Grim901It’s a small but annoying problem, these kind of things can happen. In 2008, HMS Illustrious had to sail back to port because of a faulty fridge:
It’s not the first time Illustrious has made the news for the wrong reasons.
Since the first mission in Afghanistan the Charles De Gaulle has now probably launched more tonnage than all the british light aircraft carriers in service.
One of the problem of the CDG is that she is a prototype, the planned sister ship would have benefited from the experience but in the end there was no budget for this. Considering the troubles in the defense budget, in few year the british navy may end up in the same situation with the CVF.
I highly doubt that the CdG has launched more than Ark Royal and Illustrious over their (considerably longer and more active) careers.
And it is almost certain that both CVFs will be ordered.
Grim901The problems stemmed from a long gap in producing an aircraft carrier and also on making it nuclear powered for the first time. Then there was the inhernet design and size issues mentioned above.
Perhaps when you look at all that it was sensible what they were planning to do with PA2, take a design that will have been put to the test before the PA2 comes into service and also take any help necessary to make sure it is built correctly.
Grim901Well it’s supposed to be able to repair and refuel other satellites (namely spy sats) but it’s built in abilty to be hard to track could be used for a range of things including surveillance and allegedly attacking other space objects.
Grim901Well yes and no, remember the UK had removed British citizenship in 81 to the Islanders and was clearly gearing up to discretely hand over soverignty to Argentina somewhen in the 80’s. The Argentines were already operating the airport at Stanley and everything from education through to supplies came from Argentina. The UK was cutting back the navy to focus on fighting an ASW war in the north atlantic.
Now the Falkland Islanders are British citizens and we have a NATO standard airbase on the Islands. Argentinas armed forces are in a worse state then during the invasion and haven’t the capacity to take on the Island defences before reinforcements arrive by air.
It is interesting to note that the letter that Fox sent to the PM stated cutting Nimrod seriously impacted on the UK’s Falkland response plan.
It’d be interesting to see what that whole strategy consists of. Would MRA4’s be used in a similar way to the Vulcans of ’82? Except using Storm Shadow. They’re the only aircraft we have that could actually perform a mission of that length now well.
Grim901It doesn’t look too badly damaged, the main rotor and drivetrain doesn’t seem effected. It might be pricy bolting the tail back on though…
You’d be surprised at what can be repaired in helicopters fairly easily. Hell the British took the front of one crashed Chinook and the rear of another and made one workable aircraft without much hassle.
Grim901@Swerve: The Rn have actually shown interest in putting TLAM on surface assets. It’d make sense with dwindling SSN numbers. But it seems like a nice-to-have sort of thing, which is why it was deleted from the T45 upgrade path.
Grim901Such an attack would be bound by international treaties to be sanctioned by NATO and tabled at the UN. A very great number of member nations would raise protests, some would sever diplomatic relations with the US. It would affect trade and you would have social unrest at home.
Probably the worst factor is that such an attack would justify nuclear retaliation under strict international treaties, so the US would be held responsible for a nuclear conflaguration in the region.
Don’t kid yourself, no government has any power without the backing of the military. Any attempt to assassinate an entire government would elicit the military infrastructure must also be destroyed.
So what you’re really talking about is all out war without any formal declaration, pretty much every nation in the world is going to have a serious problem with this.
Hmm probably wouldn’t be the massive international outcry you envisage. China would be annoyed, Russia could go either way. Japan, South Korea, probably most of Europe wouldn’t be too bothered or would openly support it.
And lets remember that the only nuclear weapons that North Korea can detonate would be on their own soil. They’d also be a top priority target – B2’s, Tomahawks, and a lot of US marines would be tasked onto capturing and/or destroying the nuclear sites and weapons.
Grim901Such an attack would be bound by international treaties to be sanctioned by NATO and tabled at the UN. A very great number of member nations would raise protests, some would sever diplomatic relations with the US. It would affect trade and you would have social unrest at home.
Probably the worst factor is that such an attack would justify nuclear retaliation under strict international treaties, so the US would be held responsible for a nuclear conflaguration in the region.
Don’t kid yourself, no government has any power without the backing of the military. Any attempt to assassinate an entire government would elicit the military infrastructure must also be destroyed.
