politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Tories move to win the elder brothers’ vote – a wise mo

rural_voter said:

TheWatcher said:

Pulpstar said:

If Nuclear weapons are essential to our security -

How do Germany, Norway, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Japan all cope ?

Tbh I reckon the countries with Nuclear programs should at least get some subs back from the Non-Nuclear NATO members.

In practise if push came to shove we're completely tied down to the USA if WW3 happens anyway.

Most of those nations host US nuclear weapons, and other forces. There's your answer.

Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Austria and Finland are neutral; i.e., they do not belong to NATO.

Sweden and Switzerland rely on large conventional forces and conscription. They assume that no-one would come to their aid if they were attacked; they would fight alone.

Then there are Australia and New Zealand. Neither comes under 'the NATO umbrella'.

So, quite a lot of countries seem to consider themselves secure without having nuclear weapons or belonging to NATO.

Also while Australia uses the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for US warships carrying nuclear armaments, New Zealand has a "Tell or don't get to dock" policy to maintain their Nuclear Free Zone status.

OblitusSumMe said:

Did Saddam put any planes in the air in 2003, or would it have been the time before?

Plato said:

When did the RAF shoot something down? Isn't it all RN airman that do most of this now?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.

I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.

Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.

I'm also very strong on defence.

I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.

It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.

All the Iraqi Air Force defected to Iran during the first Gulf War.

Dair said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.

I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.

Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.

I'm also very strong on defence.

I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.

It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.

The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.

Perhaps you should do some reading up on how useful Carriers actually are.

Here's a clue. Aircraft Carriers have no defence against Ballistic Missiles (1940s technology). None.

No-one has a proven anti-ship ballistic missile.

I know, I know, you've heard about some Chinese something or other but that's a project, it's not an actual thing that's actually been used. IT was used by the US Navy to try and get more funding for their toys.

And, in practice no-one would use a ballistic missile against an actual carrier group because the trouble with ballistic missiles is that they look like ballistic missiles and that means they are indistinguishable from a nuclear weapon launch.

Scott_P said:

MikeL said:

The whole Trident thing is a charade because if Ed puts it to a vote Con will support it and it'll go through with a majority of approx 400.

So the SNP are totally irrelevant re Trident.

No

The Queen's speech comes before the "Trident vote"

The Tories will vote against a Labour Queen's speech, which includes Trident renewal

If the SNP vote against it, Ed is not PM

Trident doesn't have to be mentioned specifically in the Queens Speech.

Plato said:

When did the RAF shoot something down? Isn't it all RN airman that do most of this now?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.

I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.

Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.

I'm also very strong on defence.

I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.

It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.

Heck, the RN are so fierce they even sunk a submarine using a helicopter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Santa_Fe_(S-21)

Labour (and especially Hoon) should be ashamed of the way they emasculated the FAA.

MikeL said:

Trident doesn't have to be mentioned specifically in the Queens Speech.

Really?

£100bn pounds of spending, we forgot to mention?

Seems unlikely...

Alistair said:

Dair said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.

I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.

Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.

I'm also very strong on defence.

I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.

It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.

The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.

Perhaps you should do some reading up on how useful Carriers actually are.

Here's a clue. Aircraft Carriers have no defence against Ballistic Missiles (1940s technology). None.

No-one has a proven anti-ship ballistic missile.

I know, I know, you've heard about some Chinese something or other but that's a project, it's not an actual thing that's actually been used. IT was used by the US Navy to try and get more funding for their toys.

And, in practice no-one would use a ballistic missile against an actual carrier group because the trouble with ballistic missiles is that they look like ballistic missiles and that means they are indistinguishable from a nuclear weapon launch.

The new generation of supersonic sea-skimming missiles are a much more serious threat to our ships. Which is why holographic radar is so damn sexy.

F1: Button against women-only series:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32236556

More importantly, the BBC has a factual error. Susie Wolff was not 'overlooked' to replace Bottas in Australia. Nobody replaced him, because it's not within the rules to for a driver who does not qualify to race.

@LabourList: Trident renewal row: SNP rule out supply and confidence deal with Labour http://labli.st/1CYyHcq

Not sure what is funnier, the formulated outrage from LHQ, or the stench of hypocrisy.

