aircraft carrier will be sold after three years (UK)- and never carry jets

[Deusxmachina]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...arry-jets.html

One of the Navy’s new £3 billion aircraft carriers will never carry aircraft and will sail for only three years before being mothballed and possibly sold, ministers will announce on Tuesday.

The Government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review will also confirm that Britain will not have an effective “carrier strike” capability – a working aircraft carrier equipped with fighter jets – until 2020.

David Cameron had wanted to scrap one of the two carriers, the largest and most expensive vessels in British naval history, but the review found that contracts signed by the previous government meant that doing so would end up costing the taxpayer more than going ahead with both. As a result, the two carriers will enter service, but one will be mothballed as soon as possible.

Further angering Navy chiefs, the defence review will confirm that Harrier jump-jets will be abandoned next year but the RAF’s Tornado will be spared to operate in Afghanistan.
Scrapping the Harriers will create a “capability gap” of nine years, with Britain unable to fly fast jets from an aircraft carrier until 2020, when the new JSF enters service.

Until 2020, Britain is likely to rely heavily on allies with a carrier strike capability, most significantly France.

[MT Alex]

It's about time they dumped the Hawker Harrier. The thing is almost as worthless as the Yak-38. Tiny payload, small range, and a piss poor electronic suite. The Tornado, on the other hand, is a very capable aircraft.

Ah, how I miss the days of playing Harpoon. I doubt there will ever be a more comprehensive naval sim game.

[jmcslob]

Now that's just Fucked up...

So what's wrong?
Can't the mighty UK afford a Gadammed Navy?
And the Pound is supposed to be worth more than the Dollar....Bullshit

Funniest part is the whole of the British Navy is about the size of ONE US carrier group lol

[entropy13]

Aren't there plans of adapting the Typhoon for carrier use?

Anyway, they could even go ahead and buy Rafale's anyway instead of "heavily relying" on the ones that already have Rafale's (French Navy), some spending but removes the uncertainty of having to go through another country for air support based on a carrier.

[FordGT90Concept]

Sounds like the Pentagon scraping the F-22 Raptor. Invest so much money in something and scrap it just because it is convinent because they can't convince people to make cuts in far more costly areas of government (like welfare). You know that song "Video Killed the Radio Star?" There ought to be a remake: "Welfare Killed the Defense Budget." ...coming to a nation near you.

[DrPepper]

Originally Posted by MT Alex

It's about time they dumped the Hawker Harrier. The thing is almost as worthless as the Yak-38. Tiny payload, small range, and a piss poor electronic suite. The Tornado, on the other hand, is a very capable aircraft.

Ah, how I miss the days of playing Harpoon. I doubt there will ever be a more comprehensive naval sim game.

Yeah I hate the damn thing. I said earlier I can't wait for the F35B but oh wait that might get fucking cancelled too. I voted for cameron and so far he's totally went off the rails and not done anything he promised in the campaign. He promised to increase funding for the military ? My arse, I might just move to the USA and join the marines now.

I mean seriously WHAT THE FUCK. Britains pride is our navy, small but elite.

[pepsi71ocean]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Sounds like the Pentagon scraping the F-22 Raptor. Invest so much money in something and scrap it just because it is convinent because they can't convince people to make cuts in far more costly areas of government (like welfare). You know that song "Video Killed the Radio Star?" There ought to be a remake: "Welfare Killed the Defense Budget." ...coming to a nation near you.

Reminds me of an old song where they said the British were coming, Johnny get your gun.

Remember once Obama kills our navy,(i read in a local newspaper we are cutting up ships built 10 years ago, and having them sold to forgeing scrap yards!?) and then our military you better be armed, i give us 5 years before were invaded by people who don't like us, like 3/4 of the world!

[FordGT90Concept]

Only the AGEIS cruisers and CVN-21 (under construction) are really modern ships in the fleet. The rest are rather old but have been retrofited with modern weaponry.

Zumwalt destroyer program, formerly DD(X), better not be scraped and they better deliver something unbelivable. The program was started in 2001 and the earliest we'll see a ship is still 3-5 years away.

The CG(X) (cruiser) program was scraped and the money, instead, went to retrofitting the old Arliegh-Burke destroyers with bigger guns.

Basically, our government has done everything wrong over the last 10 years as far as America's ability to project power is concerned. Instead of pushing hard to advance technology, they are aiming to maintain the status quo.

[Cuzza]

Welcome to my world, Britain. NZ mothballed it's last fighter jets 10 years ago. They've sat around looking for a buyer until this year, but no one wants them so they're being scrapped.

So we rely on Australia for air combat capability. And now Britain is relying on France for theirs? My God. What a shite state of affairs.

And what did I read the other day - Saudi Arabia is shelling out a casual $60bn on arms from America? Someone knows what they're doing.

I like to poke fun at America sometimes, but hell if it really came to war you guys are the only thing that would save our arses.

[Steevo]

The reason 3/4 of the world doesn't like the US is they poke their fingers into everybodys business. We wouldn't need such a big defense budget if we would stay the fuck home and fuck more and fight less.


But hey, some of you guys like to take hot sweaty showers with other men. Not that I am judging, cause, I won't ask and you don't tell. K?

[Cuzza]

This is somewhat off topic, but I don't think there is anything wrong with enjoying communal showers.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by Cuzza

Welcome to my world, Britain. NZ mothballed it's last fighter jets 10 years ago. They've sat around looking for a buyer until this year, but no one wants them so they're being scrapped.

So we rely on Australia for air combat capability. And now Britain is relying on France for theirs? My God. What a shite state of affairs.

And what did I read the other day - Saudi Arabia is shelling out a casual $60bn on arms from America? Someone knows what they're doing.

I like to poke fun at America sometimes, but hell if it really came to war you guys are the only thing that would save our arses.

I'm afraid to admit, that might be wishful thinking. The military strained against a country the size of Texas and required multiple redeployments of hundreds of thousands of troops. We currently have a tech edge but as pointed out in my last post, the focus on that is wanging/failing.


Jesus Christ, they are still spending $2.8 billion annually on the V-22 Osprey. Why weren't they moth balled?


No...I get it. America's military is moving away from the capability to fight other militaries to fighting non-government factions (like terrorists). We may pay dearly for that shift in the future.

Originally Posted by Steevo

The reason 3/4 of the world doesn't like the US is they poke their fingers into everybodys business. We wouldn't need such a big defense budget if we would stay the fuck home and fuck more and fight less.

We have a lot of territory to protect. Sticking our fingers in everyone else's cup of tea prevents them from questioning our authority. If we only stayed "home," we'd become like UK whom is getting shafted by the EU.

[Cuzza]

America could win in Afghanistan if they really wanted to. The whole country that is. If you were all willing to put regular life aside for a while and devote a few years to kicking the Taliban's butt, you could. But instead people want this war to tick over in the background while they get on with their prosperous comsumercentric lives. I tell you war doesn't work like that. War is fucking expensive and not just in terms of money.

[FordGT90Concept]

Afghanistan is a lot like the environment in Fallout New Vegas. You have a bunch of divided factions fighting for power. A central government might not be possible there. Moreover, you have the Pakistani problem (they are hurting more than helping and we are paying them to hurt us).

War can be very profitable, but not in a country like Afghanistan that would still be in the stone age if it weren't for the West aiding the Mujahideen in fending off the USSR back in the 80s. Now they are in the stone age with 1970s weapons.

Do I want to withdrawl from Afghanistan? No. Do I want to invade areas of Pakistan where Pakistan has proven incompetent? Yes. Had McCain been elected, I'm sure Afghanistan would be on the path to victory instead of defeat. He would have gotten strict with Pakistan and may have used India as leverage against Pakistan. But no, we have Obama whom has proven he leads America to places we don't want to go. His strategy is appeasement: "surge" in Afghanistan to make Republicans happy and put deadlines on everything to make Democrats happy. The result is stalemate: deadlines empower the enemy because they know the end is in sight; a surge only maintains the status quo when your enemy surges too. McChrystal witnessed this. The body count climbed and the progress halted because of an inept leader in Washington D.C. calling the shots. He speaks about it, on the record, with a Rollingstones journalist. What he said could be considered insubordination so he is removed and the face of Iraq replaces him, Pettras. Pettras will fall victim to the same problems that befell McChrystal. Just like Vietnam, the Afghanistan campaign will fail because Washington refuses to commit to finishing it.

