![]() |
Re: Strategic Defence Review: MoD budget cuts of 8% by 2015
Quote:
|
Re: Strategic Defence Review: MoD budget cuts of 8% by 2015
The defence of our shores are paramount, therefore the government are thinking of one thing yet again, MONEY.
An aircarft carrier they have is only suitable for helicopters, not Harriers, it is very strange how they can increase foriegn aid, at the xpense of ther own people. They are cutting all the forces, so if there is a war tomorrow are they going to rely on the TA to support the country at war, like they are going to rely on specials to walk the streets against crime. This government has gone totally mad. The people of this country needs forces to fight for this country, not have a government who will weaken it. |
Re: Strategic Defence Review: MoD budget cuts of 8% by 2015
Quote:
|
Re: Strategic Defence Review: MoD budget cuts of 8% by 2015
Quote:
|
Re: Strategic Defence Review: MoD budget cuts of 8% by 2015
Quote:
|
Re: Strategic Defence Review: MoD budget cuts of 8% by 2015
Quote:
First, aircraft carriers are irrelevant if the country was at risk of invasion. We can launch bigger, faster, more heavily armed aircraft from bases on land than we can from any aircraft carrier in existence (even the 100,000-tonne American supercarriers, which are about 40% larger than our new ones will be). The Battle of Britain was won from airfields, not the deck of Ark Royal. An aircraft carrier is about force projection at great distance, in situations where you can't get agreement from a foreign power to launch your aircraft from their territory, or at least to allow you to over-fly it. Second, the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers would be perfectly capable of carrying Harriers. The reason they will not do so is that the Harrier is considered too expensive in these straitened times. Originally the Harrier GR9s would have stayed in service long enough to be stationed aboard the new carriers initially, whilst the RN awaited delivery of its new fleet of Lightning IIs. That, sadly, will now not happen. However, the carriers now under construction are to be modified slightly so that in the event of a dire emergency, requiring the UK to be able to launch and land fighters from their decks, they will be able to do so, even if our own new Lightning IIs have yet to be delivered. This is possible because the MOD has also changed its requirements for the aircraft that are to be embarked. They have opted for the CATOBAR* version of the Lightning II rather than the STOVL* version originally ordered. This will make the new carriers interoperable with US and French aircraft. IMO this is something that should have been decided upon initially. I always thought that opting for STOVL aircraft was an odd decision when they are not going to be constrained by an Invincible-class runway. *CATOBAR - Catapult Aided Take Off But Arrested Recovery. Used currently by American aircraft carriers. *STOVL - Short Take Off, Vertical Landing. What Harriers do. Used currently by the Royal Navy. |
Re: Strategic Defence Review: MoD budget cuts of 8% by 2015
Quote:
Argentine to increase budget defence 50% http://en.mercopress.com/2010/09/01/...-falklands-war |
Re: Strategic Defence Review: MoD budget cuts of 8% by 2015
Quote:
|
Re: Strategic Defence Review: MoD budget cuts of 8% by 2015
HMS Victory is already in service. She is the oldest commissioned warship in the world. ;)
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:37. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum