Navy aircraft carrier will be sold after three years - and never carry jets
209 replies, posted
Bravehat, Galtieri is dead, So is Thatcher. Stop acting like war is on the brink.
[QUOTE=runtime;25511357]ohdeargod
Are you serious?[/QUOTE]
By an overwhelming force I think so, of course it would have to be incredibly extreme circumstances.
Warhol I'm talking hypotheticals here, no one would fucking invade the UK at this point in time.
And about the falklands, tensions have been rising between the UK and Argentina over the falklands [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7856595/No-talks-on-Falklands-David-Cameron-tells-Argentina.html[/url]
What your saying is like "The Kaiser is dead there won't be another war with germany" We know there was, at the bare bones of it it's a similar situation, the same shit can happen with different people and that's what matters.
Then what the hell is your point?
[editline]19th October 2010[/editline]
You can't waste massive amounts of tax money, risk lives and war just because of some paranoid notion over something so improbable.
They should legalize marijuana and only make it available though a building controlled by the government and leave it legalized until they could make enough money to keep the carrier. Then either keep making money or just ban it again.
[QUOTE=Warhol;25511076]Who would attack Cuba then?[/QUOTE]
Quite a few countries - if they wanted to.
Let's put it another way. I can't see the USA invading China for resources as it did with Iraq.
[QUOTE=MasterG;25510970]Welp, if I was Argentina, I'd be launching a retaking of the falklands right about now.
UK's armed forces are busy in Afghanistan
Our main ally, the USA, is busy in its own shit in Afghanistan
We now have fuckall air superiority.
Hell, they could launch a fucking assault on the UK itself, and we'd be hard-pressed to fight back with only the current jets we have. It's a fucking joke.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry, we'll be safe. We can count on the French to halp us! :downs:
[QUOTE=OnDemand;25511454]They should legalize marijuana and only make it available though a building controlled by the government and leave it legalized until they could make enough money to keep the carrier. Then either keep making money or just ban it again.[/QUOTE]
Or sell the carrier, the UK doesn't need it.
[QUOTE=Warhol;25511421]Then what the hell is your point?
[editline]19th October 2010[/editline]
You can't waste massive amounts of tax money, risk lives and war just because of some paranoid notion over something so improbable.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying go to war dude, I'm saying downscaling our already ill equipped armed forces when we are hardly prepared for what the future could throw at us is a bad idea.
Fuck we are getting rid of a sizeable chunk of our armour, what if hypothetically speaking we did come under attack then, we wouldn't be in a great position to defend ourselves and our interests.
I'm not saying go nuts and arm ourselves til bullets are coming out of our ass, I'm just saying that we should prep ourselves for any possibility the future may bring to our door instead of relying on anyone to help us when shit gets thick.
And we need those carriers because they allow us to project our air power warhol, so yeah we fucking do need it.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;25495963]The US might buy it. Our military gratuitously spends money, and I'm sure we wouldn't mind getting an aircraft carrier without having to build it ourselves.[/QUOTE]
Building an aircraft carrier: Giving made-up money to your own people
Buying an aircraft carrier: Giving somewhat real money to someone else
[QUOTE=bravehat;25511562]I'm not saying go to war dude, I'm saying downscaling our already ill equipped armed forces when we are hardly prepared for what the future could throw at us is a bad idea.
Fuck we are getting rid of a sizeable chunk of our armour, what if hypothetically speaking we did come under attack then, we wouldn't be in a great position to defend ourselves and our interests.
I'm not saying go nuts and arm ourselves til bullets are coming out of our ass, I'm just saying that we should prep ourselves for any possibility the future may bring to our door instead of relying on anyone to help us when shit gets thick.
And we need those carriers because they allow us to project our air power warhol, so yeah we fucking do need it.[/QUOTE]
Please give us a realistic example of what ''the future could throw at us''
[QUOTE=Viper202;25511387]Cameron tried calming everyone down by telling us "we're not cutting military equipment and funding because of one of the worst econimic crisis's this countries ever been in".
It fucking is.
It fucking, is......[/QUOTE]
You could just see the bullshit dribbling from his mouth when he said that.
8%, for fucks sake, Im still trying to get over that.
[QUOTE=Reborn9;25511800]Please give us a realistic example of what ''the future could throw at us''[/QUOTE]
Best way to do that is to look into the past.
War isn't dead at the end of the day and we should have plans to be able to handle a large scale conventional war, invasions, guerilla warfare, insurgencies and anything else that could arise as warfare develops.
At the end of the day people will be greedy fucks with sticky fingers, they'll want more and some of them will be willing to throw lives away for it.
I just think we should be ready to limit the damage with a nice tasty army, problems with that? I dinnae give a fuck. :tiphat:
[QUOTE=Reborn9;25511800]Please give us a realistic example of what ''the future could throw at us''[/QUOTE]
It's impossible to accurately say what will happen in the future. Things can change drastically in just a few years - between 1918 and 1939 Germany went from being bankrupt and in political turmoil to a major power, and it was the Allies failing to realise that that helped lead to the start of the war.
