[Closed] So when is an aircraft carrier not an...?

[i]So Astutes are nuclear powered but not nuclear armed?

We also have trident missile replacement coming too which requires new subs not the current ones and not Astutes? [/i]

There's different types of submarine though - hunter killer, attack, ballistic missile platforms...
I don't know much about subs but I imagine they're fairly specialised in the same way that aircraft are for example (eg bomber, fighters, recon...)

I think one of the modern problems with such high value ships is the threat from hypersonic missiles. There is very little defence apart from WW1-style armour cladding.

The question remains about how to quickly deploy a airborne strike capability within range of an enemy without an AC. Perhaps we should be scrapping the concept of strike aircraft and looking again at missiles.

There is a trade-off between the cost of providing accommodations for a pilot (space, mass, avionics, top speed, g-forces) and a runway to land, v.s. the non-reusable nature of missiles.

It won't be long before the pilot's redundant in fighter aircraft, they'll e flown remotely. The pilot holds back the planes capabilities by blacking out when you pull to many g. They'll be a lot being taken in to account which the man on the street is not party to when they make these decisions.

[i]It won't be long before the pilot's redundant in fighter aircraft, they'll e flown remotely. [/i]

On a programme on Discovery a few months ago a top American airforce chappy said fighter aircraft will all ways have a pilot in them. He said drones are useful for certain situations but not all.

Costs will no doubt drive it, it would be far cheaper to create pilotless fighter aircraft and they'd be no expensive to train pilots to lose in battle. The xbox generation Will protect us 😛

Modern drones like the Predator and Global Hawks are not cheap alternatives, the hawks cost something like $30million +.

[i] a few months ago a top American airforce chappy said fighter aircraft will all ways have a pilot in them. He said drones are useful for certain situations but not all.[/i]

That's because he's an airforce chappy, and they like flying things 🙂
But they work better when they not allowed to.
[url] http://www.stripes.com/news/official-air-force-losing-more-drones-than-army-1.90858 [/url]

The xbox generation Will protect us

And the Geeks shall inherit the Earth....

I think one of the modern problems with such high value ships is the threat from hypersonic missiles. There is very little defence apart from WW1-style armour cladding.

Except our high value ships will be defended by the PAAM system on the type 45 destroyers. It cost a lot of money, but it's designed to shoot down hyper sonic missiles.

A lot of ignorance(as usual) from people here on what having armed forces actually does for you.

A lot of ignorance(as usual) from people here on what having armed forces actually does for you.

Please explain what exactly our armed forces do for 'us' then, as I'm a bit ignorant of this. I can't see a great deal of benefit to me personally, as a British citizen, from the actions of various military outfits around the Globe. I'm assured that there are British troops in far flung foreign lands, fighting for my 'freedom', when the shop downstairs from me gets robbed at gunpoint, and many elderly folk are too frightened to leave their homes...

Except our high value ships will be defended by the PAAM system on the type 45 destroyers. It cost a lot of money, but it's designed to shoot down hyper sonic missiles.

Except the PAAMs system hasn't actually been tested against a supersonic target. And there are no plans to do so.

Still, it might work...

Except the PAAMs system hasn't actually been tested against a supersonic target. And there are no plans to do so.

Very few ship borne anti-air/missile systems have. The Americans have only tested their sm-2 missiles from their AEGIS destroyers on a couple of occasions against supersonic targets due to the cost. Everyone uses computer modelling to do so nowadays.

British troops in far flung foreign lands, fighting for my 'freedom'

They are fighting for your interests whether you like it or not. We didn't become a major economic power with all its associated benefits by adopting the foreign policy of Finland now did we?

Please explain what exactly our armed forces do for 'us' then, as I'm a bit ignorant of this.

If you want an explanation, go and find out for yourself, because A: You'll learn something and B: you won't clutter up the forum with more ignorant claptrap.

