Wouldn't it have made more sense to keep HMS Ark Royal & Invincible in service with their Harriers until the new carriers were fit for service?

It would have made more sense to order new carriers after the '82 incident, when it was shown that to conduct operations away from home you need more than strike aircraft. Something like these, Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, search and rescue helicopters for any downed planes, elint and anti-submarine aircraft etc.

He's at it again ...... Ermintrude, in the bathroom cabinet, the green packet.

In its 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, the coalition changed to the F-35C version, which has a longer range and can carry more weapons."

But the idiots forgot to cost in the price of converting the carriers to cat & trap operation. When they did they found it was cheaper to go back to the jump jets.

Wouldn't it have made more sense to keep HMS Ark Royal & Invincible in service with their Harriers until the new carriers were fit for service?

Of course it would, but with the black hole in government finances left by 12 years of Labour, cuts had to be made. Unfortunately they made the wrong ones. I think the MOD should be put out to tender, those currently running it couldn't organise a P*ss up in a brewery. Coupled by incompetent bean counter Chancellors and you have a fiasco.

Carrier Jet programme hugh risk

"The committee's report cast doubt on the MoD's claim that the new carrier-based strike force would be fully operational by 2020.

The Labour government placed orders for two carriers to be equipped with the F-35B variant of the US-built joint strike fighter (JSF), which is capable of short take-off and vertical landing.

In its 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, the coalition changed to the F-35C version, which has a longer range and can carry more weapons."

So no brains then? Wouldn't it have made more sense to keep HMS Ark Royal & Invincible in service with their Harriers until the new carriers were fit for service?

---

Agreed it is, but they still have many hostages.

Hostages

Try to keep up boys. Pirate activity off the east of Africa is at a multi-year low. Not because of carriers or convoys, but because of:

satellite production and exchange of information between nations;

multi-national cooperation with small, cost effective surface vessels, helicopters and UAVs (some military, some police, some private);

and political/economic actions at the root causes- i.e. court convictions and addressing poverty and political stability in east Africa.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/01/opinion/global/shutting-down-the-piracy-business.html?_r=0

There are lessons in all this. As I said before, you need to prepare for the next war, not the last one.

---

Sad but times move on...


Back to the future - The shipping gallery which lives on in time and space

The Science Museum is transforming its largest exhibition space into a new gallery dedicated to the information technology revolution.

The exhibition will replace the museum's Shipping Galleries which closed last year after almost 50 years.

Here, Science Museum staff describe how the outgoing collection has been captured using 3D laser technology, and how the new exhibition, Information Age, is coming together.

Video Journalist: Neil Bowdler


The world is very much what we make it...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Historically, a lot of time, money and lives have been wasted by militaries that prepared for the last war. The successful ones are planning for the next war. ...

Unfortunately, war and especially the threat of war has historically been the most often used form of politics. Our recent times of long term comparative peace in Europe is something that is new...

The best of politics is in how to use the available tools to avoid going to war and yet maintain influence...


The world is what we make it...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Aircraft carriers are useful tools as they do what their name suggests, carry aircraft closer to a combat zone where they are needed. Otherwise you have to fly them from remote bases and engage in midair refuelling. Its a case of taking the mountain to Mohammed. As an island race with worldwide interests it has always made sense to have carriers, and due to their physical size they make useful flagships as well as a show of force to the enemy.

The Somali pirates are a world problem that no-one is yet really dealing with. The sheer number of shipping movements along their patch could tie up escorts for years. My thoughts have always been to put together an international taskforce of navy ships from all interested nations, and do what James suggests by having protected convoys.

I think some nations should have an aircraft carrier or two. Free trade depends on having shipping going to and fro with no worrys of pirates or outright hostile acts by another nation.

And speaking of pirates. That prblem could be solved by going back to the tried and true use of convoys. Something you Brits started back in WW1 for the U- boats.

I think the Somalian pirates would not want to tackel any frigate or destroyer on patrol. And if they did They should be blasted out of the water.

Canada made the right choice on not having a carrier. I think the UK still needs them. France has one now. And China has one they are finding out what they can do with. I think they will improve on that Russian one they have now, and build a lot more. And thats what worries me.

---

[/quote]

Old James

We erred on the side of caution.

Who is we? Don't you mean the politicians erred on the side of caution?

Remember I did mention Willie Vague elsewhere sometime ago regarding Syria.

That is going to cost us if the UK gets involved militariy.

If Obama wants it to be a red ine, let the States handle it.

---

Yeah, Bush tried that on Canada as well. We said no, assuming we had earned enough points elsewhere to handle future situations. But then, we don't have a crumbling overseas empire to hold on to. Time will tell if we were right.

We don't have an Empire, Dominions, or Protectorates any more, that transmorphed into the British Commonwealth later renamed the Commonwealth of Nations. We also still have some British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies.

