SURRENDER TO THE RHYTHM…..

Nothing like starting the day with the proposition that the United Kingdom cannot afford to defend itself. Looks like losing an effective nuclear deterrent is the way forward in these turbulent times- or so the left wing IPPR and BBC shills would have us believe. To pick up on the title of this post, what’s so funny ’bout peace love and understanding?

Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to SURRENDER TO THE RHYTHM…..

  1. Martin says:

    I have to be honest and say the two aircraft carriers are a total waste of money. The aircraft to operate from them (the JSF) has some serious development problems and the cost of that is rising all the time. Not only that, but there was some problem a while ago over the British being allowed acces to the aircraft software. Without the JSF the carriers are totally pointless.

    We often see money wasted on defence, the AEW Nimrod being a classic. The Euro fighter was also a total waste. The RAF could have had F-16's built under licence here for a fraction of the cost years ago.

    The carriers are important for McSnot as they are being built in Scotland and that means jobs.

       0 likes

  2. Mailman says:

    You have to wonder whether the people writing these reports have actually studied the impact cuts have had on the military in the past?

    A simple example of this would be using nylon uniforms for the Navy during the falklands war (because wool was too expensive) and the resulting burns from those uniforms melting in a fire!

    Also, the aircraft carriers would be fine if they just used Harriers (made in British factories), which the design and build can be controlled by the Government (unlike with the strike fighter, but then again, the Government should have known that access would be an issue in the first place!).

    BUT as you say Martin, in the current situation there is no point in having two new aircraft carriers if they arent going to be used.

    Look at Afghanistan as a good example. the UK has several hundred combat aircraft YET only 12 are currently flying in Afghanistan and we have to almost single handedly rely on the Americans for airsupport!

    Its one thing to have these big toys, but its another thing to have the will to use them and unfortunately this current government only has the will to watch the beans instead of watching the backs of our soldiers!

    Mailman

       0 likes

  3. Cockney says:

    I'm all for a sensible discussion on the real nature of the threat to the UK and how this can best be managed from a strategic and cost perspective – that doesn't necessarily mean Trident as I understand it. What grates is that the BBC doesn't contextualise the IPPR contribution with a "left wing" think tank label in the way any "right wing" contribution is branded. This issue seems to be bubbling up again (I noted some crap in the Grauniad the other day on how all defence spending should immediately be diverted to climate change) so I'm hoping (without confidence) that the debate will be "balanced" by more hawkish views.

       0 likes

  4. frankos says:

    Had Paddy Ashdown talking about necessary cuts this morning and the jist of it all was that Britain would have to specialise it's army and join in conflicts as a part player in a larger Euro army.
    Not sure whether our armyboys would be to keen on relying on non Brits cover them in combat.
    There is also a question of our Sovereignty and the Falklands etc etc…

       0 likes

  5. Iain says:

    Martin said… "The RAF could have had F-16's built under licence here for a fraction of the cost years ago."

    But surely there's more to it than that. I'm sure that the US would love to exercise their divine right to provide all the world's aircraft – remember TSR2 v F111?

    The new 140mph Kent commuter trains were built in Japan because we threw in the towel years ago. So long as we still have RR and Airbus wing technology, there's still hope. I'd be a bit more optimistic however if Cameron would address our education system's lamentable record on science and technology.

       0 likes

  6. cassandra says:

