Oh dear!

I find myself in agreement yet again with john, must be something in the water these last few weeks, with regard to the current and short term threat which I too believe is not that of organised conventional or nuclear force.
However I am mindful that concentrating on only one, to me and john at least, obvious threat has the potential effect of weakening ones ability to respond to other unidentified threats, which may turn out to be of the more familiar conventional nature.
Thus a prudent government charged with the defence of the realm should in my opinion seek to field a conventional force that is of sufficient quality and quantity to provide effective deterrent alongside a nuclear deterrent. Purchase of a limited number of high end, limited role, units does not fit well with that intent in my view.
A force that is not role limited and has sufficient quantity of equipment can play a dual role of both conventional deterrence and be of some utility when the nation is faced with an unconventional foe.

because the worst crime you’ve ever experienced is having your toilet seat left up! :rolleyes:

Hey that is a really serious crime in some places LOL

Conflating the defence arguments concerning the F-35 and international terrorism is like…

…disbanding the Police because the worst crime you’ve ever experienced is having your toilet seat left up! :rolleyes:

Unless you have access to ‘insider’ knowledge, you don’t know how successful or otherwise our intelligence and security agencies have been.

They could have been very successful in foilng attacks or, the terrorists might not have been that busy – we do not know which it was and we are unlikely to be told except perhaps as a means of propaganda.

Since my interpretation of the argument differs from yours we are not debating the same points.

And my point, at the risk of repetition, is that it is 14 years since that appalling attack and with only a single attack on our shores subsequently. So again, at the risk of repetition, our intelligence and security has been remarkably successful.

I’ll leave it for you and CD to continue the discussion.

I’m not moving any goalposts. The subject was/is about the quality or otherwise of certain defence assets. I argued that this was rather fruitless because the next war – as things appear to be shaping up, might not be a war involving conventional forces. That’s all.

As for your interpretation of ‘serious’ I would have thought that in excess of three thousand dead – that we know of – in the last fourteen years, is fairly serious – to put it mildly,

As for my theory, we’ll just have to wait and see.

Exactly, John. 9/11 was 14 years ago, and not in the UK, and the London attack 11 years ago, so in spite of this apparent danger, our intelligence and security has prevented any new attacks.

And, forgive me, but you are moving the goalposts if you are now discussing threats to the West in general – this thread is discussing the UK’s defence assets and the justification or otherwise, for them.

If you criticise, some accuracy please.

The threat is to the West and what Britain could do about it.

Your excuses tie you in with my last sentence.

All those ‘terrorist outrages’ occurred within the last fourteen years. If they weren’t serious, I’l like to know what your definition of ‘serious’ is?

But as I said no serious terrorist outrage for years and all your examples are of the relatively small group of zealous extremist who are unrepresentative of the majority of Muslims, added to which some of the examples n your short list were not on the UK. And it is the threat to the UK which you and CD and the rest of us are discussing.

Charlie,

I shouldn’t have to be writing this to you of all people.

“deep hatred?”

Twin Towers
London bombings
Madrid
Lee Rigby
Paris

I won’t mention Bombay because strictly speaking it isn’t in the West.

Add to the above all the hate preachers that have been on the streets of Britains cities for the last twenty years.

Add to the above all the hate preachers that have been on the streets of Europe’s cities for the last twenty years.

Add to the above all of the vile beheadings of innocent people whose only crime was that they were either Christians or in some way in the public eye.

Add to the above all the publicly declared bile of hatred vomited by ISIL

You ask: “where is this deep hatred to be found?” I think that it has something to do with the examples given.

I hope that this is sufficiently comprehensive.

Apart from a number of zealously extreme Muslims, from whom our security services have successfully protected us for many years, where is this “deep hatred” you speak of to be found?

You missed out global warming, polar bears, burning forests, shrinking ice caps stc. CD, unlike you to mention just half the story ! What a Silly Billy.

Aside from the maintanance of some conventional forces, discussion about relative merits of this aircraft or that or, this weapons system or that are, I believe, largely futile. I do not think they’ll be needed.

So, far from worrying about the interdependence of our defence and foreign policies, we are to abandon large-scale conventional forces completely? Abandon NATO, control of our airspace, control of the sea-lanes that allow us to trade with the world and bring us our food, and turn our, much expanded, Security Forces upon the enemy within?

This, of course, at the same time as voting for UKIP, leaving the EU, expanding our trade with the rest of the world and less with Europe, controlling our borders, expelling immigrants, turning-away asylum-seekers?

All agreed, that is, if Russia and China are seen as realistic as opposed to credible threats. That will happen only if policies not unlike those of Germany that lead to WW2 are adopted.

A more likely scenario is the spread of urban warfare. Urban warfare is very cheap, very anonymous, uncontainable, requires no ships, aircraft or tanks etc. and I argue is the most adaptable and easy to organise of all the varied forms of warfare.

It knows no boundaries, has few bases if any, and assembles and disperses on an ad hoc basis. It is the future and sets at naught all the expensive toys of the West including of course, nuclear weapons. It has no head, no tail, no corporate body and comprises eager volunteers, eager to serve the cause and more than eager to die as a means of spreading their perverted beliefs.

Aside from the maintanance of some conventional forces, discussion about relative merits of this aircraft or that or, this weapons system or that are, I believe, largely futile. I do not think they’ll be needed.

Britain needs to be massively expanding its special forces and intelligence gathering with the accent on good intelligence. We used to be very skilled at this type of warfare (N. Ireland, Cyprus) and could be so again. There exists on the part of our enemies a very real and deep hatred for this country and the West generally. We’re mostly in denial because an influential section of our society cannot believe that there is a threat and consequently have their heads firmly buried in the sand.

I agree, to a point, but when it comes to the ultimate defence threats to the United Kingdom it boils down to Russia and, as time goes on, possibly, China; in either of those scenarios the United Kingdom will be ‘fighting’ within NATO and that means our defence policy will be interdependent with that of the United States.

All other defence or foreign policy considerations come a very, very distant second. The suggestion that buying the F-35 could dictate ‘peace-time’ defence or foreign policy is, frankly, ludicrous (and why would this be the case with the F-35 and not the F/A-18?)

Snafu’s point was that interdependent defence philosophies are not necessarily a good idea. I agree. The foreign policies of the US and Britain are not always identical and if they do match here and there, still have significant differences.

Only if your defence and foreign policies are to be inextricably and irrevocably linked to that of your “benefactor.” Some of us don’t see that as a good thing.

Britain’s defence and, to a certain extent, foreign policies are inextricably linked to the United States, and other countries, by our long-term and committed membership to NATO; whether Britain buys the F-35, or not, will not change that.

If I may the only way a “Typhoon” could be navalised would be to go back to a blank drawing board.

The intake position and associated front landing gear mounting are more than a little not good for a naval aircraft in my opinion.

Already been looked in to. 🙂

In February 2011, BAE debuted a navalised Typhoon in response to the Indian tender. The model offered is STOBAR capable, corresponding to the Indian Navy’s future Vikrant class aircraft carrier. The changes needed to enable the Typhoon to launch by ski-jump and recover by arrestor hook added about 500 kg to the airframe. If however the Indian Navy pursues a catapult launch carrier, the Typhoon is uncompetitive against tender rivals (e.g. Rafale and Super Hornet) since meeting “… catapult requirements would add too much weight to the aircraft, blunt performance and add substantially to modification costs”.[26]

You seem suspiciously knowledgeable. Do you have an aviation background ?

Hi All,
CD,
What do you think of a navalised Typhoon in respect of the navy ?

Geoff.

If I may the only way a “Typhoon” could be navalised would be to go back to a blank drawing board.

The intake position and associated front landing gear mounting are more than a little not good for a naval aircraft in my opinion.