A humiliating end for HMS Ark Royal and the royal navy.

elephantium · 03-29-11, 08:06 PM

I tend to agree with the people saying that Ark Royal's decommissioning is foolishly premature. I'm generally in favor of the U.K. increasing its military power from the current level (within reason, of course).

My country's military power, OTOH, could use a SERIOUS haircut. It's completely unnecessary to maintain over half the world's naval power and close to half of the world's entire military budget. If I were in charge, I'd cut back to 30% of global military spending and still have plenty of safety margin in military terms.

I'd decommission some of the U.S. carriers, too, which might sound strange at first ... but it's a far cry from reducing the carrier fleet by ~10-20% to eliminating it for 8 years.

tommo8993 · 03-30-11, 01:50 PM

yeah, our defence policy relies to much on america. No offence but you have never help us with being attack first. WW1 and WW2 you were attack, thats the only time you have helped us i think. The falklands you said you had a non intervntion policy in south america, The campain would of been a lot easier with a carrier the sixe of enterprize their. Suez crisis america pretty much allied itself with the egyptians against us. Not to mention the monroe doctorine which sped up the demise of the brittish empire.

Tin Can Sailor · 05-12-11, 05:19 PM

I beg to differ with the statement that the United States waited until it was attacked before it helped England. Tell that to the dead from the USS Kearny and the USS Reuben James. They were killed escorting convoys to England in October 1941 prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Both ships were torpedoed by German subs. The Kearny survived. The Reuben James was sunk. A Brit PBY (made in the USA) flown by an American pilot found the Bismarck. Other Americans risked and gave their lives flying and fighting with the RAF in the Battle of Britain. No mister, America didn't wait to be attacked to go to the aid of their friends the English.

Captain Nemo · 05-13-11, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tin Can Sailor

I beg to differ with the statement that the United States waited until it was attacked before it helped England. Tell that to the dead from the USS Kearny and the USS Reuben James. They were killed escorting convoys to England in October 1941 prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Both ships were torpedoed by German subs. The Kearny survived. The Reuben James was sunk. A Brit PBY (made in the USA) flown by an American pilot found the Bismarck. Other Americans risked and gave their lives flying and fighting with the RAF in the Battle of Britain. No mister, America didn't wait to be attacked to go to the aid of their friends the English.

They are good examples of American casualities prior to the USA's official entry into WWII, but it must also be remembered the financial aid the USA provided Great Britain before their entry into the war through lend lease etc.

Getting back to the original subject, a future global conflict like the two world wars is extremely unlikely and it must be considered does the UK need aircraft carriers, trident submarines and the hefty cost that goes with them in the modern world? OK the UK has the Falklands to protect, but strategically they are worthless, the days of the Empire are long gone. The UK is no longer the superpower it used to be prior to WWII and can it really be justified spending billions of pounds on such hardware when the biggest threat today seems to be terrorism? And most importantly, can the country really afford it?

Nemo

03-29-11, 08:06 PM	#1
elephantium Bosun Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 62 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I tend to agree with the people saying that Ark Royal's decommissioning is foolishly premature. I'm generally in favor of the U.K. increasing its military power from the current level (within reason, of course). My country's military power, OTOH, could use a SERIOUS haircut. It's completely unnecessary to maintain over half the world's naval power and close to half of the world's entire military budget. If I were in charge, I'd cut back to 30% of global military spending and still have plenty of safety margin in military terms. I'd decommission some of the U.S. carriers, too, which might sound strange at first ... but it's a far cry from reducing the carrier fleet by ~10-20% to eliminating it for 8 years.

03-30-11, 01:50 PM	#2
tommo8993 Helmsman Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 104 Downloads: 17 Uploads: 0	yeah, our defence policy relies to much on america. No offence but you have never help us with being attack first. WW1 and WW2 you were attack, thats the only time you have helped us i think. The falklands you said you had a non intervntion policy in south america, The campain would of been a lot easier with a carrier the sixe of enterprize their. Suez crisis america pretty much allied itself with the egyptians against us. Not to mention the monroe doctorine which sped up the demise of the brittish empire.

05-12-11, 05:19 PM	#3
Tin Can Sailor Bilge Rat Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 1 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I beg to differ with the statement that the United States waited until it was attacked before it helped England. Tell that to the dead from the USS Kearny and the USS Reuben James. They were killed escorting convoys to England in October 1941 prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Both ships were torpedoed by German subs. The Kearny survived. The Reuben James was sunk. A Brit PBY (made in the USA) flown by an American pilot found the Bismarck. Other Americans risked and gave their lives flying and fighting with the RAF in the Battle of Britain. No mister, America didn't wait to be attacked to go to the aid of their friends the English.