Home Politics and Debate

Farewell Harrier

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Hello French Military Coalition?????
Brits who pay attention to news on the forces will know, Camerons had a fabulous idea to demolish an ISLAND nations Aerial and naval defences. He has plans of scrapping our marine fleet because oh we can share with the French, I personally don't like trusting the French with my lunch let alone my countries defence.
Oh another Brilliant brainwave was scrapping our VTOL(vertical Take Off and Landing) Airfleet, farewell Harriers, and with the farewell to harriers comes a royal cock up if ever we have a distant conflict involving fast jets, since unless we plan on base hopping we cannot deploy there rapidly since we have nothing capable of take off from a carrier.

I like military shizz and i saw nothing to interest me, thus i made this. So do you guys think good ol Cameron's throwing away our safety for the sake of a few bob, or hes making a practical tactical sacrifice.

READY SET GO

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The MOD is beyond broke (fact) even with the budget cuts there is still a structural defecit of £1/2 billion a year. This is of course taking into account that the treasury funds the majority of OP HERRICK (Afghanistan) from treasury reserves.

    I for one at first thought it was a little of an odd thing to do, but try looking at it from a different viewpoint. If Britain and France were people, and were the best of buddies (even though they had friends who didnt like them, re:the population) then if you put views about the french to one side, and looked purely on the cost saving measures then I think it isnt too much of a bad idea.

    Defence procurement is the main problem here, new bits of kit get requested by and designed by normal people, then politicians and civil servants decide it needs to do extra bits. Such as a recent vehicle (shall remain nameless) which the MOD decided had to be made air dropable therefore costings millions more on the contract, never mind the fact that we dont have our own capability to drop the vehicle in question without getting help, or that we have not done a large scale air drop for some years now, they did it anyway.

    Maybe this deal with the French could well have been avoided if we hadnt had this global financial crisis, but then again the MOD would still have had a budget defecit anyway. If you step back and really think about why you dont trust the french, I suspect (and I mean no offence) that it is just mass hysteria, then you could come to the conclusion that it is an effort on the part of BOTH countries to foster a greater spirit of cooperation and to save money.
    if ever we have a distant conflict involving fast jets, since unless we plan on base hopping we cannot deploy there rapidly since we have nothing capable of take off from a carrier.

    We cant really do comparable jack shit without the help of others anymore. We deployed something like 45,000 troops in one go to Iraq at the begining. These days in Afghanistan we can only run about 10% of the army in Afghanistan in one go, not just because of budget constraints and manning caps, we just cant physically do it.

    If you look at the below
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/227598.stm
    BBC wrote:
    The UK and France have agreed to increase armed forces co-operation to mark what is described as a new era in their military relations.
    That was a story from 1998, co-operation with France is nothing new and doesnt seem to have harmed us too much in the past. I see current efforts with the French as helping cure our military ailments rather than being a cause of them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    I for one at first thought it was a little of an odd thing to do, but try looking at it from a different viewpoint. If Britain and France were people, and were the best of buddies (even though they had friends who didnt like them, re:the population) then if you put views about the french to one side, and looked purely on the cost saving measures then I think it isnt too much of a bad idea.
    youd share a flat, not your gun

    never mind the fact that we dont have our own capability to drop the vehicle in question without getting help, or that we have not done a large scale air drop for some years now, they did it anyway.
    we actually are capable of doing that, we have chinooks for it. We also have the aircraft to get them into the countries so we also have the capabilities to chuck the vehicles out of said aircraft.
    If you step back and really think about why you dont trust the french, I suspect (and I mean no offence) that it is just mass hysteria, then you could come to the conclusion that it is an effort on the part of BOTH countries to foster a greater spirit of cooperation and to save money.
    As a nation everyone should be assumed to pose a threat, Even France.
    we shouldnt trust a possible threat with our forces stuck within their country/property

    co-operation with France is nothing new and doesnt seem to have harmed us too much in the past. I see current efforts with the French as helping cure our military ailments rather than being a cause of them.
    scrapping our vessels to share theirs is a new thing
    and a bloody risky one at that
    it means if we engage in a conflict
    France has to tag along, or if France gets involved
    We get dragged along.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What you are proposing is a very isolationist policy. If the US had not come to our aid in WW2 we would be fucked. Pretty much past a certain point in the not too distant past, if we kept ourselves to ourselves and someone had a go at us, we would be fucked.

    Air transportable and air dropable and transportable by air are two very different things. We do not have the capability on our own (without US help) to conduct an air drop offensive of vehicles on any reasonable scale. Being able to do it on a small scale is not the same as having a capability.

    Chinooks can only usually fly for around 2 hours with a decent load, I'm not sure if thats a full capacity load/underslung load but it aint that long. Its an hour in each direction. Hardly strategic lift. They can only carry 12 tonnes on an external load, and thats with nowhere near a full internal load.

    We would have enough chinooks to do some form of air drop, but you would have to negate the medical evacuations, general troop transportation, also the fact that you drop one vehicle off and its occupants, what about the rest of the seats spare in the chinook?
    we shouldnt trust a possible threat with our forces stuck within their country/property

    That is exactly what we are doing with the US, the Danish, Estonians, Tongan's, French, German etc etc every day in Afghanistan. One of our guys goes man down then if a US medivac chopper is the closest to assist then the US chopper assists.

    We as a country in the UK have a grossly over rated view of what our armed forces are capable of if standing on their own. We have a very good armed forces who do wonders with what we are given, but the US spends more than 20x the amount we do on their defence budget, we are but a small speck on the other side of the pond.
    it means if we engage in a conflict
    France has to tag along, or if France gets involved
    We get dragged along.

    Which is something we have been doing inline with the US for many years, and likely many years to come. I believe what you show fear of in that statement, is exactly what these new agreements intend.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    What you are proposing is a very isolationist policy. If the US had not come to our aid in WW2 we would be fucked. Pretty much past a certain point in the not too distant past, if we kept ourselves to ourselves and someone had a go at us, we would be fucked.
    I never said not allieing with the countries
    but sharing armed forces is very different to buddying with them
    Air transportable and air dropable and transportable by air are two very different things. We do not have the capability on our own (without US help) to conduct an air drop offensive of vehicles on any reasonable scale. Being able to do it on a small scale is not the same as having a capability.
    im on about a defensive
    if were defending England and a part is taken then we have the capabilities to drop support in

    Chinooks can only usually fly for around 2 hours with a decent load, I'm not sure if thats a full capacity load/underslung load but it aint that long. Its an hour in each direction. Hardly strategic lift. They can only carry 12 tonnes on an external load, and thats with nowhere near a full internal load.[/QUOTE]
    We would have enough chinooks to do some form of air drop, but you would have to negate the medical evacuations, general troop transportation, also the fact that you drop one vehicle off and its occupants, what about the rest of the seats spare in the chinook?
    rest of the seats, infantry support
    or leave them empty and boost the range of the flight

    That is exactly what we are doing with the US, the Danish, Estonians, Tongan's, French, German etc etc every day in Afghanistan. One of our guys goes man down then if a US medivac chopper is the closest to assist then the US chopper assists.
    as i said, sharing is different to an alliance
    We as a country in the UK have a grossly over rated view of what our armed forces are capable of if standing on their own. We have a very good armed forces who do wonders with what we are given, but the US spends more than 20x the amount we do on their defence budget, we are but a small speck on the other side of the pond.
    And how much smaller are we than America?


    Which is something we have been doing inline with the US for many years, and likely many years to come. I believe what you show fear of in that statement, is exactly what these new agreements intend.

    thats out of choice, not because we have to
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    im on about a defensive
    if were defending England and a part is taken then we have the capabilities to drop support in

    Air dropable concept would be to fly into a country from a base many miles away to drop the kit.

    As for defending england, we could air transport kit around (which is not the same as air droppable) but I would just shoot the chinook down.
    as i said, sharing is different to an alliance

    Not really if the alliance is about sharing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest if we had a massive fall out with france, where would we be, without the carrier, or without the aircraft. The exact same position we would be in if we were not in this alliance.

    This is to do with crap use of contracts and budgets when building or at least attempting to build our own.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    To be honest if we had a massive fall out with france, where would we be, without the carrier, or without the aircraft. The exact same position we would be in if we were not in this alliance.
    Wed have our kit in their hands, or our servicemen and women in their hands
    This is to do with crap use of contracts and budgets when building or at least attempting to build our own.
    we already had the ships and jets
    they've scrapped running them
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wed have our kit in their hands, or our servicemen and women in their hands


    we already had the ships and jets
    they've scrapped running them

    Because of cost, therefore we would not have had them.

    Also the alliance/treaty is about equipment sharing, our men and women of the armed forces do not have to go anywhere we dont want them to period, if we really didnt want them to go somewhere then we just say no.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ultimately one has to realise this. We are an island nation, and despite having armed forces that are smaller than others, we still have one of the only militaries that is blue water capable and with the ability to project its power anywhere on Earth. All this talk of needing other countries to defend our foreign interests is nonsense, the UK still has more than enough capability to land friendly troops on enemy controlled soil.

    We are one of the only militaries with ships and landing ships capable of moving battallions of troops and machinery (including main battle tanks), something that only the USA and Russia are currently capable of. Yes it's reduced, but it's still capable.

    All this talk of China being the new world threat is one thing, but when you realise they have a million troops and absolutely zero ability to move them, you'll realise that the only countries that should feel threatened by them are their immediate neighbours.

    Also, including Afghanistan we currently have about 18-20,000 troops/support units on foreign deployment. That leaves approximately 120,000 troops at home ready to defend the nation (which incidentally is their job). I doubt there is a nation on Earth with the exception of the USA, or perhaps Russia that would have the military force capable of launching a sucessful invasion of the UK, and remember we have the open seas, and NATO allies standing between us and any potential attacker.

    Once you've thought of that, then look at the hardware we have. The Challenger 2 is still regarded as the most advanced and deadliest tank on Earth. The only thing that can destroy a Challenger with one shot, is another Challenger (the only tanks we lost in Iraq were to another Challenger). It's armour and fire control systems are more advanced than anything the US posesses which by extension means they are better than anything anyone else might have as well. Then we've got Eurofighter with the JSF coming on-stream soon, more warships than most other nations and a lurking submarine deterrent armed with 200+ nuclear warheads.

    We may be small, but we're like a hedgehog.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A little englander approach is no basis for defence these days either.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Ultimately one has to realise this. We are an island nation, and despite having armed forces that are smaller than others, we still have one of the only militaries that is blue water capable and with the ability to project its power anywhere on Earth. All this talk of needing other countries to defend our foreign interests is nonsense, the UK still has more than enough capability to land friendly troops on enemy controlled soil.

    We are one of the only militaries with ships and landing ships capable of moving battallions of troops and machinery (including main battle tanks), something that only the USA and Russia are currently capable of. Yes it's reduced, but it's still capable.

    All this talk of China being the new world threat is one thing, but when you realise they have a million troops and absolutely zero ability to move them, you'll realise that the only countries that should feel threatened by them are their immediate neighbours.

    Also, including Afghanistan we currently have about 18-20,000 troops/support units on foreign deployment. That leaves approximately 120,000 troops at home ready to defend the nation (which incidentally is their job). I doubt there is a nation on Earth with the exception of the USA, or perhaps Russia that would have the military force capable of launching a sucessful invasion of the UK, and remember we have the open seas, and NATO allies standing between us and any potential attacker.

    Once you've thought of that, then look at the hardware we have. The Challenger 2 is still regarded as the most advanced and deadliest tank on Earth. The only thing that can destroy a Challenger with one shot, is another Challenger (the only tanks we lost in Iraq were to another Challenger). It's armour and fire control systems are more advanced than anything the US posesses which by extension means they are better than anything anyone else might have as well. Then we've got Eurofighter with the JSF coming on-stream soon, more warships than most other nations and a lurking submarine deterrent armed with 200+ nuclear warheads.

    We may be small, but we're like a hedgehog.

    Its just when we invade somewhere else that we have to get help from america ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Harrier was an amazing machine, and improvements over the years kept it effective for a long time, but it has aged.

    Unfortunately Britain lost it's engineering edge and has nothing, really, to replace them with.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Big Gay wrote: »
    Unfortunately Britain lost it's engineering edge and has nothing, really, to replace them with.

    Joint strike fighter in a few years. VTOL and stealth. Mainly an American project that we'll benefit from.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mind you, there is a great many people in the military aviation community who see the F-35 as a bit of a dog.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Joint strike fighter in a few years. VTOL and stealth. Mainly an American project that we'll benefit from.

    Quite. We have nothing to replace them with so we're using the same stuff as everyone else - notionally good because it's cheaper, allows us to interwork better with others; but actually bad because we lose the money and the distinctiveness that helps give our fighting men an extra edge and the self reliance.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You may be right BG but let's not forget the Harrier is a 50 year old jet. It may have served us exceptionally well, there's no doubt it's an excellent piece of kit but hanging onto it for sentimental reasons is madness, not when we can get our hands on something that will no doubt give us more of an edge.

    And who's to say we'll keep it the same anyway, there won't be anything stopping us modifying the JSF in much the way we continually modified the Harrier over the years.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    You may be right BG but let's not forget the Harrier is a 50 year old jet. It may have served us exceptionally well, there's no doubt it's an excellent piece of kit but hanging onto it for sentimental reasons is madness,

    Ummm... I thought that's what I said.

    The problem is in those 50 years we've turned from a nation of engineers into a nation of shopkeepers, and from there into a nation of bankers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seemingly into a nation of (forgive the cockney slang) merchant bankers as well!

    Yes we are in conflict in a certain place at the minute, but overall we have to plan for a war, not THE war.
Sign In or Register to comment.