How dare the tories adopt our style of politics.

Scott_P said:

MikeL said:

Trident doesn't have to be mentioned specifically in the Queens Speech.

Really?

£100bn pounds of spending, we forgot to mention?

Seems unlikely...

Queens Speech is mainly just a list of Bills (not relevant to Trident - replacing Trident doesn't need a new law) and very, very waffly statements, eg:

"My Government is committed to a strong defence".

What it boils down to is that the SNP has nowhere to go. They won't support Con. So they have to support Lab on vote by vote basis.

When it comes to the vote on Trident, SNP vote against - never mind - Con vote with Lab - majority 400.

The next day the Lab Minority Government moves on to whatever they are dealing with next and SNP again supports them.

Bottom line - if 500 MPs want Trident to be replaced it will be replaced.

Scott_P said:

@LabourList: Trident renewal row: SNP rule out supply and confidence deal with Labour http://labli.st/1CYyHcq

Tories shoot themselves in foot.

JosiasJessop said:

Alistair said:

Dair said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.

I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.

Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.

I'm also very strong on defence.

I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.

It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.

The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.

Perhaps you should do some reading up on how useful Carriers actually are.

Here's a clue. Aircraft Carriers have no defence against Ballistic Missiles (1940s technology). None.

No-one has a proven anti-ship ballistic missile.

I know, I know, you've heard about some Chinese something or other but that's a project, it's not an actual thing that's actually been used. IT was used by the US Navy to try and get more funding for their toys.

And, in practice no-one would use a ballistic missile against an actual carrier group because the trouble with ballistic missiles is that they look like ballistic missiles and that means they are indistinguishable from a nuclear weapon launch.

The new generation of supersonic sea-skimming missiles are a much more serious threat to our ships. Which is why holographic radar is so damn sexy.

I read something a few years back about holographic radar, but wasn't sure it had been implemented - Is it now 'fully operational' as the Emperor Palpatine may have once said

Labour are on a core vote strategy. Dropping Trident 2 would have absolutely no effect on their core vote. Might even get them a LOT of Greens onside and a big chunk of the former Liberals.

Labour need to stop trying to appeal to the right - it's not working. They need to appeal to their core and those who have drifted out to parties to the left of it.

MikeL said:

Tissue_Price said:

MikeL said:

FPT:

MORI reckoned almost exactly a 3:1 ratio between 18-24s and over 65s last time: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/Aggregate for web 210510.pdf

Thanks Tissue_Price - As soon as you look at those numbers it's obvious that they look far more reasonable.

And note MORI are using over 65s, not 60s.

Huge difference from today's YouGov.

"Just for fun" (© Peter Snow) I "unskewed" today's YouGov by using the estimates of turnout from the BES and it turned the 35-34 Lab lead (actually a bit less than 1% due to rounding) into a 36-34 Con lead (though really only about 1.5%). So the net "skew" is about 2.5%.

I'm not saying this is robust because - amongst other things - YouGov are not weighting to be accurate within age groups. But it's intriguing enough to keep an eye on.

Thanks a lot - good stuff.

I am conscious that it may be that YouGov would say the age weighting doesn't need to be right because it's covered off by past vote weighting (or now Jan/Feb polling vote weighting).

However, surely better if age weighting and past vote weighting both made sense.

I just don't like the yougov 'methodology' it seems (unsurprising really, given the owners) to be selecting a cohort with inbuilt Labour Bias and then trying to use the Labour leads to encourage people to vote for the winning team.

Just remember - they know who was polled and what each person returned - so it doesn't take much to select your new population predisposed to a specific way of voting. (And remember that yougov people are more likely to be of firm political opinion rather than 'don't knows')(

richardDodd said:

SO When the population of the west see a destroyed city with tens of thousands dead then it will focus even the most woolLy of minds..in the meantime stay safe in your pink little Englander world... Everybody out there loves us..

And what will the Moslem world do when it sees us blowing up Mecca?

@MrHarryCole: Y'day Ed called DC "the political wing of the offshore tax industry". Today he's sobbing into his bacon sarnie about negative campaigning.