They didn't have PAAMs when my dad served on HMS Indomitable
[img] [/img]

They are fighting for your interests whether you like it or not. We didn't become a major economic power with all its associated benefits by adopting the foreign policy of Finland now did we?

No they are not. How is the invasion and occupation of Iraq "in my interests"

It has ruined a country, radicalised a population, made terrorism more likely.

Major economic power? Get real. This is the 21st century not the 19th.

It's a right bugger for us lefties though- I'm all in favour of a reduced and repurposed military for the UK, and the realisation that we're not a military superpower, and the end of the capability to exert military force in futile ways around the world. I'd be even more in favour if they'd bin the nonindependant nondeterrant. But it would be nice if it was someone else that had done it. Still according to that nice Mr Cameron Labour can still claim full credit so that's something.

It won't be long before the pilot's redundant in fighter aircraft, they'll e flown remotely.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_Defence_White_Paper ]I am sure someone said that in about 1957[/url], resulting in the trashing of the British aircraft industry. They were apparently wrong.

Andy

Trouble is northwind its not remodeling the services in a sensible way

Firstly they need to be clear what they services are intended to do then build a military to do so

I would like them to defend these islands. put some troops into a european defense force and thats about it. Teh debatre about what we want to acheive with the services needs to be done before the spending review. A basic lack of honesty here

They are fighting for your interests whether you like it or not.

Are they? So, the British Military have my interests, as a British Citizen, at heart do they? Really? Is that why over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died, is it? To protect my interests?

I am aware that many brave and dedicated service personnel do an amazing and selfless job, helping protect innocent people from tyranny and evil. And that there are projects such as the buildings of schools and medical centres, which help people in areas desperately in need of such facilities.

HOWEVER

The British Military has grown to such a size, because of Colonialism, and to protect British economic interests abroad. Often, at a colossal Human cost to those nations colonised. Indeed, the country my father comes from is impoverished today, partly as a result of such colonistion. So don't tell me the British military is protecting [i]my[/i] interests.

I'l re-iterate; the principal role of the British Military abroad is to protect British Economic Interests. Much of this has little or no effect on my life. In fact, recent military involvement has in fact had a negative effect on the lives of most people on Earth; energy costs spiralling upwards being just one. Britain maintains such a needlessly huge military force, simply to retain it's position as a Global Superpower. And in no small part, because the USA tells it to. Don't fool yourself with all the bullshit propaganda of 'protecting democracy', when the very democracy so many fought to defend in two World Wars is being eroded by our own government. And now, we see that such institutions as our Health, Education, Housing and Legal Aid systems are threatened with being dismantled, with no positive benefits and manifest negative consequences guaranteed. Major economic power? Where's our industry? Employment is rising. The pound has taken a pounding against other currencies. We pay some of the highest prices in the World for things. Our position as a World leader is rapidly diminishing.

This nation has a standing military of 130,000, with a reserve of nearly twice that. For what? Do we need such a huge expense? Do we? Really?

As mentioned; other nations seem to thrive on having much smaller military forces. Switzerland isn't a poor country...

you won't clutter up the forum with more ignorant claptrap.

You accuse me of being ignorant, yet obviously know nothing about me, or what I really know. Yeah, that makes sense...

That I have a different opinion to you doesn't make me ignorant.

The armed forces perspective is mental. A man-in-command today on Radio 2 was saying the funds for the armed forces should be cut from Health and Education!

And only an 8% drop in funds for defence but we have to half the money for social housing?

What the chuff???? The conservatives are insane as well as dangerous.

Well put [b]Elfinsafety[/b]

+1

I think the 'protecting our interests' runs slightly deeper than a quick search on google.

Atleast I hope it does.

Will use the said quick google search to see how our military compares to Germany and France as 2 other large european nations.

So when is an aircraft carrier not an?..................................................................................................................................................When the Tories get back in power with the spineless Lib Dems

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

THe UK is the 3rd largest spender on 'defence'. And the 22nd largest nation by population.

