Strategic Defence Review: MoD budget cuts of 8% by 2015

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

It has just been announced on Sky, that the MOD have to agreed to budget cuts of less than 10%.

What next ?

clearly the government puts international aid as more importance then our defense.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

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.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

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.

Who from arthur? ,who is going to invade us ? as far as i know no country is threatening us

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

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.

Cuts of 8%, over four years, are rather generous compared to what various other departments are going to have to put up with.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

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.

Arthur, you do know that these carriers (and the design of them) were ordered by the previous Government, don't you?

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

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.

Aah, where to start, where to start.

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.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

I disagree re: the Falklands. The UK may be facing a period without the kind of maritime equipment that re-took them in 1982, but on the other hand the Falkland's own defences are far more robust than they were and Argentina's own military is a very pale shadow of what it was.

We may not have the force to re-take them but Argentina doesn't have the force to capture them in the first place.

They don't have the force right now

Argentine to increase budget defence 50%

http://en.mercopress.com/2010/09/01/...-falklands-war

[Taf]

HMS Victory, Nelson’s flagship at the Battle of Trafalgar, is to be brought back into service, replacing Trident and the Ark Royal.

‘As the centre-piece of the Strategic Defence Review, HMS Victory will once again give Britain dominance on the high seas,’ said Defence Secretary Liam Fox. ‘The upgraded crew quarters will boast proper toilet facilities to replace the eighteenth-century poop deck, and the refurbished ship’s decks will accommodate the crack carrier pigeon squadron forming a new communications system. The pigeons will reside in an updated crow’s nest.’

The Victory will be the first in a planned fleet of naval vessels to be known as the Heritage Fleet. Admiralty Chiefs are known to be considering the addition of HMS Pinafore and are believed to have commissioned a feasibility study for the Tudor battleship Mary Rose, which has submarine capability.

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/10/2...and-ark-royal/

HMS Victory is already in service. She is the oldest commissioned warship in the world.