How difficult is it to make predictions?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by dyst0piate, Oct 14, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. 'The year is 2025, and the Royal Navy has just dispatched one of its new, state-of-the-art aircraft carriers to the Pacific Ocean, as a bitter trade dispute with China threatens to spill over into open conflict. Equipped with a full complement of Joint Strike Fighter warplanes, and escorted by a battle group of heavily armed destroyers and frigates, the carrier has been sent to demonstrate to Beijing that Britain is determined to protect international shipping lanes.

    Then, before a shot is fired in anger, the aircraft carrier and all the other ships are suddenly hit by a massive power failure. The engines and the computer systems shut down, and the fleet's powerful array of weaponry is rendered inoperable.'

  2. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    If you had asked me this yesterday I'd have told you that you would make that post & this would be my answer.
  3. Predictably difficult but you already knew that
  4. :D

    It was more rhetorical, in the hope that it would stimulate a little debate about the future of warfare.

    Of course the RN's argument is that right after Endurance was withdrawn in '81 the Argies attacked. I also think it undermines the RN's wider role in operations, by focusing on its state v. state warfare capacities.
  5. To me, the problem is not so much what we would do in such a situation but more a question of why we should be in the least bit interested in what a Toffees fan has to say on the matter
  6. Who knows, its totally plausible that we will have to fight a conventional war against another nation, the only thing that I'd rule out right now is that JJ is going to become PM
  7. 'Then, before a shot is fired in anger, the... ships are suddenly hit by a massive power failure. The engines and the computer systems shut down, and the fleet's powerful array of weaponry is rendered inoperable.'

    Sounds like Daring on Sea Trials :D

    IFEP ships my arse....
  8. FlagWagger

    FlagWagger Book Reviewer

    The problem here in this scenario is that while an apparently futuristic weapon is being mooted, there is no recognition that the development of such systems is usually conducted in parallel with the development of countermeasures of such systems. All too frequently, the prediction game is based on "super-weapons vs today's defences" and is then used as a justification for more development money.
  9. I'd be more worried about ASBMs (Anti-ship ballistic missile), in this particular scenario; a current and credible threat owned by china. Without Aster 45 a British carrier fleet would be as vulnerable as the BBs of World War II.
  10. TtJU has a point as that also relates to the effect of Exocet on the taskforce during the Falklands

    ASuW is also a credible area that mustnt be neglected asseveral nations have credible submarine fleets including china.

    This Cyber threat however seems more suited to a Tom Clancy novel. There is an existant effect from such things as EMP but perhaps to expect hacker attacks of the kind mooted in the paper might be many years premature. Just going off what Iv read elsewhere and from lookin at it all logically.
  11. Oh no, I wasn't for a second suggesting that cyber attacks like the one described are not mature or not capable. These kind of attacks are not just possible but are occurring as we speak. I only meant to point out that there are far more pressing concerns to a carrier fleet than cyber attack.

    No one should be under any illusions that this country could be brought to its knees by a sophisticated cyber attack by a nation state and we should fund defences against this as a massive priority.
  12. I was actually agreeing with you TtJU. I find that the risk of such attacks is nowhere nere as severe as made out in the article. I fully agree that we should maintain a fleet able to operate in the event of conflict with another developed nation. As lets face it, its plausible we will one day have to fight another seapower just as much as some terrorist organisation in dusty places.

    Countries like North Korea for example and Argentina have viable Naval and Air units that we should be able to defend against if needed.

    If a Nation weakens its ability to retaliate or defend against a threat then someone somewhere will take advantage of it be they Terrorists or another Nation. Look at Argentina with the fishing boat the other day.
  13. The security dilemma; not getting the best result, but at least protecting ourselves from the worse. Although I cannot see the latter holding true if naval presence is reduced.
  14. Yup, look at how the Tories dropped the ball prior to '82. Lack of common sense and foresight. Just because the Defence budget is one of the largest, does not mean it is the best target for the bulk of cuts. As the potential future loss if the remaining forces prove Inadequate is far too great to bear.
  15. Blackrat

    Blackrat War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    The rule of thumb is simple. If there are going to be major defence cuts, you can pretty much guarantee that there will be a major kick off not long after.

    My moneys on the chinks. Why? I was seen by one of them posting a dog turd through my local chinese takeaways letter box because the chicken balls tasted suspiciously like cat.
  16. And you're an expert on the taste of cat?...this is seriously worrying.
  17. Blackrat

    Blackrat War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Never had pussy? That's seriously worrying.

Share This Page