News Harriers gone, Tornado's next?

[Access Denied]

May

Maybe we should stop spending money on eduction while we're at it and transfer that to the MoD. More shortsighted budget cuts please!

Where do you think our most lucrative corporate foreign trade deals come from? Countries we bribe into taking them. We get our foreign aid back and then some so stop your knee jerk daily mail bullshit and think it through.

Why do we need a military? To stop people we dont like fucking us. In 100 years do you want a bigger military or less people who dont like us? I know which I prefer!

Foreign Aid Bill

The UK’s aid bill stood at £8.4billion last year and is forecast to hit £12.6billion in 2014.

Trade Deficit

Hardly seems like the £8.4Billion spent is making any difference with a trade deficit of £4billion a month last year. So I say again, stop spending so much on foreign aid and since the governmet is showing no signs of pulling our troops out of Afghanistan, use the money to make sure they've got the equipment they need to do their fucking jobs.

 

[Hawkwind]

Aren't the Tornados used for long range air to ground strikes?

Two main variants:
- low level bomber / Ground Recon, this is what the Tornado was developed for. Ground hugging fast jet with a big payload. Designed to fly under radar coverage and hit the ruskies.
- ADF / ADV - Air Defence Variant. Basically fast jet Intercept.

Basically the ADF role is now taken by the EFA (Typhoon) and the Ground variants are obsolete due to cruise missiles and stealth bombers.

 

[Hawkwind]

Dont forget now we have increased from a platoon of marines on the island to a garrison with RAF base. We have a much larger active presence than 1982. So many factors are different now than then. As much as would like the harriers to stay is think they have made the correct choice for now. At least that money can go towards wars we are actually involved in at the moment, hopefully saving thousands of lives currently rather than what ifs

They are there for a reason and it's not to protect a few hundred sheep and a couple of small villages - OIL!!!!

 

[Chilly]

Hardly seems like the £8.4Billion spent is making any difference with a trade deficit of £4billion a month last year. So I say again, stop spending so much on foreign aid and since the governmet is showing no signs of pulling our troops out of Afghanistan, use the money to make sure they've got the equipment they need to do their fucking jobs.

Really? Just because we're in a recession and have a trade deficit, we should stop investing in foreign countries to encourage them to trade with us and reduce our deficit? Temporarily I'm sure it wouldnt make much difference but it would bite over the coming years as countries who would normally turn to us for things like road, bridge or orther civil projects might instead turn to the chinese or do it themselves.

I'm not personally a massive fan of the arms trade, but since it's legal and regulated I'm glad we're involved and make a shitload of money from it. Arms deals are one of the key things we get from foreign aid deals in many cases.

As anyone who has even the smallest of feet on a proper career ladder knows, schmoozing is the only sure way to get ahead. Sure, you can wear nice suits and do the best job, but ultimately some cunt will come along and bribe/suck/flirt his/her way to the front. We need to be that cunt and it costs money. Stop being so naïve.

 

[soze]

Just reading that the Argie Thatcher still will not shut up about the Falklands. With the prince about to head out there with the RAF does anyone think we will make up a reason to have a sub and a few ships on operations nearby just in case?

 

[Mabs]

on balance , i really want them to have another go

mainly cos it will test the whole new EU shit, and i think it will fall apart with people making excuses etc.. rather than wait till/if we actually do need it, and it fails then

 

[Gumbo]

They won't try because they'll get pounded. They haven't recovered in the least since the last time. Their actual operational airforce consists of little more than lear jets to fly el presidente about. We have the added advantage of Tomahawk equipped subs to lay waste to their C&C and airfields from hundreds of miles offshore. The Tornado missions to Libya were further than the famous Vulcan 607 mission, and we did hundreds of them last year.

They simply won't try.

 

[Job]

No, but they can drum up a lot of support, political pressure will decide it in the end, if the whole of South America backs the Argies, then the US will be put in a difficult position and most likely side with them.
As has been mentioned, what will Europe do?

 

[Gumbo]

Doesn't matter what Europe do, I have to wonder what it is you think they contributed, or didn't, last time around. Nor does it matter what the rest of the America's say or do. The US were officially neutral last time for the same reason, although we got plenty of CIA help (alledgedly).