(Godwin wins again)
Also, we [i]do[/i] need more than one carrier, even if one is held in reserve. This is a fact. The UK as an Island nation requires a strong navy for its basic defence. Anyone who disagrees can get out, because there is centuries of history that proves this is the case. In WWII it is was clearly established that the carrier was the dominant naval weapon - battleships were made redundant and it became clear that air power is a key element when fighting on the high seas. This is why Britain needs at least one carrier - if not for force projection then certainly for home defence. But why more than one? Because in war ships sink, and carriers take a fucking long time to build. Having another carrier - at least in reserve - gives us something to fall back on.
[QUOTE=bravehat;25511562]I'm not saying go to war dude, I'm saying downscaling our already ill equipped armed forces when we are hardly prepared for what the future could throw at us is a bad idea.
Fuck we are getting rid of a sizeable chunk of our armour, what if hypothetically speaking we did come under attack then, we wouldn't be in a great position to defend ourselves and our interests.
I'm not saying go nuts and arm ourselves til bullets are coming out of our ass, I'm just saying that we should prep ourselves for any possibility the future may bring to our door instead of relying on anyone to help us when shit gets thick.
And we need those carriers because they allow us to project our air power warhol, so yeah we fucking do need it.[/QUOTE]
Sweden has no airpower, they've been fine for how long now?
you don't need it because you're paranoid.
you know what keeps people from attacking you? Don't piss them off.
[editline]19th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=bravehat;25512303]Best way to do that is to look into the past.
War isn't dead at the end of the day and we should have plans to be able to handle a large scale conventional war, invasions, guerilla warfare, insurgencies and anything else that could arise as warfare develops.
At the end of the day people will be greedy fucks with sticky fingers, they'll want more and some of them will be willing to throw lives away for it.
I just think we should be ready to limit the damage with a nice tasty army, problems with that? I dinnae give a fuck. :tiphat:[/QUOTE]
You and Random seem to think that things that happened in the past mean it'll happen again. I didn't know Germany was currently going through the 4th Reich, my B, bros
I don't mind the cuts so much. We don't need tonnes of tanks, or paratroopers or ground troops. We have alot floating around that we don't need. But to have an aircraft carrier with no planes is just out-and-out [i]retarded[/i].
But it's not that that's bothering me. It's how much Cameron reassured voters that defense was a 'high priority' and that 'we need upgraded nuclear missiles and we need them NOW!', oh, and 'having all the best equipment for our boys in Iraq is vital, and making sure we are defended against all threads is SO VERY IMPORTANT VOTE ME I WILL PROTECT YOU UNLIKE THESE COMMIES'
Cameron. You're a hypocritical dick. A small dick at that.
Dick.
[QUOTE=Warhol;25512466]Sweden has no airpower, they've been fine for how long now?
you don't need it because you're paranoid.
you know what keeps people from attacking you? Don't piss them off.[/QUOTE]
Sweden has very advanced air power actually, recently having designed and built the SAAB 39 Gripen, and will have a small air force in the future most likely:
Of the now 138 fighter planes in service about 100 will form the future Swedish Air Force. Some orders have been made on the helicopter side and about 40 new units will join the air force in the next coming years. Saab has also joined the primarily French project for the unmanned future stealth plane Dassault nEUROn.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Air_Force#Future[/url]
And as I've said before I don't particularly care about your opinion, you have yours and I have mine, yours is that a large armed forces is unnecessary and mines is that one is indeed necessary to defend a nations interests overseas and it's own lands at home.
We don't need the jets, everyone will be too scared to pay attention to whether it has jets or not.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;25512526]I don't mind the cuts so much. We don't need tonnes of tanks, or paratroopers or ground troops. We have alot floating around that we don't need. But to have an aircraft carrier with no planes is just out-and-out [i]retarded[/i].
But it's not that that's bothering me. It's how much Cameron reassured voters that defense was a 'high priority' and that 'we need upgraded nuclear missiles and we need them NOW!', oh, and 'having all the best equipment for our boys in Iraq is vital, and making sure we are defended against all threads is SO VERY IMPORTANT VOTE ME I WILL PROTECT YOU UNLIKE THESE COMMIES'
[b]Cameron. You're a hypocritical dick. A small dick at that.
Dick.[/b][/QUOTE]
Welcome to politics, its full of liars ad hypocrites, they're the norm by the looks of things.
[QUOTE=Warhol;25512466]Sweden has no airpower, they've been fine for how long now?
you don't need it because you're paranoid.
you know what keeps people from attacking you? Don't piss them off.[/quote]
I agree that the idea of fighting major wars in this day and age is stupid to even think of, but we need two or three strong ships and a solid aircraft stock incase we need to assist in any third-world conflicts. It's sad that we rarely fight dictators killing innocents, but if we are in a situation where another country needs military aid, we should be able to provide it. (Not to retarded levels, of course)
[QUOTE=bravehat;25512534]Sweden has very advanced air power actually, recently having designed and built the SAAB 39 Gripen, and will have a small air force in the future most likely:
Of the now 138 fighter planes in service about 100 will form the future Swedish Air Force. Some orders have been made on the helicopter side and about 40 new units will join the air force in the next coming years. Saab has also joined the primarily French project for the unmanned future stealth plane Dassault nEUROn.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Air_Force#Future[/url]
And as I've said before I don't particularly care about your opinion, you have yours and I have mine, yours is that a large armed forces is unnecessary and mines is that one is indeed necessary to defend a nations interests overseas and it's own lands at home.[/QUOTE]
OK? The Airpower of Sweden is being severely downsized.
And Dassault neuron is French.
- snippity-snip -
I was late.
[QUOTE=Warhol;25512600]OK? The Airpower of Sweden is being severely downsized.
And Dassault neuron is French.[/QUOTE]
So even when you have been proved wrong you try to act like you are right?
And regarding the Neuron:
"Saab claims 25% of development and is also the coordinator for the other Swedish corporations involved."
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;25512589]I agree that the idea of fighting major wars in this day and age is stupid to even think of, but we need two or three strong ships and a solid aircraft stock incase we need to assist in any third-world conflicts. It's sad that we rarely fight dictators killing innocents, but if we are in a situation where another country needs military aid, we should be able to provide it. (Not to retarded levels, of course)[/QUOTE]
Then establish a Peacekeeping force.
[QUOTE=bravehat;25494641]thinking bout joining the paratroopers and suddenly prospects are saying I'll just be a trooper, only time I'd get actual parachute training is a month or two before being shipped out, which would suck gratuitous male genitalia.[/QUOTE]
Who says you'll be getting shipped out? 2PARA just got sent out. Even then, jumping is rare on operations, especially in Afg, mate.
Forget about going on tour, focus on joining the army first.. especially para.
omg the military is soooo cool, im going to be a paratrooper
[QUOTE=Warhol;25512614]Then establish a Peacekeeping force.[/QUOTE]
We have one, it's made of forces from independent states. Tying several countries forces into a peacekeeping force permanently would be extremely complicated.
Anyway, I won't debate this with you as you're already getting butt-sexed by several people.
[QUOTE=Warhol;25512600]OK? The Airpower of Sweden is being severely downsized.
And Dassault neuron is French.[/QUOTE]
And the eurofighter typhoon was created by at least 5 nations, what's your point?
[editline]19th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Morphus;25512652]Who says you'll be getting shipped out? 2PARA just got sent out. Even then, jumping is rare on operations, especially in Afg, mate.
Forget about going on tour, focus on joining the army first.. especially para.[/QUOTE]
I most likely wouldn't get deployed, I'm just saying it's a bit retarded having the paratroopers untrained in their own skill.
[editline]19th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Warhol;25512665]omg the military is soooo cool, im going to be a paratrooper[/QUOTE]
Warhol you sexy beast teach me how to be as awesome as you please I just can't stand your awesomeness sometimes.
:jerkbag:
lol, I saw this and I assumed it was the US Navy. Then I saw the £ sign.
...Cuz, you know, the US has practically owned Pacific waters since WWII.
It's a shame though, that they waste money on stuff like this that could be going towards much better things.
[QUOTE=bravehat;25512691]And the eurofighter typhoon was created by at least 5 nations, what's your point?[/quote]
Kinda goes against Militarism.
[quote]Warhol you sexy beast teach me how to be as awesome as you please I just can't stand your awesomeness sometimes.
:jerkbag:[/QUOTE]
teach me how to be a shithouse kid who's obsessed with the military as if it's a good thing.
[editline]19th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;25512682]We have one, it's made of forces from independent states. Tying several countries forces into a peacekeeping force permanently would be extremely complicated.
Anyway, I won't debate this with you as you're already getting butt-sexed by several people.[/QUOTE]
Bravehat is several people?
Who says I'm for rampant militarism?
Teach me to be a self righteous asshole with a superiority complex who is convinced he knows exactly how the future will go.
And dude at the end of the day you seem to have one crucial thing I posted
WE HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS, WE WILL NEVER BE CONVINCED EITHER WAY SO WE SHOULD DROP THIS NOW!
[QUOTE=bravehat;25512691]And the eurofighter typhoon was created by at least 5 nations, what's your point?[/QUOTE]So called, the "[b]Euro[/b]fighter"
[QUOTE=madmax678;25513051]So called, the "[b]Euro[/b]fighter"[/QUOTE]
I don't see your point.
He made the irrelevant point that the Dassault Neuron was french, at the end of the day it doesn't matter who makes the damn plane it matters who's using it, so I made a similarly irrelevant point.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.