    The IPPR is a rabidly pro eurotrash pro federalist and pro leftist thinktank, the whole aim of the report was to put the case for a federal euro armed forces masked by a fake concern for spending.
    The report supports the euro federalist ideals/dreams of a superstate, the UKs defence plans are a barrier to integration with the eurotrash armed forces, FRES was a grossly expensive waste of time and is now a complete failure leaving us with outdated armoured troop carriers and light tanks with no replacement for the Challenger tank other than the updated German leapord or the projected updated French le clerk leaving the British army reliant on foriegn kit and in hock to the suppliers of that kit, the eurofighter isnt even ready to take up any defence/offence role and is restricted to airshows, its missile systems/ground attack systems are not ready and by all accounts never will be, they dont even have the German gun opperational leaving them effectively useless unless the RAF wants to entertain the enemy to death with daring loop the loops!
    The RAF is now worthless with just a few old Tornados in reserve and no ground attack capabiities to speak of, the combat effectiveness of the RAF is now approaching nations like Holland, the rundown in kit is frightening yet the media is by and large silent.
    Once the Harriers are withdrawn the RAF will be forced to confine itself to airshows.
    The Army Appaches are an expensive nightmare to maintain and they are so few in opperation that they are wearing out so fast their use has to be rationed severely.

    Defence on the cheap, war on the cheap, kit that doesnt work, expensive systems that never arrive, old kit patched up, outdated weapons too expensive to use,useless weapons, crap weapons, frivolous baubles that looks good but doesnt deliver, weapon ssystems that are out of date as they enter service, defence on the cheap only its not cheap its hugely expensive so we have hugely expensive crap that doesnt actually work properly when we could have cheap kit that could work very effectively.
    in fact its not that there is not enough money being fed into the MOD(ministry of defeat)its just that the people spending it all are complete and utter w*****s!

       0 likes

  7. George R says:

    The BBC doe not refer to Labour's slight interest in the vital issue of the defence of Britain:

    -FROM 'defence of the realm' blogspot:

    "Recalling the recent defence debate in the Commons, when, at one time there were only twelve MPs in the chamber of which only one was a Labour backbencher, it is encouraging to note that the much-needed debate on our defence capabilities is nevertheless under way." (-from 26 June posting, 'Let battle commence'.)

    'Defenceoftherealm' suggests reading this article by Thomas Harding:

    [Extract]-

    "Reformers in the military will be up against 'bed blockers' at the top, who do not seem to recognise the need for change. But once they are removed and once a new government is persuaded that the Ministry of Defence is aiming to fight the wars of today, we are likely to see major changes in the configuration of our Armed Forces."
    ('Telegraph'-'Big guns don't win today's wars', 25 June.)

       0 likes

  8. cassandra says:

    Mailman,

    You state that there are twelve combat aircraft in Afghanistan, but the unpleasant fact is that there are only between five and seven opperational at ANY given time due to breakdowns,rationing, airframe maintainance and spare part shortages.
    For instance, during the last proper full scale infantry offensive last summer the RAF had just three aircraft ready to fly combat sorties the rest were either down for maintainance or unservicable, the costs of using the Harrier in the ground support are high and the on site time is very low, the loitering time is almost non existent, the speed/altitude attack posture is high so in consequence the accuracy of the strikes is highly limited and because of that sorties more often than not just cannot engage the enemy, the Harrier is highly vulnerable to groundfire so it flys high and fast, the RAF cannot in fact properly support ground action in any strength the RAF presence is in fact a publicity stunt to give a thin veneer of action.

    The MOD has in fact lied to us for years about the degradation of the RAF with puff pieces about how great they are, one quick private chat to the 'boots on the ground' is all it takes to uncover the facts.

    BTW, a squadron of super Tucano ground attack aircraft would be a fraction of the cost of the Harriers and they would be 100% more effective against terry with a loiter time of hours rather than minutes and a far better attack profile they could be very effective in theatre yet the MOD chose not to use them.

       0 likes

  9. Mailman says:

    Cassandra,

    Exactly. It is pointless having an airforce that cant be used…once again, case in point is Afghanistan.

    How can you only have 12 combat aircraft in such a hostile combat environment?

    Also, seeing how inert the EU is when it comes to sending forces to Afghanistan…how much confidence can we really have that the EU will protect the UK?

    Mailman

       0 likes

  10. George R says:

    The IPPR in a non-BBC perspective:

    "Neither Gordon Brown nor David Cameron cares what the IPPR says"

    (Alex Singleton, 'Telegraph', 28 June.)