Higher spending than Germany or France, despite those nations having larger populations than ours.

the principal role of the British Military abroad is to protect British Economic Interests. Much of this has little or no effect on my life

I want to agree with everything Elf says. What I don't really know is what would change if the UK had the military power of Belgium, and how that would impact on life as we know it. I vaguely suspect it would be noticeable, but it seems to be rather a big question.

And it doesn't seem to be something that can be taken in isolation. At present, the UK does actually spend enough and have enough troops to be a worthwhile member of NATO. If it decided to drop that spending away and ceased to bother, would that result in the US ceasing to bother about NATO? Would that make a war on the fringes of Europe (Russian takeovers of Estonia and the Ukraine for example) much more likely? I suspect so. Would we care? At what point, if war edged back towards the heartlands of Europe, would we start caring again?

Don't know. On balance, I'm inclined to back more defence spending rather than less, but that's essentially because I don't really know what my world actually looks like in 30 years time when the UK no longer matters in global military terms, and I'm a bit scared of the idea. :-/

See Fred - you make such a good effort and then go and nix it in one simple splurge of bollocks

As mentioned; other nations seem to thrive on having much smaller military forces. Switzerland isn't a poor country...

Thing is... Switzerland has on one of the biggest military forces in the whole of Europe, thanks to compulsory military service for adult males STG90's under every bed.. Although to be fair they don't have a huge need for expensive and complex naval forces...

It's BigDummy! 😀

Where the thingy have you bin???

Do you want a packet of Wotsits?

Thing is... Switzerland has on one of the biggest military forces in the whole of Europe

Which is involved in how many overseas conflicts?

Confuddling, as Switzerland has an 'active' militia, rather than a standing army. I'm seeing conflicting figures ranging from 22,000 to about 130,000.

Switzerland's military spending as % of GDP is 0.8%. And none of their troops are involved in any armed conflicts, only peace-keeping missions.

Strangely, this doesn't seem to have a particularly negative effect on the nation's economy...

Hmmm my Elfin comrade...

Maybe the reason Switzerland's spend has such a small effect is that they're still living off the investments that were made last time Britain's colonialist armies went on the economic rampage across Europe in '44. Switzerland has a higher GDP than the UK!

UK has roughly eight times the population of Switzerland , the per capita actual spend is approx 2/3 the UK spend... ($350 vs $530 per capita annually) Guess what, Army, Air Force, and, erm, oh yes, as mentioned, they don't need a navy do they...

So, the Swiss military spend is proportionately roughly the same as the UK spend, despite the fact that we apparently spend so much time running round the world...

British Economic Interests.

Ok, so which of Britain's interests would you feel were appropriate for it to defend? I don't really seem to recall Britain being particularly heavily financially involved in Bosnia or Kosovo, nor in Sierra Leone for that matter, or to be honest the huge financial interest we had in a bunch of Southern Atlantic islands, the gateway to the Mediterranean, Aden, Palestine, Belize...

or for that matter the huge financial interest in spending over fifty years camped in Germany as an "occupying power"....

Still, I suppose you would have creamed yourself over the prospect of a greater Soviet Socialist republic of Europe...

not that im blaming the military- the blame lies quarely with tony imho- but all i see that our wars in iraq and afgahnistan have achieved is a lot of dead civillians & servicemen a huge rise in the price of oil and a group of bradford lad radicalised into blowing themselves up on the tube

Ok, so which of Britain's interests would you feel were appropriate for it to defend?

The shop downstairs what got robbed. Oh, but that's the police, sorry. Oh, but they don't have the resources to patrol effectively...

British Interests seem to be focussed on controlling resources in the Middle East and Afghanistan. For the benefit of who? My energy costs are higher, and I'm told my food costs more because of the rising cost of oil.

Tell me exactly what the 1000 British troops in the Falkland Islands are doing there? Nowt to do with vast reserves of oil in the South Atlantic, is it? No, silly me- can't be, surely?

About 25,000 troops or so are stationed in Cyprus, Germany, etc? And what's Gibraltar all about? Surely the Spanish can look after the Strait?

Still, I suppose you would have creamed yourself over the prospect of a greater Soviet Socialist republic of Europe...

Pathetic. A reasonable criticism of British imperialism, and you come out with that tired old shite? I see Maggie's still pulling your strings...

Please. Try a bit harder Labby. 🙄

the per capita actual spend is approx 2/3 the UK spend..

.............
So, the Swiss military spend is proportionately roughly the same as the UK spend,

No - its 2/3 - you can't say they dont have a navy so that the spending ins proportionate Just nonsense. They spend 2/3 per person that we do on "defense"

As I said earlier the key thing is you must decide what our forces are for before you decide budgets. I'm a swords to plughshares sort of chap myself.

No they are not. How is the invasion and occupation of Iraq "in my interests"

You use oil? There you go.

It has ruined a country, radicalised a population, made terrorism more likely.

I'd agree with you. I support the military forces of this country, but not always the political decisions on how they are used.

Major economic power? Get real. This is the 21st century not the 19th.

We are a major economic power. It is the 19th century in 21st century form. People tend to forget that the cold war was the exception to the norm. We are simply reverting back to what we were doing before. Fighting over resources.

I would like them to defend these islands.

They are. Defending these islands is also done away from these islands, something you will have to get used to.

The British Military has grown to such a size, because of Colonialism, and to protect British economic interests abroad. Often, at a colossal Human cost to those nations colonised. Indeed, the country my father comes from is impoverished today, partly as a result of such colonistion. So don't tell me the British military is protecting my interests.

So last century. 🙄

I'l re-iterate; the principal role of the British Military abroad is to protect British Economic Interests. Much of this has little or no effect on my life.

Of course it doesn't. 🙄

energy costs spiralling upwards being just one.

Of course China and India industrialising wouldn't have anything to do with increases in energy costs, oh no. 🙄

And in no small part, because the USA tells it to

More leftist claptrap. I'm quite left wing myself, but this takes the biscuit. If we did what the US wanted we wouldn't be cutting our defence budget would we? 🙄

Don't fool yourself with all the bullshit propaganda of 'protecting democracy', when the very democracy so many fought to defend in two World Wars is being eroded by our own government. And now, we see that such institutions as our Health, Education, Housing and Legal Aid systems are threatened with being dismantled, with no positive benefits and manifest negative consequences guaranteed.

Who said anything about protecting democracy? Our institutions are being eroded because people don't feel they are necessary anymore. That's because of a change in the class system in this country. I think it will take a major crisis for this country for people to re-assess what's being thrown away, including the military.

Where's our industry?

we are still one of the largest manufacturing economies in the world, we just don't do mass manufacture, we left that for the Chinese. And of course we still makes ships and submarines and aircraft carriers...

Switzerland's military spending as % of GDP is 0.8%. And none of their troops are involved in any armed conflicts, only peace-keeping missions.

Strangely, this doesn't seem to have a particularly negative effect on the nation's economy...

That's because the only people invading Switzerland are hedge fund managers.

I cannot think of once since I was alive that UK forces travelled away from these islands to defend them.

There has been much milatary adventurism overseas and some such as the intervention in Bosnia was right IMO

However none of it was in any way "defending these island"

"That's because the only people invading Switzerland are hedge fund managers."

who's invading us?

Tandem, for some reason it irks me that you can decide that it was OK to go to bosnia but every other conflict was just us posturing. It's a good job we had a good sized army in the 40's eh?

Trouble is northwind its not remodeling the services in a sensible way

I did say since I was alive.

On Bosnia its my opinion. I think the loss of life that was saved was worth the intervention. I don't think either Iraq war nor Afghanistan was.

