Standard: "Dithering over defence spend"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by soleil, Jul 20, 2009.

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. Can't fault Fox much…

    3 Trident boats will be fine. Some of tehe tubes can be fitted with the sleeved TLAM launchers the US have developed to give a large and usable SLCM capability while retaining the nukes.

    F-35? The cost of that thing is going off the scale and and it will do nothing an F/A-18 at half the price could do anyway.

    I've been saying for years that only one carrier will end up built and she'll be fitted out as a big helicopter carrier…

    Typhoons? Sell off tranche 1, they're useless anyway, no ground attack capability.

    Scrap Nimrod, and A400M, both insane projects. Replace Nimrod with the Boeing P8 Poseidon and buy more C-17's instead of the A400M EuroTurkey…

    Helos? Scrap all the Pumas, Lynx and Sea Kings and take up Sikorskies offer of Blackhawks at sensible money…

    Tanks? Yep, they;re gone and replace them with lighter tanks and buy a shitload of Pirahna MICV's
  2. Tanks are NOT gone

    The exact same vehicles you propose they replace them with too. Thats also in a counter insurgency, just as WE (ie the British Army) found Challenger to be bloody useful in Iraq, and Warrior is now the most feared vehicle in Afghanistan, on par with 'mosquitos' (ie Terry's name for Apache). Imagine how much they;d like Challenger then?

    Real Professional Soldiers, making judgements based upon real operational requirements yet I bet you'll still tell us that you're right hmm?

    I have to agree on the P8/C17/Blackhawk front, although you would have to inculde other aircraft, as I'd put forwards that the latest UH-1Y is a far more useful utility heli than FLynx, and that HC53's would make excellent heavy lift as well so any Sikorsky deal would have to include other airframes.
  3. Indeed, Mr Fox raises some very important questions; the principle one being, is Lewis Page his technical advisor?
  4. MBT's as a species are finished… no one in the West is developing a follow on generation.

    Apaches can kill ANY tank on the battlefield, period. 1 Apache = 16 dead tanks per mission.

    Modern Russian ATGM's can take out the heaviest MBT's so armour is no longer such a big thing these days so you may as well go light and deployable.

    This, at 35 tons, is FAR more usefull, deployable and usable a means of taking a 120mm tank gun to a fight…

  5. Nobody's developing follow-on heavy artillery - doesn't mean the gunners are out of a job. Nobody's making much noise about new helicopters (as opposed to updates, rebuilds and 'Super'...) so helicopters are obsolete?

    More like 5-6, on Granby experience (Hellfire is lethal but not 100%, misses sometimes, and overkill is also a problem - lots of already-struck hulks got repeatedly attacked). Provided you've got air superiority and a FOB in range. Then your Apaches head home to rearm and refuel...

    Besides, nobody in the West is developing a follow-on generation of helicopter gunships... does that prove anything?

    The demise of the tank has been heralded for about fifty years: airpower meant it was doomed, then it was ATGW that made it obsolete, then the attack helicopter meant it was uselessThe trouble is, an Apache can't lead a convoy to al-Amarah and shrug off IEDs that would have rolled a Land Rover sideways, it can't be a mobile strongpoint in a street fight (cf. Fallujah) and it can't do forty-eight hours straight of protected, armed observation. To pick only three roles where armour comes in very handy these days.

    Trouble is that those same Russian ATGMs will kill it just as dead. But other proliferated weapons that will just damage a CR2 will thoroughly kill a CV90... not always a good idea to give away your protection.

    This debate was had a decade ago when MBTs were declared to be Cold Wars dinosaurs, unnecessary in today's agile fast-moving world, and the future was going to be light forces using 17-ton vehicles that could be lifted around in C-130s. Lo and behold, these turn out not to have enough protection to be usable on their own, and so the heavy metal needs to be available to back them up.

    Doesn't mean the tank won't go obsolete some day... but we're not there yet.
  6. 3 Trident boats? No chance. We struggle to maintain a CASD with four boats at the moment.
  7. i KNEW you'd still try argue against it, despite there being an incredibly high, almost positive chance that you know and have absolutely no experience either in recent combat or in the Army.

    jrwlynch thank you.

    I'm leaving now but MBT's are what I have just finished 'doing' and I promise you, the only thing that will spell the end of MBT's with 120mm+ guns are rail-weapons, and currently they can't stop the fired rounds melting in flight (making it useless for penetration, rather), so don't hold you're breath.

    MBT's are still queens of the battlefield wherever they are. I'd LOVE to see Apache try take out an armoured formation in 'unhealthy' skies - as any opponent with MBT's would have decent air cover and air defence capability. You tool.
  8. The Labour government? Dithering?

    Shurely shome mishtake.
  9. Levers_Aligned

    Levers_Aligned War Hero Moderator

    It's TOP TRUMPS again!



  10. And in case you didn't notice Mr Tool when we go up against people with MBT's we ALSO have rather impressive air cover or did you miss that during GWI and II? :roll:
  11. I don't for second count the Iraqi Military of Granby and Iraq II as either having impressive MBT capability OR Air cover. Large, yes, capable, no.
  12. So we don't need fighter top cover then.

    Am I missing something significant? We either fund air superiority or we don't.
  13. Why don't just scrap the armed forces as Labour has never had a viable defence policy,They cancelled the old Arks replacement, cancelled the TSR2, cancelled putting phalanx on 42s as they didn't need them (until 1982) again saving money, it would save a hell of a lot of money, just think of the number of immigrants could be paid benefits as well as increasing giving aid to foriegn countries

Share This Page