    "What is the point of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)? It was once Tony Blair’s favourite think tank. But it is no longer influential and has produced no groundbreaking work in the past five years.

    "On Tuesday the IPPR releases the final report of its grandly titled Commission on National Security. And a little birdie tells me that the report is going to make the hackneyed argument that we need to surrender more power to the European Union to improve our security.

    "Needless to say this quite predictable report will be of no consequence. Let’s be realistic: the Tories, soon to take office, have no interest in the IPPR, for both ideological and tribal reasons. And Gordon Brown has no interest in the IPPR, either, because he hasn’t had a new thought since 1994 and because the IPPR is too associated with Tony Blair.

    "Think-tanks have limited shelf lives – and the IPPR is now well past its 'best before' date. Poor things."

       0 likes

  11. Mailman says:

    Cass,

    If jet aircraft suffer in the altitude of Afghanistan then the Tucano (prop driven) will have no chance.

    Really, the only alternative is the A10…or maybe the Su25? :)

    But you are right, there might be 12 aircraft in country but that doesnt take in to account maintenance (every hour of flight time requires something like 20 hours maintenance).

    Love em or hate em but at least the Yankeeee dawgs value their defence forces (well, ok…maybe not valued by Barry).

    Mailman

       0 likes

  12. JohnA says:

    The key point on BBC bias, as Cockney says, is the way the BBC fails to label the IPPR as "left-wing" – and the ready prominence it gives to the output of left-wing think tanks and pressure groups.

    re. other comments here about the grotesque decline in the RAF capability and the lack of proper air support for our troops eg. in Afghanistan – can anyone imagine the BBC running a discussion about the urgent need to beef up the RAF ?

       0 likes

  13. cassandra says:

    Mailman,

    The good old flying gun(warthog)would be a far better alternative for effective ground support, I have seen them in action myself and they are truly scary, the updated version is a real terry killer and they are shit scared of them, I believe the RAF were offered a bunch of updated ones at the start of the campaign but chose to refuse them, the redundant jaguar pilots could have converted very quickly and easily and the whole shebang could have been up and running in twelve months or so.
    The boneyards of Arizona have fleets of A10s just ready to be stripped down and updated ready for combat, just one of the huge blunders the MOD imbeciles make on a daily basis.

       0 likes

  14. Rob says:

    Martin:

    Sorry, but the carriers are vital to the future of the Royal Navy as a force able to operate anywhere in the world. Without carriers you have a coast guard, which can only operate with the cooperation of navies which do have carriers.

    The F35 will work, because it is a key part of US defence plans. I'd rather the carriers were configured for CTOL rather than STOVL aircraft, but the die is cast now.

    At present naval aviation has been hollowed out. We only have two carriers left, and one of those is usually used as a commando carrier. The remaining carrier often has no Harriers, due to the demands of Afghanistan, a truly shocking state of affairs.

    If the government wishes to have the ability to deploy forces overseas the carriers are required. If we wish to rebrand ourselves as Sweden then we can do without them.

       0 likes

  15. Geeorge R says:

    BBC's Robert Peston's loaded question is NOT: 'Can we afford the banks, or the Olympics, or wind farms'?, BUT:

    "Can we afford the carriers?"

    And, no doubt his political economist answer squares with that of his Labour Lord father:

    "The question, however, is whether it is right to purchase such enormous pieces of kit if the MoD can't afford to pay for them over what was originally perceived to be the most rational duration of the project." (Robert Peston blog.)