That's the sad reality; thank the ignorant Americans (Democrats and the majority of Independents) for beliving in the "hopey changey" bullshit for it.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by Cuzza

Welcome to my world, Britain. NZ mothballed it's last fighter jets 10 years ago. They've sat around looking for a buyer until this year, but no one wants them so they're being scrapped.

So we rely on Australia for air combat capability. And now Britain is relying on France for theirs? My God. What a shite state of affairs.

And what did I read the other day - Saudi Arabia is shelling out a casual $60bn on arms from America? Someone knows what they're doing.

I like to poke fun at America sometimes, but hell if it really came to war you guys are the only thing that would save our arses.

10 years ago? 10 years ago, our last figther jets were already museum displays for 10 years then lol

[pepsi71ocean]

i still think that if we don't develope more manpower our nation is goign to be screwed, we are walking right inot world war 3, weren't we in this same situation is the 1920's

most of the world lacked a military, and obama is disabling ours, and will use the massive deflect as the excuse.

and when Iran North Korea and China rise up to conquer the world, the west will not be able to di shit.



i agree we COULD wil in iraq and afganistan, we should have started a draft in 2001, the mere threat of a 10 million man army would have ended the war.


the whole world watched, and listened, countries like north korea, iran and libera all came and got on their knee's, when we steam rolled afganistan and iraq, no if we had a 10 million man draftee army, and used it as the back up to the threat, i still think it would have been over by now


none of these piss ant dictators want to loose power, if the S government said surrender your terrorist or we will replace you, i don't think they would give us the finger, i think even the taliban would have said come and take alkida away from us.

[Steevo]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

We have a lot of territory to protect. Sticking our fingers in everyone else's cup of tea prevents them from questioning our authority. If we only stayed "home," we'd become like UK whom is getting shafted by the EU.

Vietnam?
Iraq?
Afghanistan?
Pakistan?


Which of these could be better won by just cutting off the county, not using military force, not killing thousands? No food imports, exports, no products, no help for their sick, weak, or otherwise. The US fought for their independence against odds, and won. It is up to these countries to do the same if they want the benefits. Not through the life of my family, friends, and dollar.


Ahh yes, that perturbs the ratio of high fives and ass slapping in the hot sweaty man shower. I understand.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by Steevo

Which of these could be better won by just cutting off the county, not using military force, not killing thousands? No food imports, exports, no products, no help for their sick, weak, or otherwise. The US fought for their independence against odds, and won. It is up to these countries to do the same if they want the benefits. Not through the life of my family, friends, and dollar.

In a word, none. As demonstrated by the Mexican/American border, it is nearly impossible to completely cut off a motivated enemy. "Where there is a will, there is a way."

The US only won it's independence because Britian was spread too thin and Franklin convinced the French to stage a distraction by attacking the British Empire. Britian couldn't afford to send ships of men and equipment to a country thousands of miles away when a very competent enemy stood across the English Channel.

[Steevo]

I suggest you understand that a 10 million man strong would allow a man less than a foot apart on the mexico border.. Soooooo.......


And I though you liked group showers!!!!!

[FordGT90Concept]

Then they dig under like the Vietcong did in Vietnam. Or they go around (boat) or over (aircraft). There's no stopping a determined enemy.

Moreover, where are you going to get the funds to equip, feed, and compensate a 7 fold increase in military manpower?

[Steevo]

From the lack of bombs, jetfuel, and other expenses we wouldn't have.


Park their asses 5 miles from the border on our side and shoot anything between them and the border.



