BBassic
I changed this.
- Jul 28, 2011
- 13,056
Bloody experts coming on here talking sense with their knowledge and applied experience. Don't you know we voted to not have to listen to experts back in 2016?
Cheek of it.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] WWIII
- Thread starter mile oak
- Start date
Cheek of it.
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
Sorry my bad.
Certainly not an expert but the principles haven’t changed all that much since I served.
It makes my pee boil at how the senior service has been decimated over the last 50 years , and us an island nation
You have to live....Or else you
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
you can blame the Crabs (RAF) for that.It makes my pee boil at how the senior service has been decimated over the last 50 years , and us an island nation
- Aug 8, 2005
- 27,230
What I find odd about this, is they have waited until Trump has been elected to escalate this. Trump was clearly going to bring this to an end so Biden and Two Tier have decided to ramp it up. How is that in the interests of the US or UK? Really odd. It also highlights what a shambles the US is. When we have an election, the people speak and the next day the PM who won is in power. In the US they have voted for change and the old man is still there to carry on making crazy decisions until January. Bizarre way to run the most powerful country in the world!
jackalbion
Well-known member
- Aug 30, 2011
- 4,926
Was he?
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,887
During the Falklands Hermes and Invincible were held miles off the islands because had either been lost the U.K. land forces would have been without air cover, it was sketchy as it was. In the amphibious operations there were Intrepid and Fearless, these were the 2 ships that were used for that purpose as designed.
Neither POW or QE were designed for amphibious operations as both Bulwark and Albion were operational. Retiring the 2 landing docks removes the independent amphibious capability of the U.K. armed forces. QE and POW are not taking their place.
As I said earlier if we can’t afford £500m to keep that capability whilst bankrolling Ukraine and hundreds of thousands of chancers in hotels to the tune of billions the Govt is as incoherent as your belief that aircraft carriers costing billions with billions of pound of aircraft will be used for amphibious landings.
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
The quickest method of getting feet on the ground is by helicopter. Landing craft are great but weather conditions, sea conditions can screw up an amphibious landing. The vast majority of troops landed were by helicopter. (846 and 845 Nas with elements made up from 707 and a couple of pinger squadrons).
The QE and POW will do whatever is needed. major difference between them and the amphibious ships are landing craft and the world will not end if these are not available.
At the end of the day the task is to get men and kit from point A to point B as quickly as possible with screwing up. each year there is such an exercise in Norway and that has worked perfectly well well for many a year without specially designed amphibious ships.
granted they are specifically designed for the job BUT there are perfectly acceptable substitutes.
if I can dig it out i’ll post a photo of HMS Hermes, 846 and 845 Nas and 40 Commando being shit at an amphibious landing …
here you go.
Attachments
Last edited:
Forster's Armband
Well-known member
WW3 started ages ago. It is carried out by proxy nations, militia groups, and new types of warfare (increased espionage and cyber attacks).
Perhaps I am trying to make myself feel better but the bottom line is there has to be a world for Putin to be billy big bollocks in so the chances of him pressing the larger nuke button are slim I'd say. The smaller tactical nukes may be used but really they wouldn't help Russia win the war so there's not any real reason to do it. He is mad though so...
Perhaps I am trying to make myself feel better but the bottom line is there has to be a world for Putin to be billy big bollocks in so the chances of him pressing the larger nuke button are slim I'd say. The smaller tactical nukes may be used but really they wouldn't help Russia win the war so there's not any real reason to do it. He is mad though so...
One rationale I read is that Biden's administration has been keen to leave Putin an 'off-ramp' throughout in the hope a diplomatic solution could be achieved. The reason they acted at this point is not to do with Trump - it's because Putin has called in the North Koreans, building things up rather than looking to de-escalate. That was a step too far to ignore.
A different take on it from a different analyst is that the US are trying to ensure Ukraine is in the strongest possible position when Trump takes over as he will immediately try to engineer a ceasefire. The stronger Ukraine's position is at that point, the less they'll need to relinquish to get Putin to call off the dogs.
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,887
I don’t understand why you as an ex Navy man can’t see what these cuts mean?
Royal Navy finished as full-spectrum force as Albion and Bulwark axed
The UK Royal Navy's amphibious assault capability has ended with the scrapping of HMS Albion and Bulwark a decade ahead of schedule.
www.naval-technology.com
For the record I’m agnostic, however what makes no sense is a Government on one hand spending millions to support Ukraine’s military whilst chopping away our own capabilities.
That maybe because us non expert civvies can’t see the grand strategy, but the perception is madness if we are upping the ante with the Russians.
This country’s leadership are pushing pensioners into fuel poverty, creating a confrontation with farmers and binning off our own military hardware whilst spending billions on a foreign war and hundreds of thousand of chancers in hotels.
The incoherence is off the scale.
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
Because the money can be better spent on the surface fleet that is in use at the moment than keeping two ships mothballed. Added to that both ships are over 20 years old and require a refit which was canceled. Then who is going to crew it and the question of how long it would take to run the ships up for active service. Once a ship is mothballed it’s very rare that they come out.I don’t understand why you as an ex Navy man can’t see what these cuts mean?
Royal Navy finished as full-spectrum force as Albion and Bulwark axed
The UK Royal Navy's amphibious assault capability has ended with the scrapping of HMS Albion and Bulwark a decade ahead of schedule.
For the record I’m agnostic, however what makes no sense is a Government on one hand spending millions to support Ukraine’s military whilst chopping away our own capabilities.
That maybe because us non expert civvies can’t see the grand strategy, but the perception is madness if we are upping the ante with the Russians.
This country’s leadership are pushing pensioners into fuel poverty, creating a confrontation with farmers and binning off our own military hardware whilst spending billions on a foreign war and hundreds of thousand of chancers in hotels.
The incoherence is off the scale.
This isn’t about defence it’s about labour as your comments on pensioners, farmers etc. show exactly what you are about.
if you really want an axe to grind then pick on the previous government who put the two carriers in mothballs. get hold of George Osbourne and give him a good kicking because he ripped the heart out of the armed forces with his austerity cuts.
Last edited:
nicko31
Well-known member
I might get that 1901 season ticket after all
No.
But we’re going to look weak when Trump reverses Biden’s decision and then we have to follow suit like the lap dog we are.
What we need is a coordinated European response.
Starmer will not follow Trump.
- May 8, 2018
- 10,626
f*** me, I’m going die whilst waiting for a half time pint
worthingseagull123
Well-known member
- May 5, 2012
- 2,688
portlock seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,778
Pathetic