       0 likes

  16. piggy kosher says:

    Many good comments on this thread.
    Particularly alarming posts about the state of the RAF and the total unreadiness/unsuitability of the RAF "wonderweapon", the Typhoon. At this rate we would be far less able than 1982 to mount a successful defence of the Falklands, and would the messiah come to our aid? I am having doubts. probably thinks the FI is another pesky settlement type complex in the South Atlantic, the possesion of which is the cause of the problems. Maybe we should go into a strategic alliance with Israel.Between us we could almost certainly create world beating defence technologies, and the Israels would probably be far more ameniable to the idea than we might think. But we must act quickly, for our options are rapidly shrinking. The F35 is a turkey, and the IDFAF is deeply unhappy with it, primarily for performance reasons, leading to the Israelis showing interest in a stealth version of the F15 mooted by Boeing.

       0 likes

  17. pounce_uk says:

    I read that article this morning and was going to comment on how the bBC only links one side of the story. (Have a look at all the links on the righthand side on see also. Notice something)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8124108.stm

    The fact remains the war in Afghanistan is a side show, the defense of the UK isn't based on body armour,land-rovers or wheel-chair accessable fire trenches.

    Problem is the bBC mindset mirrors this missive on HYS.
    >>>>>"Added: Tuesday, 30 June, 2009, 11:23 GMT 12:23 UK

    Just to let the warmongers on HYS neither North Korea or Iran have waged war on anyone, the biggest acts of international terrorism have been inflicted most recently on Iraq and Afghanistan with countless 1000s of civilians being slaughtered to which our nation and the americans and all the other signatories to illegal wars are responsible, the best way to defend this country is to stop being a lapdog for american imperialism and sending British soldiers to die for american consumerism and greed

    Denis, Wakefield"<<<<

    Only on Allah TV is it a human right for the west to disarm.

       0 likes

  18. piggy kosher says:

    Amazingly the BBC report manages to get a dig at I.D cards and terrorist extraditions at the same time! beeboids are sooo versatile. I go all weak!

       0 likes

  19. Rob says:

    ID cards are definitely a cost we can do without.

       0 likes

  20. Anonymous says:

    Mmmmm, the rapidly left-wing Max Hastings of the liberal Daily Mail covers the sane story. But that's right, you dont pay for the mail.

       0 likes

  21. piggy kosher says:

    I agree about the ID cards.

       0 likes

  22. Robert S. McNamara says:

    I agree that we should take a long, hard look at the IAF. They manage to keep 300 million Arabs from annihilating them with a fleet of F-16s, F-15s and AH-64s. Their military is comparable to ours in size too.

    We should also get into bed with them a defence contract scenario. Put our heads together and see what we can come up with. China did, and their reward was the J-10, which to this non-aeronautical engineer mind, looks a lot like the Typhoon. Except less than half the price.

    But of course, the 'z0mg teh zIoni$ts!1!!LOL' crowd won't let us do something as sensible as that, so we might as well drastically cut defence expenditure and simultaneously let thousands upon thousands of Islamists – who consider themselves at war with us – into the country and feed and shelter them until they feel organised enough to give us a very bloody nose. Oh…we already are. Super.

       0 likes

  23. piggy kosher says:

    The Lavi was a superb aircraft, (ancestor of the J10) and the Israeli Govt shamefully buckled under US blackmail to stop its development in 1986. General dynamics knew it was a major threat to the F16, actually more manoevreable (powered forward canards)and cheaper. The US administration in some ways forced Israel into Chinas arms.

       0 likes

  24. Martin says:

    Iain: Sorry but the Harrier GR5/7 was actually built in the UK under licence from McDonnall Douglas. It was a US design after the British dropped out of further development of our own updated version due to costs and the small numbers being built for the RAF.

    Effectively the Harrier is an American aircraft. The RAF oeprate many American aircraft, the Hercules, the C17 and the AWACS. WE also have many American helicopters as well.

    It makes more sense to let the Americans ay all the development costs then simply buy and make under licence.

    Look at how much money was wasted on the SA80 rifle. The military could have had the M4 or M14 (which many branches of the forces use anyway). The SA80 is apiece of crap served up to the forces for political reasons.

    We need to start buying equipment that is good value for money (American kit is) for the tax payer and does what it says on the tin. Propping up failing jobs in the defence industry is pointless.