So what you’re really talking about is all out war without any formal declaration, pretty much every nation in the world is going to have a serious problem with this.
Hmm probably wouldn’t be the massive international outcry you envisage. China would be annoyed, Russia could go either way. Japan, South Korea, probably most of Europe wouldn’t be too bothered or would openly support it.
And lets remember that the only nuclear weapons that North Korea can detonate would be on their own soil. They’d also be a top priority target – B2’s, Tomahawks, and a lot of US marines would be tasked onto capturing and/or destroying the nuclear sites and weapons.
Grim901Actually, I agree with the third or fourth comment below that article:
“Why are we using 28 year old aircraft?
– Mike Jones, Storrington, 26/9/2010 11:27″
Helicopters don’t have a best before date on them. As long as they are upgraded and the airframe is still viable why get rid of them?
Grim901http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20100919.aspx
Not the most reliable source in the world but it does beg the question, how likely is this deal? Has the source jumped the gun?
Grim901The majority of those 9 frigates/destroyers better be the remaining 5 T42’s. If that is the case it could be worse.
Grim901Well when the RAF deployed 4 Typhoons down there a couple of months back to replace the F3’s they made it sound like a mammoth achievement that required a huge amount of planning and effort (they almost made it sound harder than deploying a carrier task force around the world) which didn’t instil me with much confidence in their ability to do anything useful down there in a conflict. This could all obviously just have been the RAF trying to sound useful down there since the Falklands are largely seen as the RN’s problem but it was likely also at least partially true.
My idea for the RAF would be to try and make a return to the only thing they do that the AAC and Fleet Air Arm don’t do, long range strike, which is why i’d make a larger AAR capable UCAV like Taranis their main aim. That would allow them to stay much more relevant. It should also eliminate some of the inter service rivalry if the RAF are only expected to use fighters for defence.
Grim901Maybe a VIP-conversion option for one of the RAF’s new A330s? Would that work?
You realise we are only getting 14 and sharing with the French? Exactly why would we give such a valuable asset over to VIP transport when a cheaper business jet would do.
Grim901You know or just asking EADS to fit the boom they are putting on plenty of other A330’s so we can refuel all our allies as well and any other US aircraft we may buy.
Grim901Grim901 is right.
In order for all the Europeans to fight together, it will require a common interest. This may only come if the EU becomes one day a federation, something like USA. As things are today, each country thinks “what do i have to gain if i partecipate”? Especially the small countries know very well, that the usually in wars, the bigs get the oil contracts, while the small ones are called to bleed for “glory”. And glory used to be enough in ancient times, but not so nowdays.
The EU has a loooong way to go before a real European army appears that can act with cohesion like the US one. As long as the EU is separated by state interests, there will be negotiations, excuses, veto, etc.
The problem with Europe is that it wanted to copy the US, but it started based on economic greed and having done nothing to bring the people together. The Americans may have started as settlers, but they were forged together by historical events that “glued” them. Not just the $.
In EU things started on the opposite side. Based on a german plan to dominate economically in Europe, through the euro, it is attempted to build the “United States of Europe”. Well, doing things this way take a long time.
One doesn’t send his sons to die for “glory” nowdays. The big countries send them to die for the country’s interest. The small ones know they won’t get anything, so they contain themselves in the smallest partecipation possible that their legal obbligations dictate and this half-hearted.
We will probably all be dead before the EU gets an army where all countries are willing to give the totality of their power, like the Americans do.
Indeed. One of the reasons why I believe that the “United States of Europe” may never work is that the common history and interest simply isn’t there. The history is simply too long and often divisive to allow us to unite. Even things such as language keep us apart. In the 27 nations of Europe how many languages are spoken? 23 officially. It was easy enough to get people together under the common interest of economic benefit but I doubt that it would be as easy to do it for other crucial parts of building a sovereign entity. Thus far the EU has taken the alternate route of subverting those things slowly from nations. Only time will tell if it works.
But for now it is easier just to say that the deployable forces of Europe are a lot smaller than an equivalent united military force. Not to mention the fact that many European nations are poorly geared for expeditionary warfare in the first place.
Sign In