I told a employee once he was going to dig me a hole, as tall as he was, as deep as he was tall, and twice as wide so i could get back out. He was a lazy fuck, I had no use for him and he quit so he couldn't collect unemployment. Nothing wrong with paying the military to do the work if the lazy assed welfare idiots can't do it. Hell, make them do it. You want welfare? You are going to work 3 10 hour days a week, and look for a job the other two. Those that don't work, don't eat.

[pepsi71ocean]

Originally Posted by Steevo

Which of these could be better won by just cutting off the county, not using military force, not killing thousands? No food imports, exports, no products, no help for their sick, weak, or otherwise. The US fought for their independence against odds, and won. It is up to these countries to do the same if they want the benefits. Not through the life of my family, friends, and dollar.

Your ideology works really well with Iran and North Korea, oh wait Iraq as well

Anyone remember the food for oil program?

Originally Posted by Steevo

I suggest you understand that a 10 million man strong would allow a man less than a foot apart on the mexico border.. Soooooo.......


And I though you liked group showers!!!!!

im talking about back in 2001, the mere idea of America with a 10million man army would allow us to control iraq and afgnistan without question of authority, and with it we could use it as leverage, with other piss ant nations saying "we don't want to piss america off shell send 250,000 solders to my country remove me and my 20 wives and my 500 foot mega yacht from power."

Originally Posted by Steevo

I told a employee once he was going to dig me a hole, as tall as he was, as deep as he was tall, and twice as wide so i could get back out. He was a lazy fuck, I had no use for him and he quit so he couldn't collect unemployment. Nothing wrong with paying the military to do the work if the lazy assed welfare idiots can't do it. Hell, make them do it. You want welfare? You are going to work 3 10 hour days a week, and look for a job the other two. Those that don't work, don't eat.

FYI, thanks to Obama you can collect if you get fired, you just have to wait another couple of weeks longer.

[yogurt_21]

Originally Posted by DrPepper

Yeah I hate the damn thing. I said earlier I can't wait for the F35B but oh wait that might get fucking cancelled too. I voted for cameron and so far he's totally went off the rails and not done anything he promised in the campaign. He promised to increase funding for the military ? My arse, I might just move to the USA and join the marines now.

I mean seriously WHAT THE FUCK. Britains pride is our navy, small but elite.

thing is brittains navy used to be elite as well as the largest/most capable in the world seems odd that the biggest ever naval power now has such a small navy.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by pepsi71ocean

Anyone remember the food for oil program?

It completely failed. What of it?

Originally Posted by pepsi71ocean

im talking about back in 2001, the mere idea of America with a 10million man army would allow us to control iraq and afgnistan without question of authority, and with it we could use it as leverage, with other piss ant nations saying "we don't want to piss america off shell send 250,000 solders to my country remove me and my 20 wives and my 500 foot mega yacht from power."

a) you are completely forgetting about logistics. In order to move even 2 million men half way around the world to Iraq would have taken years and half the craft making that voyage would have to have food and water because food and water is scarce in that region. They all also need equipment and supplies. It's also very difficult to "shock and awe" when the enemy can easily spot your armies and their strength.

b) The war would have been just as long and just as grusome. Terrorists are the equivilent to animals backed into a corner. They attack against all odds because they don't know what else they can do.

c) The reason the war lasted 7+ years instead of 1 (when it was declared "Mission Accomplished") is diplomatic, not militaristic. 2+ million troops would convince the iraqis they were being occupied by a foreign military. Diplomatic progress would halt because they would feel they are still being attacked/harrassed.

d) The wars would be far more costly because the USA doesn't even have 2 million troops right now.

e) There's a difference between "Big Stick" politics and "Big Dick" politics.

Originally Posted by yogurt_21

thing is brittains navy used to be elite as well as the largest/most capable in the world seems odd that the biggest ever naval power now has such a small navy.

They depend on our navy while they progress their state to "nannyism."

[DrPepper]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

They depend on our navy while they progress their state to "nannyism."

Obviously missing out on the fact your entire navy is based on ours and our tactics and training