       0 likes

  25. TPO says:

    Martin

    In 1969 I was called back to the UK from the RAF UN attachment in Nicosia to find that I'd been picked to part of the RAF team in New York for the trans-Atlantic air race between the Post Office Tower and the Empire State building.
    Part of the exercise was to sell the Harrier to the US. It's first display on US soil, which I watched, was at Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn.
    Also at the time the QE2 had it's maiden voyage.
    There is an archive photo floating about somewhere showing the Harrier above it and a Wessex helicopter either side of it.
    There are a couple of people sitting in the doorway of one of the Wessex. I'm the one on the left.

       0 likes

  26. piggy kosher says:

    Is our R&D that shot to sxxx?

       0 likes

  27. cassandra says:

    The new carriers, a 1990s solution to a 1980s strategic problem, delivered twenty years too late and stripped of all basic combat effectiveness on cost grounds, only the UK defence industry/MOD/political establishment could make such a massive dogs dinner of a straight forward requirement to replace the present cut price cheapo mini carriers we have now which were themselves the result of an earlier procurement disaster.
    From stem to stern the carriers are a blunder of epic proportions, too big and cumbersome with old fashioned propulsion systems and stripped down to cut costs, they are the floating equivolent of the Bristol Brabazon.
    If we as a nation have to go down the value 4 money route and still maintain a blue water world naval force then the sensible ansewer was always to buy F18 super Hornets and fly them off a couple of ex USN carriers refitted and ready to use, for the same price tag as the two white elephant carriers the Royal Navy could NOW be enjoying three refitted US navy carriers flying the latest and possibly finest naval multi role fighter bomber ever built!

    But oooooh no, thats not what the ministry of defeat is all about is it?
    Pride,stupidity,bovine ingorance,stunning arrogance, short sighted and foolish people running the MOD, the string of highly expensive procurement disasters go way back, take the bovine ignorance of the MOD and mix it with the spiteful short sighted stupidity of the political classes and you have a toxic mix!

    Both these institutions would have trouble organizing a piss up in a brewery, they are a 'Laural & Hardy'/three stooges comedy routine destroying everthing they touch, aprt form their gold plated pensions of course, what ever else they mess up their gold plated feather bedded nests are well sorted!

       0 likes

  28. cassandra says:

    Just an added thought about the MOD and its history of terrible and stupid procurement disasters over the last seventy years, nobody gets fired, nobody takes any responsibility, nobodody is ever to blame eveyone at the MOD theyget to enjoy lifetime job security as long as they toe the line keep quiet, enjoy their gold plated perks and retirement pots of gold!

    Is there any other place where utter failure is rewarded so handsomely and so generously? Is there any other field where you can wreak such havoc and still get rewarded for it?

    The list of blunders would be comical in the extreme and the list is long, very long and includes nearly every piece of major kit the MOD have foisted on the armed forces for decades, I call it the 'Cromwell tank' syndrome, is there any weapon system that hasnt been badly designed/cheaply made/
    messed up from the start? they seem to spend rolls royce money and end up with lada quality kit.
    Take the SA80 as just one example, built down to a cost that would shame a Chinese toy itself a rehash of the enfield replacemant design that was binned in favour of the FN based SLR itself a poor copy of the original design and again built down to a cost.
    The SA80 was a cheap'N'shoddy piece of crap and the LMG sister weapon based on the old bren section weapon idea was withdrawn after it was noted that the failure to add a changeable barrel meant it couldnt be used for more than a minute without the barrel melting!
    Instead of binning the whole shooting match the boffins added ultra expensive mods to the design and now its over heavy and complicated and a bitch to use in combat scenarios so the SA80 has now cost the MOD(taxpayer)far more than just buying into the US weapons that the special forcees use anyway.

    The MOD is in effect a club of stupid and almost retarded buffoons more interested in supporting and aiding their public school chums in the arms industry and creeping to the regime in power for Ks'N'stuff, perpetual employment for retarded old boys wuo didnt have the right stuff to enter the church of England or god forbid the foreign office!