In the case of Iraq, the other factor was the UK being briefed by both the CIA and our own MI6, the two most respected secret services in the world, that Hussein had WMD and was prepared to use them. As it turned out afterwards that was not true.

After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.‑led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if the Iraq sanctions were lifted. Although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons which had been one of the main arguments for the invasion

With hindsight we shouldn't have gone in, but at the time, with the available evidence we had, the UK was over a barrel, damned if you do and damned if you don't. We erred on the side of caution.

Yeah, Bush tried that on Canada as well. We said no, assuming we had earned enough points elsewhere to handle future situations. But then, we don't have a crumbling overseas empire to hold on to. Time will tell if we were right.

Thankfully ours has gone now, less cost to the exchequer.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

It was a pure political decision to save money and nothing else.

The main reason for the downfall of the old Soviet Empire was their allowing the military and its supporting industries to make economic decisions without political oversight. We might soon say the same about the downfall of the US Empire.

British troops in Iraq was as the result of Bush pulling the old pals act with the UK, saying we are going in anyway despite the UN saying no, and we "expect" you to join us. Hinting that it might change the special relationship if we refused. But yes it was fuzzy.

Yeah, Bush tried that on Canada as well. We said no, assuming we had earned enough points elsewhere to handle future situations. But then, we don't have a crumbling overseas empire to hold on to. Time will tell if we were right.

---

Thankyou Bill. I also meant that it is unlikely that we will see a one nation against one nation conflict again either. At the time of the Defence review in 2010 a letter was printed in the Times deploring the decisions made and signed by at least a dozen very senior armed forces officers. It was a pure political decision to save money and nothing else.

British troops in Iraq was as the result of Bush pulling the old pals act with the UK, saying we are going in anyway despite the UN saying no, and we "expect" you to join us. Hinting that it might change the special relationship if we refused. But yes it was fuzzy.

But also don't forget we are building two new carriers to replace the Ark Royal so we can still see a demonstrable need for them. I would agree that Canada doesn't need them.

I think Chris meant "you will never see an exact repeat of the Falklands again". The Argentineans could be plotting their next move as we speak, but things have changed.

Chris makes two good points. Satellite surveillance (now a multi-nation undertaking) goes a long way to making an exact repeat of the Falklands much less likely.

Future conflicts are very likely to be multi-national. Like Libya, and Bosnia, and Afghanistan, and.... If you wanted to keep friends on your side for future Falkland-like events, you might consider helping your allies in cases where your short-term national objectives are a little fuzzy. Like British troops in Iraq for example. Or Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

Both these points are good reasons to scrap the carriers and Harriers and spend your limited money elsewhere. Canada scrapped our last carrier in 1970, we got over it.

---

Oi! that is not what I intimated.

Careful choice of words goes a long way. So does careful planing at the country level.

---

Oi! that is not what I intimated.

Spain could not and would not move into Gib because of the Navy and Army presence already there. Any military build up by Argentina towards a move to the Falklands would be detected within minutes and immediately countermanded. Never ever underestimate the United Kingdom. If you do, you do so at your peril.

A full blown conflict, war was never declared remember, in the South Atlantic will not happen again, I am fairly sure of that.

It has been decided that future wars will be fought with a coalition of nations against a common enemy, you will never see another Falklands again.

So Argentina is free to move in ....
And Spain can as well ....

---

My point being, did your military really NEED Harriers and carriers, or did they just WANT Harriers and carriers?

The quote that I read was "We could really have done with a carrier and Harriers rather than flying jets from Scotland". That is in the middle of NEED and WANT, and infers that it would have made life a lot easier in a combat situation to have had the best tools to do the job. As it was we did the best with what we had.

Back to my question that nobody wants to answer: how much more tax are you willing to pay to keep Harriers and carriers? (Hint: remember that in a democracy you need a majority of voters to agree on your answer to this question.)

It has been decided that future wars will be fought with a coalition of nations against a common enemy, you will never see another Falklands again. Therefore we are going down the eurofighter route, where any pilot from any nation can fly the same aircraft.

My point about the Ark Royal and the Harriers was that they were due to be de-commissioned in 2016 anyway, but were scrapped 6 years early to save money. I and others believe that to have been a stupid decision, it would not have cost that much to have kept them. The carrier should have been saved as a floating museum, but wasn't. But at least the USA bought all the Harriers which they will use for as long as they are able, maybe another 10 years.

Historically, a lot of time, money and lives have been wasted by militaries that prepared for the last war. The successful ones are planning for the next war.

The root cause for Argentina's defeat in the Falklands is that their policy makers undertook actions that their military could not support. The UK has to decide if the Falkands is still defensible, given the budget realities the UK faces now and in the future.

Back to my question that nobody wants to answer: how much more tax are you willing to pay to keep Harriers and carriers? (Hint: remember that in a democracy you need a majority of voters to agree on your answer to this question.)

---