The Falklands are sovereign British territory. You don't get to invade us and take our territory. The UN would be behind us, absolutely no question. The key point is though, we wouldn't need any allies, like in other recent conflicts, Iraq/Afghan etc. The Argentinian armed forces are far too backward. Even last time round, when arguably our forces were more evenly matched, once we had our forces in place we completely wiped the floor with them.

They won't get a ship or an aircraft close without us sinking/downing it. We maintain a garrison of 500, instead of 1982's 40 Royal Marines. And we could deploy as many as we wanted within a couple of days, rather than a few weeks, like last time. The current force is from the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment. They've completed 2 tours of Afghanistan recently. They know how to fight.

I said in my post above, They simply won't try. But if they did, it would be slaughter, and not for the British.

 

[soze]

Doesn't matter what Europe do, I have to wonder what it is you think they contributed, or didn't, last time around. Nor does it matter what the rest of the America's say or do. The US were officially neutral last time for the same reason, although we got plenty of CIA help (alledgedly).

He is refering to the pact that should let us land our aircraft on their carriers ect. So if we meed one we should be able to request help from France.

 

[Gumbo]

I know. But we didn't need a carrier to operate in Libya, from bases in the UK. Ascension is less distance to the Falklands. RAF Mount Pleasant can easily operate a much increased force, perhaps a full squadron of Typhoons, and a squadron of Tornados, installed and operating within 7 days of a decision. Besides, we can just use Tomahawks for most of our destruction of the Argentine C&C. The Argentines don't have an airforce. They're even down to their last 2 functioning Hercs.

The idea that they pose any kind of threat is laughable, but I'm glad to see we still take the laughable threat seriously, I suppose otherwise it wouldn't be so funny.

 

[soze]

A lot of the serious nuts are rumouring they will borrow planes and pilots from other nations to get a good deal on the oil found. So it might not be so funny.

 

[MYstIC G]

A lot of the serious nuts are rumouring they will borrow planes and pilots from other nations to get a good deal on the oil found. So it might not be so funny.

Why would Argentina do that deal, it would be them and only them who would suffer the blowback. Bad trade.

 

[DaGaffer]

Why would Argentina do that deal, it would be them and only them who would suffer the blowback. Bad trade.

Indeed, and the only nation in South America with the equipment to do that kind of deal is Venezuela, who might do it for ideological reasons, but, a. don't need the oil, and b. don't particularly get on with Argentina politically. Outside of South America, the Russians and Chinese are the only logical beneficiaries, and neither needs the hassle of a proxy war with the UK. Its a fantasy.

 

[soze]

Why would Argentina do that deal, it would be them and only them who would suffer the blowback. Bad trade.

The Rumors suggest it would be China who have the teeth to go toe to toe with us. I do not think its true but would we risk getting into a full fight with China if they loaned jets to Argentina.

Again this is not me this is conspiracy nuts who realise China will need plenty of oil in the future too.

 

[DaGaffer]

The Rumors suggest it would be China who have the teeth to go toe to toe with us. I do not think its true but would we risk getting into a full fight with China if they loaned jets to Argentina.

Again this is not me this is conspiracy nuts who realise China will need plenty of oil in the future too.

Some people are reading far too much Tom Clancy. That stuff will rot your mind.

 

[MYstIC G]

The Rumors suggest it would be China who have the teeth to go toe to toe with us. I do not think its true but would we risk getting into a full fight with China if they loaned jets to Argentina.

Again this is not me this is conspiracy nuts who realise China will need plenty of oil in the future too.

Everywhere needs Oil. Ravaging the face of the planet for it and expending oil at a vastly accelerated rate in order to achieve it is not sensible for anyone.

Besides, if China were to go for broke, why wouldn't they go for Oil fields in areas where they can also mass transport troops by land and that contain far larger confirmed resources, e.g. Saudi Arabia

 

[DaGaffer]

Everywhere needs Oil. Ravaging the face of the planet for it and expending oil at a vastly accelerated rate in order to achieve it is not sensible for anyone.

Besides, if China were to go for broke, why wouldn't they go for Oil fields in areas where they can also mass transport troops by land and that contain far larger confirmed resources, e.g. Saudi Arabia

Under that scenario, Siberia would make a lot more sense than Saudi.

 

[MYstIC G]

Under that scenario, Siberia would make a lot more sense than Saudi.

Probably but I don't have a map in my head of where all the oil is