be on the ground.

 

[The Funktopus]

Thanks for the answers folks.

I understand the cobra not being an efficient manouvre in a dogfight but when the SU-27 first performed this at an airshow some years back ( Paris ? ), the US and western powers must have been taken aback at such astounding agility.

I think more surprising for the west was the Vympel R-73 (NATO reporting name AA-11 Archer) dogfight missile when they got to have a closer look at former East German MiG-29's once the Berlin Wall fell. Roughly equivalent to the western AIM-9 Sidewinder, it did possess a couple of surprising & revolutionary advances on the AIM-9. First off, it's seeker header was coupled to an infra-red search/track sensor mounted before the canopy on both the MiG-29 and SU-27. This was in turn linked to a monocle in the pilot's helmet, that allowed him to cue the missile onto an aircraft by simply looking at it. This meant they could engage targets upto 90 degrees off the nose, as opposed to 45 degrees for previous missiles like Sidewinder. Secondly, the Archer also had thrust vectoring rocket vanes, small fins mounted in the rocket motors exhaust that gave additional agility. Western airforces were so certain of their technical superiority that they were frankly stumped by the idea that the Russians could come up with something so innovative and cutting edge at the time.