       0 likes

  29. piggy kosher says:

    Well said Cassandra. So they got rid of the LSW? Thought Ive never seen it on newsclips. A magazine fed support weapon? Oh dear. I assume thats why the GPMG is still around in huge numbers, thank Gd.

       0 likes

  30. Iain says:

    Martin – sorry but I did not mean to suggest that we should prop up failing industries. I was born in the 1950s and remember only too well the succession of useless cars that passed through my family's hands.

    My point is, we do have successful companies but there are far too few of them and the shortage of suitably educated school leavers and graduates is partly to blame. We need to address this problem instead of throwing in the towel and producing generation after generation of wheeler dealers and shelf stackers. We've been relying far too much on the City and look where that's got us. Hence my comment about Cameron.

    I cannot blithely accept that we should just buy everything from the US. It's one thing that the French seem to understand.

       0 likes

  31. Martin says:

    Iain: No but the Americans do produce equipment that generally works. Far too much of our equipment is just crap. I was continually frustrated with the third rate (and expensive) crap we were served up with in my time in the forces.

    The RAF could have had a fleet of F-16s (the backbone of NATO forces) years ago that is just as capable as the Euro fighter is now and for a fraction of the price.

       0 likes

  32. piggy kosher says:

    I remember Portillo was very keen on getting them in around 95 -96, initially on lease, if I recall correctly.

       0 likes

  33. JohnA says:

    cassandra

    In August 1970 I was seconded into the Minister of State for Defence Procurement's office at the MoD for a short stint.

    While everyone was away on their hols, the Rolls Royce RB211 crisis blew up – RR being threatened with legal action by a US aircraft firm (Lockheed TriStar). Everyone at the MoD seemed to be rushing around like chickens with their heads chopped off, it turned out that serious warnings had been raised over the previous 2 years but no-one had paid any notice. End-result – bankruptcy of Rolls Royce.

    Mind you – total ignorance of industrial realities was a pattern throughout Whitehall. And in those days, Whitehall directly ran the "commanding heights" of the British economy – steel, shipbuilding, gas, water, BEA/BOAC, ports, coal, electricity, posatl and telecoms services etc etc.

    Plus Whitehall and the nationalised industries acted as monopsonies in dictating the designs and new technology of the aircraft and aeroengine firms, the computer firms, the power-station contractors, the electronics and telecoms manufacturers etc.

    ……………

    The one thing I clearly remember from that August was that – by tradition – an offer came to the Minister to have some of the venison from the cull of deer in Royal Parks. "No thanks – I have my own herd of deer down at my country estate. You are all welcome to come down on the last Saturday in August, we have a cricket match on the front lawn"

       0 likes

  34. Martin says:

    piggy kosher: Yes the RAF got their first AWACS under licence after we pissed 2 billion away on the useless Nimrod.

    We lease the C17's we have at the moment as well.

    I'm betting if we asked we could have a couple of US aircraft caeeirs for a knockdown price and simply refurbish them for less than 5 billion.

       0 likes

  35. piggy kosher says:

    And they would both be nukes. Could get the F/A 18s as part of the same package.

       0 likes

  36. GCooper says:

    The tragedy is that exactly that kind of centralised ossification is what the BBC and its fellow travellers on the Left seem to pray for, daily.

       0 likes

  37. piggy kosher says:

    There may be problems in Congress re carrier leasing though, probably from the South Ameerican lobby. As Ive said, dont feel very confident of the mesiahs support for our continuing defence of the FIs.

       0 likes

  38. pounce_uk says:

    Martin said.
    "We lease the C17's we have at the moment as well.

    Without wanting to come across as a spotter. We initially leased 3, bought them outright, then bought another 3 The RAF is now looking at purchasing another 2.

