On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:03:40 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
Generals all tend to fight the last war...

I'm intrigued by the concept of the UK being /under/ defended. Against
what military threat?

I'm sure every general in the world would love the forsight to be able to
see who their next enemy will be 10 or 20 years down the line.

Currently we have nuclear missile submarines with no one to aim them at,
high performance fighters with no one to fight, an aircraft carrier with
no aircraft and carrier escort destroyers with no carriers to escort.

So your solution would be what, start building military equipment after we've
been attacked? Btw , we don't have any carriers right now.

B2003

wrote in message
...

So your solution would be what, start building military equipment after
we've
been attacked? Btw , we don't have any carriers right now.

We have two aircraft [helicopter] carriers. HMS Ocean and HMS Illustrious.

You mean we don't have any fixed wing capability.

Paul

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 15:01:59 -0000
"Paul Scott" wrote:
wrote in message
...

So your solution would be what, start building military equipment after
we've
been attacked? Btw , we don't have any carriers right now.

We have two aircraft [helicopter] carriers. HMS Ocean and HMS Illustrious.
You mean we don't have any fixed wing capability.

To be fair, when people talk about aircraft carriers its generally a given that
they mean fixed wing. Pretty much anything can carry helicopters.

B2003

On 16/03/2012 14:24, Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:03:40 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 16/03/2012 12:42, d wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 05:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
wrote:
France is one of the Western European countries today that has an
effective military. The UK is under defended.

The french military have always had all the gear but no idea. I'm sure
the Maginot line looked great in the sales brochure.


Generals all tend to fight the last war...

I'm intrigued by the concept of the UK being /under/ defended. Against
what military threat?

Currently we have nuclear missile submarines with no one to aim them at,
high performance fighters with no one to fight, an aircraft carrier with
no aircraft and carrier escort destroyers with no carriers to escort.

I thought we didn't have any in-service fixed-wing aircraft carriers,
with or without aircraft?

We still have HMS Illustrious, though she's not in commission.

Of course, we do have two under
construction for delivery in a few years.

One of which is scheduled to go direct from the slipway to the scrapyard.

The only conceivable
current threat would seem to be to the Falklands, and this analysis
suggests that we're adequately defended the
http://www.rusi.org/analysis/comment...C4F6324444BE2E

The bit that misses is the fact that the Argentine navy effectively
doesn't exist any more, they have no carrier, no operational subs, 3 old
frigates and 2 type 42 destroyers. Debatable whether any of those are
actually serviceable. They certainly don't have any heavy lift and
amphibious capability any more.

There's a presidential election later in the year and the locals are
****ed of with Christina. Also the economy is going down the drain
again so rattle the sabres and wave the Malvinas flags to distract the
peasantry.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 16/03/2012 14:56, d wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:03:40 +0000
Graeme wrote:
Generals all tend to fight the last war...

I'm intrigued by the concept of the UK being /under/ defended. Against
what military threat?

I'm sure every general in the world would love the forsight to be able to
see who their next enemy will be 10 or 20 years down the line.

Currently we have nuclear missile submarines with no one to aim them at,
high performance fighters with no one to fight, an aircraft carrier with
no aircraft and carrier escort destroyers with no carriers to escort.

So your solution would be what, start building military equipment after we've
been attacked?

Who is going to attack us that we need trident missiles to defend against?

Btw , we don't have any carriers right now.


Actually we do have one.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 16/03/2012 15:01, Paul Scott wrote:
wrote in message
...

So your solution would be what, start building military equipment
after we've
been attacked? Btw , we don't have any carriers right now.

We have two aircraft [helicopter] carriers. HMS Ocean and HMS Illustrious.

You mean we don't have any fixed wing capability.


Because we don't have any fixed wing aircraft. Assuming the ski-jump
has been removed (wasn't the last time I saw her), it would be easy to
refit to HMS Illustrious if we had any Harriers left.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...

We still have HMS Illustrious, though she's not in commission.

Yes she is.

Illustrious remains in service until some time in 2014, when Ocean will
become the only operational carrier.

Paul

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 16/03/2012 15:01, Paul Scott wrote:

We have two aircraft [helicopter] carriers. HMS Ocean and HMS
Illustrious.

You mean we don't have any fixed wing capability.

Because we don't have any fixed wing aircraft. Assuming the ski-jump has
been removed (wasn't the last time I saw her), it would be easy to refit
to HMS Illustrious if we had any Harriers left.

Wrong assumption however. The ski jump is definitely still there. It would
have cost a huge amount to remove it, as modifications since the 1982
version led to it being enlarged and fully utilised internally for
accomodation, storerooms etc.

Paul

On Mar 16, 2:56*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:03:40 +0000

Graeme Wall wrote:
Generals all tend to fight the last war...

I'm intrigued by the concept of the UK being /under/ defended. *Against
what military threat?

I'm sure every general in the world would love the forsight to be able to
see who their next enemy will be 10 or 20 years down the line.

Currently we have nuclear missile submarines with no one to aim them at,
high performance fighters with no one to fight, an aircraft carrier with
no aircraft and carrier escort destroyers with no carriers to escort.

So your solution would be what, start building military equipment after we've
been attacked? Btw , we don't have any carriers right now.

B2003

Britain scraped by at the start of WWII because of the "phoney war".
That gave the UK time to manufacture aircraft, etc.

Had the battle of Britain happened earlier we may not have done so
well.

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:03:32 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 16/03/2012 14:56, d wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:03:40 +0000
Graeme wrote:
Generals all tend to fight the last war...

I'm intrigued by the concept of the UK being /under/ defended. Against
what military threat?

I'm sure every general in the world would love the forsight to be able to
see who their next enemy will be 10 or 20 years down the line.

Currently we have nuclear missile submarines with no one to aim them at,
high performance fighters with no one to fight, an aircraft carrier with
no aircraft and carrier escort destroyers with no carriers to escort.

So your solution would be what, start building military equipment after we've
been attacked?

Who is going to attack us that we need trident missiles to defend against?

The world is not short of loony leaders. Those who invent technologies
always run the risk of losing out to others who copy it.

Btw , we don't have any carriers right now.


Actually we do have one.