1940s was rather different - ans we didn't have a large standing army or airforce in 1939

Blah blah blah blah blah....

We are a major economic power.

6th by GDP; [i]19th[/i] by GDP [i]per capita[/i]. So, the people of Britain are being shafted, basically. Where's the wealth going?

Who said anything about protecting democracy?

Erm, Bush. Bliar, military leaders, politicians, etc...

So last century.

And you have the temerity to accuse me of being 'ignorant'?? Here's a 'rollin eyes' emoticon for yer: 🙄

Can't be bothered arguing with those so blind they won't see.

Right:

Britain is involved in Iraq and Afghanistan because the West wants to control the flow of oil and other natural resources abundant in those lands, principally to provide enormous wealth to a limited number of people. I think we're all pretty clear on that one.

WMDs Taliban blah blah; the reality is that hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed.

Oh look, oil is far more spensive now...

There doesn't seem to be any reasonable justification for Britain to have such a huge military force. The example of other countries seems to prove that we could get by pretty well with a much smaller military. The pro-milatry brigade refuse to accept the truth on that one however. Ho hum. You can lead a horse to water...

Arguments done now. Ironically, Labby and El-Bent have proven me right, although I doubt they'll see the irony....

Anyway CSI's on.

Aracer

The reason they are not making sensible decision sis about lack of bottle. No Tory government could dare to redefine the UK armed forces role into a smaller less influential one. Thats what needs to be done to save significant money. Stop pretending we can play on the same scale as the US, Russia and China. We can't and we should not.

However this lot are clearly unable to make that sort of strategic decisions. There has been no attempt to do this - define the role of the UK forces ans what they will and will not do in future thus what manpower and equipment is needed.

elfin, again you talk about conflicts like afghan with some so called authority. Iraq may have been about Oil, though i think it was about revenge, unfinished business for the US, but afghan is about something else. ****stan is on its arse, and the Taliban in afghan would have a field day in ****stan if they had not got their handsfull with Nato in afghan.

I know people serving in afghan, one of them is a Major, he is there purely to improve literacy, not English literacy but Afghan literacy as it is below 20%. Now why would we do that? The loss of life is a disgrace, but don't think for one minute it would be any better if Nato were not there.

The current carriers were actually conceived as "through deck cruisers" (mainly for helicopter operations) in the late 1960s / early 1970s - calling them aircraft cariers was one of the early examples of "spin"...

TandemJeremy - Member

I cannot think of once since I was alive that UK forces travelled away from these islands to defend them.

There has been much milatary adventurism overseas and some such as the intervention in Bosnia was right IMO

However none of it was in any way "defending these island"

You were born after the wall came down then were you? I'm sure all those British tanks and aircraft stationed in Germany helped to deter a Soviet invasion. Talking to old cold war warriors it is interesting to note that NATO troops nearly always practiced defence, the Soviets attack.

Ever stop to think about the important work the RN does to prevent drugs reaching these shores, or to help ensure those massive container ships & tankers carrying your clothes, bike parts and oil have safe oceans to sail in?

Not all military uses are about blowing other people up. A lot of it is just giving the impression we could 'blow them up if needed' and then being there to do other useful things like policing the high seas and search and rescue.

Granted maybe our interests could one day be served by a joint EU military or our own smaller combined armed forces but we will still need them.

BigEaredBiker - Member

Ever stop to think about the important work the RN does to prevent drugs reaching these shores, or to help ensure those massive container ships & tankers carrying your clothes, bike parts and oil have safe oceans to sail in?

Trident missiles are, I take it, very useful for this?

Trident missiles are, I take it, very useful for this?

Now you are being silly.

Do you think North Korea or Iran (or other unforseen) would be happier with us having nukes or not having them?

Very useful Druidh - you know the principles of deterrence. They do a very good job deterring people

Whats the acronym again for deterrence - ah yes MAD.