Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 4 of 4  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4
Author Message
Demon Lord Razgriz
Post subject: Re: Ark Royal decomissioningPosted: November 10th, 2010, 7:33 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 446
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 1:18 am
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Portsmouth Bill wrote:
What!! :? Er, is this another Yankee myth? Whereby they fought on both sides of the Franco Prussian war, and still won :lol: Sorry cobber, Its just that I've never heard this one before; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt ;)
Nope, was an actual offer. Not sure why the British government didn't accept. Maybe it's the same reason why they've rejected an offer of a Wasp & its Harriers to boost security at the coming London Olympic Games, they think it makes the UK look weak.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Finfan
Post subject: Re: Ark Royal decomissioningPosted: November 10th, 2010, 9:14 pm
Offline
Posts: 64
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:32 pm
Demon Lord Razgriz wrote:
Portsmouth Bill wrote:
What!! :? Er, is this another Yankee myth? Whereby they fought on both sides of the Franco Prussian war, and still won :lol: Sorry cobber, Its just that I've never heard this one before; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt ;)
Nope, was an actual offer. Not sure why the British government didn't accept. Maybe it's the same reason why they've rejected an offer of a Wasp & its Harriers to boost security at the coming London Olympic Games, they think it makes the UK look weak.
There have always been rumors going about that an offer for a Nimitz-class and a battlegroup was to be made if the FAA or the COAN managed to sink the Hermes. As to the wasp-class in the Thames, well its quite clearly a ridiculous offer that would never be accepted, as it would imply massive weakness by the UK security forces. Furthermore, such a craft just sitting in the river would probably be mostly useless, it certainly could not add anything that the British forces don't already have.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: Ark Royal decomissioningPosted: November 10th, 2010, 9:42 pm
Offline
Posts: 7233
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
Yeah, but you have to realsitically say that the MOD has been spending a packet on the Falklands all these years since 1982 which probably by now adds up to a chunk of the spending all because of political bluster and the promise of riches beyond your wildest dreams via oil always just seemingly around the corner...

I agree a repeat of the 1982 seems unthinkable now, not enough surface ships, no carriers, not enough amphibious vessels, probably not even enough tankers and replenishment ships to maintain a naval force for a month out there. No where to fly from but let's remember that world poltics has changed a great deal since 1982. Not sure what the RAF could do, but then could a dozen Harriers with limited air-air capability from one carrier really pull off a repeat 1982 performance? All the FRS.2s are scrap now so the FAA has no fighters, just a few RAF gound-attack Harriers, fleet defence would still be in the hands of the last Type 42s and the couple of Type 45s now complete. Still the last few SSNs could have a big impact with Tomahawk etc and sink a few Argentine ships but then I figure todays tabloids wouldn't have headlines like Gocha! these days.

More importantly can one or two scenarios (Afghanistan and the Falklands) really be allowed to warp the enitre defence policy for the next 10-20 years?

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Portsmouth Bill
Post subject: Re: Ark Royal decomissioningPosted: November 11th, 2010, 9:09 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom
Quote:
Nope, was an actual offer. Not sure why the British government didn't accept. Maybe it's the same reason why they've rejected an offer of a Wasp & its Harriers to boost security at the coming London Olympic Games, they think it makes the UK look weak.
No offence, but I just don't buy any of these scenarios, as Finfan explains. We have to remember that Thatchers goverment was caught unprepared, and it was a minor miracle that the Brits managed to cobble together a task force in the short time required; that was the reality, what actually happened. the USA acted as an honest broker between the two sides, to try to avoid a conflict; but all the time they were providing the Brits with whatever 'goodies' they wanted - and I mean things like the more advanced Sidewinders. It beggars belief that somehow the U.S. could either fight the war on their behalf, or, somehow hand over a major component of its surface fleet to a foreign country, and, in the time period, have that country both integrate the new ships and sytems and operate them!! Well, maybe after a few years :lol:
Quote:
More importantly can one or two scenarios (Afghanistan and the Falklands) really be allowed to warp the enitre defence policy for the next 10-20 years?
Yeah, but you have to realsitically say that the MOD has been spending a packet on the Falklands all these years since 1982 which probably by now adds up to a chunk of the spending all because of political bluster and the promise of riches beyond your wildest dreams via oil always just seemingly around the corner...

I agree a repeat of the 1982 seems unthinkable now, not enough surface ships, no carriers, not enough amphibious vessels, probably not even enough tankers and replenishment ships to maintain a naval force for a month out there. No where to fly from but let's remember that world poltics has changed a great deal since 1982. Not sure what the RAF could do, but then could a dozen Harriers with limited air-air capability from one carrier really pull off a repeat 1982 performance? All the FRS.2s are scrap now so the FAA has no fighters, just a few RAF gound-attack Harriers, fleet defence would still be in the hands of the last Type 42s and the couple of Type 45s now complete. Still the last few SSNs could have a big impact with Tomahawk etc and sink a few Argentine ships but then I figure todays tabloids wouldn't have headlines like Gocha! these days.

More importantly can one or two scenarios (Afghanistan and the Falklands) really be allowed to warp the enitre defence policy for the next 10-20 years?
True, but we have to give credit to the armed forces for using every argument to retain some felxibility. At the risk of starting another 'lively discussion', I'm firmly of the opinion that both Iraq and Afghanistan have been a disaster for the U.K. And that the Falklands/Malvina's was a totally unnecessary conflict, with both sides using the war for political ends. I really beleive that (as we have traditionally) the perceived potential enemy of this country is the one that can threaten us directly, either by potential attack, or attempting hegemony in Europe. And I know who that is at the moment:

THE FRENCH :lol:

No, only joking: Viva Entente Cordial :D

We all know who :evil:


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 4 of 4  [ 34 posts ]  Return to “Off Topic” | Go to page « 1 2 3 4

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]