Trident or Aircraft Carriers or JSF

First and foremost, Trident.

Then, stop spending money on useless pointless and pathetic projects and put the money towards a half decent jet for our half decent carriers.

Also, I just can not believe they didn't put a steam catapult on them. What on earth goes through the heads of these people. So i take it that now the only jet we can really have other than the harrier, is the JSF? which could turn out to be CRAP. Are they able to easily install a catapult if needs be?
 
Back to the original question, I would cut JSF and fit catapults to the carriers and buy F-18's. We don't need stelath and STVOTL is a compromise too far for carrier aircraft. Billions would be saved on the aircraft alone by buying F-18's which are good enough to smash anyone we're likely to use them against.

I understand it would be technically difficult to fit catapults but better than wasting billions on a sub-standard plane. I understand the MOD has paid a contractor to starting designing an linear motor catapult (search CONVERTEAM)

Trident replacement can probably be delayed 5 years so lets delay the decision until we're a bit richer.
 
Create a single European Union defence force and have a world-class carrier group, aircraft and nuclear deterrent.

$320 Bn annual budget in 2009, over 1.8 million active personnel (second only to China).
 
PMKeates said:
Create a single European Union defence force and have a world-class carrier group, aircraft and nuclear deterrent.

$320 Bn annual budget in 2009, over 1.8 million active personnel (second only to China).
Click to expand...

Sure, and have a dozen or so different political agendas pulling in a dozen different dirrections. A world class carrier group that never leaves port......
 
BluZiff said:
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.
Click to expand...

Steel can be re-cast, contracts can be cancelled, I'd be very surprised if the contract to build the carriers didn't have get-out clauses for each party. If nothing else the government could offer to pay the companies involved not to build the carriers, if the value of not building exceeds the value of building them then they will accept.
 
Efour2 said:
This country has done nothing ( very little) of worth since ww2 and is on the decline.
Click to expand...

Surely thats because of WW2 which virtually bankrupted the country but the winning of that war benefitted virtually every person on this planet.

However the fact that England - or lets be real and say a small part of south East England can still be a major player in world politics and finance amongst other things kind of stomps on your argument.
 
Anyone also see that program on EMPs last night, don't know what it was on. Detonate a nuke 300miles up and you have no, or at least very little fall out, no blast damage on land. But A big enough emp at that height would take out the entire American content.
Even at a low height the area is very large,
 
Last edited:
We need the Carriers. Our current ones aren't even carriers these days they are so small and old.

Need the JSF. We have already spent millions/billions in R&D so it would be a waste not to buy a few.


Need some form of nuclear deterrent and would consider alternatives to Trident as it really isn't an amazing deal. such as a French partnership etc.

Short minded spending cuts will cost more in the future.


I would be happy to have a Euro Navy/Army/Airforce as long as we are in charge or atleast France/Germany/Britain should have more votes so the smaller countries don't make it complicated.
 
Last edited:
AcidHell2 said:
Anyone also see that program on EMPs last night, don't know what it was on. Detonate a nuke 300miles up and you have no or at least very little fall out, no blast damage on land. But A big enough emp at that height would take out the entire American content.
Even at a low height the area is very large,
Click to expand...

Same thing happened to CTU in New York everything was ok after a quick reboot though. :D
 
PMKeates said:
Create a single European Union defence force and have a world-class carrier group, aircraft and nuclear deterrent.

$320 Bn annual budget in 2009, over 1.8 million active personnel (second only to China).
Click to expand...

Nice idea, but given competing political agendas the defence force would be just that - it would almost certainly never leave europe.
 
scorza said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not about jobs, it's about the defence of the UK. I'm glad I have less than 2 years left in the RAF as there isn't going to be much left!
 
Last edited:
Our nuclear deterrent should not be up for debate, the government should simply sign the cheque. It ensures are place at the worlds top table, if we get rid of it now we will never get it back and we have all seen hom much the world can change in a 30 year period.

The Carriers are pretty much a done deal now, the contract are heavily front loaded cancelling them late on will not save huge sums of money.

This leaves the JSF which for me was a terrible mistake in the first place, the STOVL is horribly compromised and the whole project is silly expensive for a plane we don't really need. The carriers have been designed in such a way that cat's can be added in future so we should re-evaluate and add these from the start. We can then purchase one of the many off the shelf jets available to us at vastly reduced costs we could even ask old Vladimir for a license to build some Russian stuff in the UK.
 
Last edited:
Dont get me started on this SO annoy!

I think that the Falklands showed that being able to project air power is a must, even with the Iraq invasion the carrier air fleet were flying day and night ensure air superiority.

Also with Iran and a few other unstable countries developing nukes we need the nuclear deterrent, its also a political statement and give us access to the top table so to speak something no government would give up...

I say we need both and get a more efficient NHS system, or part funded by the private sector.

Stelly
 
a1ex2001 said:
The Carriers are pretty much a done deal now, the contract are heavily front loaded cancelling them late on will not save huge sums of money.
Click to expand...

Yes all contracts are signed but this does not mean that our pathetic government would not sell them to France after building them as that poor excuse of a carrier the Charles de Gaulle is now in dry dock and I can see if being there for a long time...

Stelly
 
I take it the Eurofighter could be launched off the new carriers if they upgraded the deck for assisted launch?

Problem is i'm not sure the Eurofighter fits in with the needs of a carrier launched aircraft, is it multi role enough?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom