That’s a well thought out statement. There is no doubt that you have more than justified your 4X4 ownership. I just wish more 4X4 owners were able to honestly say their need for one is as great.

I dont think you need a computer, I am going to confiscate it.:p

How can it be a fact, when such thing (blowing up a Soviet Cruiser) didnt happen:confused:
Anyway, my suggestion was mainly made to give some support the orginal mystery claim that Why would UK special services try plant limbet mine to a Soviet Cruiser?

And what I am pointing is that suggestion is flawed. The reason being that the RN’s budget was being perpetually driven down by the UK’s economic reality, not by any operational considerations. The loss of one Sverdlov would not have changed any RN procurement policy.

That’s an intelligent well thought-out rebuttal.:rolleyes: This is a discussion forum, not an insulting forum. He is entitled to his well explained opinions without being insulted.:(

1)His opinions were not well explained.

2)I did not insult him.

Yeas and its the politicans who rule the how much money goes to which sector…and politicans can be influenced by just about anything

The British defence budget in this period (really up until the 1980’s) was entirely budget driven and the random loss of one Soviet cruiser would have changed nothing. That is fact.

The big problem is that PANAVIA consortium apparently learned absolutely nothing from the Vietnam War. Low level flight had become increasingly untenable by the era of Linebacker II and the 1973 Yom Kipper War. The Tornado IDS wasn’t any more survivable than the much earlier Buccaneer, and it was only a matter of luck that the MiG-23 didn’t possess the look-down/shoot-down radar capabilities that it might have. Of course, the Tornado ADV was dynamically inferior to Spey Phantom and infinitely inferior to any contemporary American fighters.

The Tornado was absolutely incapable of meeting the MiG-29/Su-27 threat that came at the end of the cold war, and far from contributing, the Tornado fleet might have been considered a weak spot in the NATO arsenal if the Soviet Union hadn’t disintegrated.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The above is just wrong, not just partly wrong but massively wrong.

I dont want to get into India Pakistan debate.

Yes you do.:mad:

Budgets and plans are mostly politically orientated and are often affected on large symbolical events which may technically be quite minor.

Thats a tricky one. In the context of the post-war situation where aircrafts seemed to be the nails in large surface combatants coffins there might be difficoult to drawn conclusion that completely WWII era concept and equal technology of western cruisers of 1939-45 era wouldn’t be obsolete.
Then again 16 cruisers added to a fleet that before that had less than 10 wwII era cruisers (Pr. 26, 26bis and 68) is a huge difference and certainly gives its adversors something to chew on. Aircrafts and even more EW sector at those days didn’t have the same goodies that justifies similar superiority status as the enjoy today in naval warfare. Any US/UK battlegroup would have still had to face pr.68bis with its own surface assets as well in most cases.

You dont know your Royal Navy History, read Vanguard to Trident By Eric J Grove. The factor driving the british defence budget was money and almost nothing else, every time a project is cancelled in this period it for financial reasons, the country could not afford it.

I have a thread in the naval aviation section on your second point.

Few things I would like to throw into this depate considering the pros and cons of UK to actually posit explosives to Sverlodv class.

Those of you who had done your homeworks by naval matters will surely know the rather odd prestige and value that RN put on the Sverldovs. Despite these cruisers were obsolete from launching, in British circles they posessed considerable attention and were taken as suprise threat in the climate where RN was stripping of its large surface combatants. If war would have bursted out, there migth have been odd situation where RN would have been almoust suprassed by Russia in quantative terms.
Therefore many desings and ideas rosed out in this period to counter the thread of the Sverldovs. Many are familar with the unbuild big gun cruisers/destroyer projects of this period and other applications came foward also. Such projects were offcourse extra burden to UK defences that were allready in tigth situation and underpressure of new war methods, and few wanted to see revial of the manpower insestive big surface fleet.

Under these circumstances a dreadfull Sverldov, suddenly and embrassingly exploding in aftermath of high-key diplomatic visit would have make end of the expensive counter-sverldov desings (like they did in real life) and migth have even made Soviets to reconsider the practicality of such ships in first place.

So who knows:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The loss of one Sverdlov would not have affected British procurement which was entirely budget orientated.

By 1956 Sverdlovs were being scrapped on the ways anyway, the Soviet policy change had already taken place………whether British intelligence was aware of this at that time I dont know.

Whether the Sverdlovs actually were obsolete is a difficult question to answer…IMO.