       0 likes

  39. pounce_uk says:

    cassandra wrote:
    "a squadron of super Tucano ground attack aircraft would be a fraction of the cost of the Harriers and they would be 100% more effective against terry with a loiter time of hours rather than minutes and a far better attack profile they could be very effective in theatre yet the MOD chose not to use them."

    Funny you should say that, as the USMC are running trials on using that very plane on CAS missions.

       0 likes

  40. piggy kosher says:

    Nothing wrong with a bit of spotting.Been doing it all my life. Only islamic dictatorships dont like letting their citizens know the strength of their armed forces. See the beeboid article about Egypt and its armed forces on a few days ago. Any discussion of the state, strength or readiness of the Egyptian forces in egyptian society, is banned. Probably goes for the rest of them too.

       0 likes

  41. piggy kosher says:

    Typically the beeboid article made no comment on this. Hey its just cultural relativism, innit?

       0 likes

  42. Tom says:

    Since members of HM Forces seem to be spending most of their time whining about their lot and their "crappy" UK equipment, I suggest we disband the lot and pay the US on a mercenary basis as and when required.

    Since all our eggs seem to be in the US basket anyway, it'll save a fortune and we can go back to doing what we do best.

    I'll get back when I've decided precisely what that is.

       0 likes

  43. Rob says:

    "There may be problems in Congress re carrier leasing though, probably from the South Ameerican lobby. As Ive said, dont feel very confident of the mesiahs support for our continuing defence of the FIs."

    There is no chance of the UK getting old carriers from the USA. Quite apart from the manning requirements (over 3000 just for the ship, before you get to the air group), the US Navy works its carriers hard. They get 40 years out of them before they are decommissioned, and I can't see the Royal Navy being keen on getting a rather clapped out 40 year old carrier to replace our rather clapped out 30 year old carriers.

    The fact is the two new carriers are a vital part of our defence strategy, and they are affordable. For about £5 billion we will get two ships which will serve for about 40 years. The government spends £5 billion in about three days. How is that unaffordable?

       0 likes

  44. Grant says:

    Rob 11:25
    So we could get one carrier for less than the BBC spend in one year ?

       0 likes

  45. piggy kosher says:

    Thats true. US carriers are pretty knackered by the end of service, and they are worked to death nearly. My concern is not the carriers – I assume leased F18s could fly from them – but the planes that go with them, the J35.
    There is a saying in aviation that goes back forever; "if looks right,it is right" The J35 looks bloody awful, like an obese hatchling. the IDFAF who should know a thing or two, say the aircraft has no significant performance advantage, apart from some stealth capability, to justify its purchase. And how much are the planes going to cost? More than the carriers themselves?

       0 likes

  46. piggy kosher says:

    And with the problems the US Govt is putting up with the divulgence of access codes,(the UK encountered the same problem, I believe) refusal to fit Israeli avionics, etc, the IDF chiefs are increasingly thinking they are just a waste of time and money.

       0 likes

  47. Richard Lancaster says:

    We desperately need more carriers. As was pointed out we are otherwise a jumped up coast guard, and how exactly would we manage in conflicts like the Falklands? We barely scraped through that.

    The idea of refitting a US carrier is laughable (you do realise the size of the RN don't you?), and buying more Harriers is not exactly moving towards having a modern air arm.

    I'm not exactly keen on Trident given what it costs, what the money could be spent on and the fact it's not independent anyway.

       0 likes

  48. piggy kosher says:

    we cannot afford a Trident replacement AND repectable and capable conventional forces. A perfectly acceptable alternative would be nuclear tipped submarine launched cruise missiles, and nuclear tipped air launched missiles. it will still be a deterrent, and would be just as effective against islamofascist or neo Stalinist nutjob states with a handful of fission nukes, who are the main threat arguably. If the big boys kick off we will be fried anyway.

       0 likes

  49. piggy kosher says:

    And I would put a couple of batteries of Arrow on the shopping list. Their coverage would protect most of the Island.

       0 likes