HMS Queen Elizabeth

[anonymous-user]

Boatbuoy said:

They'll come into their own in the upcoming 'Battle of Rockall'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48580227

The Chinese would have made that into an airbase years ago.

[AshVX220]

Ayahuasca said:

It’s a good question and the answer is not the obvious and face value ‘they will allow us to project power anywhere in the world’, because we have no real need to do that, also it is not ‘they will help to defend the UK’, because they won’t, and as an island we are already a very large aircraft carrier.

What they will do is give the UK a ticket to the big boys club, increase the UK’s power and prestige, make us an ‘international player who must be listened to’, allow us to help out the USA in its foreign adventures, and perhaps help us keep our permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

In short, they will do what is currently done by the current Vanguard / Trident fleet, with the added benefit of being able to host cocktail parties for foreign businessmen.

They may also make it politically more acceptable to do away with the Trident fleet, which will save us around £50 billion, which makes the £6.2 billion carriers a a very good investment.

Not entirely accurate, it is our Nuclear Deterrent that gives us a seat at "the big boys table" of the UN security council. The answer above yours is the simplest response, an insurance policy. Fine today our main threat is from an ideology, not a nation state, but who knows where the main threat will come from over the course of the 50 years of service these ships will provide, we just don't know. But being able to meet any current perceived threat is a key requirement.

[98elise]

Ayahuasca said:

Piginapoke said:

Can someone please explain exactly what these £6.2bn carriers will do.

It’s a good question and the answer is not the obvious and face value ‘they will allow us to project power anywhere in the world’, because we have no real need to do that, also it is not ‘they will help to defend the UK’, because they won’t, and as an island we are already a very large aircraft carrier.

What they will do is give the UK a ticket to the big boys club, increase the UK’s power and prestige, make us an ‘international player who must be listened to’, allow us to help out the USA in its foreign adventures, and perhaps help us keep our permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

In short, they will do what is currently done by the current Vanguard / Trident fleet, with the added benefit of being able to host cocktail parties for foreign businessmen.

They may also make it politically more acceptable to do away with the Trident fleet, which will save us around £50 billion, which makes the £6.2 billion carriers a a very good investment.

It wouldn't save 50bn. We would still need to spend that money on defence as a member of NATO. Personally I'm happy that we have an independent MAD capability, especially when countries like NK have nuclear weapons.

I would be even happier though if Nuclear weapons were banned by all countries.

[AshVX220]

98elise said:

It wouldn't save 50bn. We would still need to spend that money on defence as a member of NATO. Personally I'm happy that we have an independent MAD capability, especially when countries like NK have nuclear weapons.

I would be even happier though if Nuclear weapons were banned by all countries.

Any sane person would and I can't understand why all nations aren't prepared to get together to achieve this, unfortunately once that particular pandora's box was opened it seems to difficult to close it.

[mcdjl]

AshVX220 said:

98elise said:

It wouldn't save 50bn. We would still need to spend that money on defence as a member of NATO. Personally I'm happy that we have an independent MAD capability, especially when countries like NK have nuclear weapons.

I would be even happier though if Nuclear weapons were banned by all countries.

Any sane person would and I can't understand why all nations aren't prepared to get together to achieve this, unfortunately once that particular pandora's box was opened it seems to difficult to close it.

Would you actually trust Russia to get rid of its nuclear weapons? Never mind the Israelis who 'don't' have any. Or North Korea etc. One country gave up its weapons: Ukraine with the USA/Rusia promising to be nice/look after it. Look how well that's working out.

[Condi]

mcdjl said:

Would you actually trust Russia to get rid of its nuclear weapons? Never mind the Israelis who 'don't' have any. Or North Korea etc. One country gave up its weapons: Ukraine with the USA/Rusia promising to be nice/look after it. Look how well that's working out.

1 country didnt, so we invaded and toppled the regime only to find the weapons they didnt give up didnt exist anyway.

[mcdjl]

Condi said:

1 country didnt, so we invaded and toppled the regime only to find the weapons they didnt give up didnt exist anyway.

Might have been developing them (definitely wanted to at some point), but definitely didn't have when we invaded....not really selling giving up having Trident though.

