Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 137451	2014-07-10 06:36:00	British Super Military Ramp Up	kahawai chaser (3545)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1378908	2014-07-10 06:36:00	UK Going Overboard with their military spending? First the Super Jet (www.dailymail.co.uk) (100 mil pounds), then super subs (www.dailymail.co.uk) (1 billion pounds), and now their super aircraft carrier (www.bbc.com) (6.2 billion pounds). Yet they dumped their Harriers on the US (cool when I saw on TV when they show cased them '71 or 72) which are now squatting in Arizona's "bone-yard" (en.mercopress.com) for parts after UK MOD tried to cover up (www.dailymail.co.uk) refit costs (UK sun - calls them the flying corpse). Thought UK would have made advanced versions over the years. Kinda of admired British engineering, but for military? What they going to do with their carrier? UK don't seem to (or we hear about) the UK having a significant global role, always seems to be the US taking the initiative.	kahawai chaser (3545)
1378909	2014-07-10 08:12:00	I didn't think the Poms had any money for military spending..	paulw (1826)
1378910	2014-07-10 08:22:00	I didn't think the Poms had any money for military spending.. Ummm ... would it have been something to do with the build up to the referendum if Scotland was to remain in the UK?	WalOne (4202)
1378911	2014-07-10 08:58:00	I didn't think the Poms had any money for military spending.. This has never deterred them in the past. By tradition though, they will get abysmal value for the taxpayers shillings.	R2x1 (4628)
1378912	2014-07-10 09:40:00	Cheaper than rebuilding Hadrian's wall to keep the pesky Scots in the highlands. Irish navies have formed a union and are manning the picket lines while warming themselves with braziers and a few pints of the black stuff	gary67 (56)
1378913	2014-07-10 10:19:00	Have always been impressed by the Harriers and wondered why they were discontinued. Which also raises the question as to why other countries haven't developed a similar VTOL air frame, especially the Americans who spend extraordinary sums. Anyway here is one answer: "Highly skilled pilots are required to pilot the Harrier. There is a high maintenance requirement. They are relatively slow by fast jet standards and have a short range and payload." In other words they are slow and can't go very far.	Winston001 (3612)
1378914	2014-07-10 10:28:00	While on this topic I was also perplexed as to why the USAF are retiring the A10 Warthog. You know the one - basically a Gattling Gun with wings. The ground troops love them. Apparently they are vulnerable to ground launched rockets but mostly its because the USAF is facing budget reductions. Its a raging debate because these aircraft are loved and highly valued by the grunts on the ground. I think the US Navy are going to keep their versions flying.	Winston001 (3612)
1378915	2014-07-10 10:52:00	UK Going Overboard with their military spending? Kinda of admired British engineering, but for military? UK don't seem to (or we hear about) the UK having a significant global role, always seems to be the US taking the initiative . True but maybe its because we are (fortunately) so isolated . I'd guess the British navy is very visible around Europe, Mediterranean, and the Persian Gulf . Interestingly the British Navy is the 4th largest in the world but in terms of force projection - warships, nuclear subs, and nuclear missiles, then they are in 2nd equal place with France and Russia . Interestingly China, Japan, and Taiwan have huge navies but they are littoral, not global . Of course the US is the elephant in the room which is why we think of them first .	Winston001 (3612)
1378916	2014-07-10 22:30:00	Great Britain the hope of Lucas, say no more.	prefect (6291)
1378917	2014-07-10 23:44:00	I didn't think the Poms had any money for military spending.. When has that stopped any country spending up large on Military hardware. :-)	1101 (13337)
1 2