UK and France to share aircraft carriers

Originally posted by Fang
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

Hi Jnr. How are you doing?

The article is not completely accurate. Yes the missiles are serviced in the US on a rota basis. Those being serviced are replaced by 'spares'. The bits that go bang! are British and are maintained in the UK.

Indeed, this is a common misconception and usually bandied about by anti-nuke peeps.

The missiles are one thing and youi covered that, but the Warheads are desinged and manufactured in the UK.

reply to post by belial259


I think the Australians have been very sensible in the way they have evolved their Military Strategy. They don't (like the UK) try to do everything. Their forces are configured to support Australia's position as a regional power and to protect it's political and economic interests. The Super Hornets and F35's will provide them (regardless of what the 'Air Power Australia' nutters say) with the most modern and effective Air Force in the region.

My gripe about carriers is they way they 'skew' the make up of any Navy, apart from one the size of the US. Every time a carrier puts to sea it will need at least 4 (ideally 6) surface escorts, a couple of Subs and a small fleet of auxiliaries. For any middle ranking power, that's a large chunk of the Navy tied up.

reply to post by Freeborn


In short, Freeborn, the article is bollocks.

It is totally misrepresenting the facts and, in fact, Cameron made clear the plans several months ago. This is old news being dressed up and made up to be something else, in order for Murdoch and chums to have a swipe at the Government and it's cost cutting.

I think it will be good if, france and Uk share their aircraft careers...

reply to post by stumason


Please Stu tell us, is it because we will be getting F-18 Super Hornets? I hope so they're pretty cool and the f-35 is going to be too expensive

Originally posted by Freeborn
This can not happen.
We can not ignore a thousand years of warfare, confrontation and mutual enmity!
We can not give up our ability to independantly defend ourselves.

The only nations we should ever consider sharing something like this with are those we know we can trust; Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

I doubt the accuracy of this report and suspect there maybe an element of sensationalism involved here.

I would like to add that Nelson will be spinning in his grave.

reply to post by stumason


Cheers, suspected it must have been nonsense.

Just one thing though; why would Murdoch, a confirmed Cameron supporter, want to have a go at him and his cost cutting which he has publicly supported?

reply to post by stumason


I think there's a pretty good reason for being anti nuke. Something I will always stand by. but save it for another debate, I'm sure the debate will crop up soon enough

Originally posted by Foodman


Source: www.thesun.co.uk...


The age of England's navy is long gone. They don't need to fund one or need one when they have America to defend them. Soon England and France will have no more AC's, money is tight, and the need is gone.

www.thesun.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Many are voicing concerns about Britain reportedly co-ordinating it's defences with France, but what concerns me is the notion that America would defend Britain.

As the adage goes, America does not have friends. It has interests.

And if it is in the interests of America to leave Britain to the wolves, it will do so.

That is not a slight on America as a country or American citizens, but the people who run it, (Republican or Democrat, two sides of the same grubby coin) and who puppeteer the people who run it, TPTB.

Britain needs to stop thinking it is still in the age of Victorian times, and riding the US's coattails, and only have our military for defensive purposes, not imperial adventures.

It is said that if the UK does not support the US and it's wars, the US will withdraw it's support of the UK having a seat in the UN Security council.

Let them! It's not as if the UK has an independent foreign policy of the US anyway.

Time to be like Sweden, which has not had a war for over two hundred years or so.

Amazing how Britain is reportedly struggling to maintain it's Carriers, but there Britain is, on escapades in Iraq and Afghanistan which is costly in lives, reputation and money.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


There are rumours afoot, yes.

But the cheapest version of the F-35 isn't a VSTOL, it uses hooks. There is also provision in the carrier design to fit launch catapults and the leading company in the world for EM catapults is British, so it coudl generate business in the UK instead of paying too much for VSTOL junk from the Yanks.

reply to post by Freeborn


Murdoch, the Sun and Sky change their minds about who they support depending on what they think they can get out of it and which way the wind is blowing. Remember, they were hardcore Labour fanboys a few years ago!

With the budget cuts going on, it sells papers when they run stories like this pointing out the follies of such things, even if the stories are blatantly untrue.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by stumason

 

Cheers, suspected it must have been nonsense.

Just one thing though; why would Murdoch, a confirmed Cameron supporter, want to have a go at him and his cost cutting which he has publicly supported?

Because its about selling papers, what will get the British Sun reader riled up, A story about sharing our glorious Navy with who? The Bloody French. Nothing like a bit of jingoistic nonsense to shift a few copies of The Sun

We are part of Europe the worlds economical superpower, so i think its about time we started sharing armed forces and even form a EU army.

reply to post by stumason


Never understood the fascination with the STVOL F35B. Less performance,shorter range, less payload. Crazy.

Originally posted by Fang
reply to post by stumason

 

Never understood the fascination with the STVOL F35B. Less performance,shorter range, less payload. Crazy.

does look pretty cool, but thats about it, It is also stealth isn't it? Really good for getting those suicide bombers

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Yep. A $100 million aircraft going after a bunch of Klashnikov waving loonies in a rusty Toyota pick up.

Originally posted by Freeborn
This can not happen.
We can not ignore a thousand years of warfare, confrontation and mutual enmity!
We can not give up our ability to independantly defend ourselves.

The only nations we should ever consider sharing something like this with are those we know we can trust; Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

I doubt the accuracy of this report and suspect there maybe an element of sensationalism involved here.

I would like to add that Nelson will be spinning in his grave.

reply to post by tarifa37


Second time you've posted that. Poor old sod must be getting dizzy by now.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


All versions of the F-35 have "stealth". It's also worth noting that as part of the F-35 deal with the Yanks, BAe has aquired significant knowledge on stealth techniques and these are being fed directly into the British UCAV programme, such as the Corax . There are benefits other than getting a shiny new plane!

reply to post by stumason


A two way street. Leaving aside the STVOL bit, there's a lot of 'Nightjar' in the F35.