[hidetheelephants]

mcdjl said:

One country gave up its weapons: Ukraine with the USA/Rusia promising to be nice/look after it. Look how well that's working out.

The UK was a signatory of that treaty too. We have a poor record of making good on our defence treaties when the st hits the fan, we bottled it when Turkey invaded Cyprus.

South Africa also unilaterally disarmed; they have 99 problems but being invaded by Russia isn't one of them.

[anonymous-user]

hidetheelephants said:

we bottled it when Turkey invaded Cyprus.

.

I think the general thought at the time was that the Greeks were asking for it.

[Le Controleur Horizontal]

El stovey said:

I think the general thought at the time was that the Greeks were asking for it.

I lived in Cyprus at the time (father in the RAF), the Greeks most certainly were. The Greeks treatment of the indigenous Turks was first time I ever thought about people being treated badly by others (looking back at a child's thoughts, I was very young).

Edited by Le Controleur Horizontal on Friday 21st June 07:38

[AshVX220]

mcdjl said:

AshVX220 said:

98elise said:

It wouldn't save 50bn. We would still need to spend that money on defence as a member of NATO. Personally I'm happy that we have an independent MAD capability, especially when countries like NK have nuclear weapons.

I would be even happier though if Nuclear weapons were banned by all countries.

Any sane person would and I can't understand why all nations aren't prepared to get together to achieve this, unfortunately once that particular pandora's box was opened it seems to difficult to close it.

Would you actually trust Russia to get rid of its nuclear weapons? Never mind the Israelis who 'don't' have any. Or North Korea etc. One country gave up its weapons: Ukraine with the USA/Rusia promising to be nice/look after it. Look how well that's working out.

Exactly, and that's the point and the problem.

[IanH755]

AshVX220 said:

98elise said:

It wouldn't save 50bn. We would still need to spend that money on defence as a member of NATO. Personally I'm happy that we have an independent MAD capability, especially when countries like NK have nuclear weapons.

I would be even happier though if Nuclear weapons were banned by all countries.

Any sane person would and I can't understand why all nations aren't prepared to get together to achieve this, unfortunately once that particular pandora's box was opened it seems to difficult to close it.

I disagree, without a "Holy Crap we're all going to die" object stopping wars between super-powers from happening I think we'd have had another World War by now between the US/USSR causing far more deaths than we currently have with just much smaller proxy wars between the two.

Sadly as they are the ultimate symbol of power, "sanity" takes a back step to "power" and/or "perceived safety from attack" when it comes to having them.

[Lurking Lawyer]

I see Nick Cooke-Priest has resigned his commission.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/04/captai...

[mikal83]

Lurking Lawyer said:

I see Nick Cooke-Priest has resigned his commission.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/04/captai...

With a massive pension and will be hired by some military hardware supplier as a consultant

[anonymous-user]

mikal83 said:

With a massive pension and will be hired by some military hardware supplier as a consultant

Good, keeps the skills in the industry

[FourWheelDrift]

Next [insert cruise line] captain?

[stevesingo]

pablo said:

mikal83 said:

With a massive pension and will be hired by some military hardware supplier as a consultant

Good, keeps the skills in the industry

Not so good. Influencing decision makers, who were once his peers, to make decision from which he will benefit more than the Armed Forces. There are countless service personnel who state "who's fking idea was it to procure x, y, z?" On the board of almost every company which as a significant MOD contract will be an ex OF-6.

[Seight_Returns]

mikal83 said:

will be hired by some military hardware supplier as a consultant

Ford presumably.

[ecsrobin]

Seight_Returns said:

mikal83 said:

will be hired by some military hardware supplier as a consultant

Ford presumably.

[98elise]

mikal83 said:

Lurking Lawyer said:

I see Nick Cooke-Priest has resigned his commission.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/04/captai...

With a massive pension and will be hired by some military hardware supplier as a consultant

Why would his pension be in question? He's resigned from his job, and his pension will be whatever he's entitled to for his rank, and number of years service, and his age.

He's also entitled to work for whoever he wants to when he's left the service.