Any tips for the Grand National?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Any tips for the Grand National?

A horse will win

Danny565 said:

Dair said:

Labour are on a core vote strategy. Dropping Trident 2 would have absolutely no effect on their core vote. Might even get them a LOT of Greens onside and a big chunk of the former Liberals.

Imo, a lot of "working-class" core Labour voters wouldn't take well to any impression of Labour being soft on defence. It was one of the main reasons Thatcher made inroads with those voters.

If they committed to fitting out HMS Prince Charles and arming it along with thousands of jobs that would bring, they don't need to look soft, they can sell it as "far more suited to the modern threats like ISIS" there little risk of that.

Not persuaded they would lose anything even without the Prince Charles commitment.

Alistair said:

Dair said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.

I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.

Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.

I'm also very strong on defence.

I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.

It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.

The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.

Perhaps you should do some reading up on how useful Carriers actually are.

Here's a clue. Aircraft Carriers have no defence against Ballistic Missiles (1940s technology). None.

No-one has a proven anti-ship ballistic missile.

I know, I know, you've heard about some Chinese something or other but that's a project, it's not an actual thing that's actually been used. IT was used by the US Navy to try and get more funding for their toys.

And, in practice no-one would use a ballistic missile against an actual carrier group because the trouble with ballistic missiles is that they look like ballistic missiles and that means they are indistinguishable from a nuclear weapon launch.

The war nerd had good article explaining why the navy, but especially carriers, are just sitting ducks.

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/2/

Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, has been campaigning in Aberdeenshire. She accused the SNP of being “all over the place” on whether to have a second independence referendum.

The SNP seem to by trying to ride two horses, saying to people, ‘It’s okay, we’re a safe vote, we’re not going to push for another referendum’, and then saying to their tens of thousands of new members ‘don’t worry another referendum is just around the corner and we can push for it in one more heave’.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/09/election-2015-live-blog-conservatives-challenge-ed-miliband-trident-nuclear-labour

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.

I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.

Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.

I'm also very strong on defence.

I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.

It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.

The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.

I am aware that it's something the Navy is tribally keen on, but I have some sympathy with the view that the RAF should be disbanded and merged back into the Navy and Army.

It was split off in 1918 because those two services were using aircraft purely in local support of ships and armies, and it was thought a strategic purpose for air power was needed. The RAF came into being so somebody would start thinking about how to bomb German cities the way the Germans were bombing ours.

In fact the RAF's strategic role is now better undertaken by missiles fired from ships and submarines, ditto any nuclear role. It has repeatedly been shown, from Kuantan in 1941 to San Carlos Water in 1982, that the RAF cannot protect the navy's ships at sea - for which you need embarked fleet defence fighters.

So we are back to the Navy and Army having their own integral air capability. OK, there is a potential procurement inefficiency here, but there is in either case; in the 1930s the RAF marginalised the Fleet Air Arm so it ended up with generally poor equipment, and in the 1970s we developed the Tornado and left ourselves with no naval fighter (the Harrier was not intended to be a fighter, but happens to be versatile enough to be quite a good one).

We long ago got shot of the Air Ministry and I do wonder why the Air Force still exists. Presumably nobody wants to disband the force that won the Battle of Britain?

Interestingly I've just had lunch with some friends and after sitting down someone said "right let's not talk politics........

........Why are the Tories getting so personal?"

Which just goes to show some of these stories do get through though I still don't know what the story is.

Tabman said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.

I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.

Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.

I'm also very strong on defence.

I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.

It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.

The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.

The Navy have very few fixed-wing pilots left since the demise of the Harrier (and even then Joint Force Harrier meant some of the ship-borne jobs were undertaken by RAF pilots). I believe the handful that remain are currently flying Super Entendards with the French in order to keep carrier skills alive until 2020.

When the F-35 comes on stream again I believe its going to be a joint force with complete interoperability between land and ship based aircraft and pilots, so ship-borne crews will be a mix of RN and RAF pilots (and vice versa).

Optimistic that you think the F35 will come into service. Awful plane, designed to be all things to all services and so does nothing well. Anyway everything will be drones and remote controlled in the future.

Weejonny

"I just don't like the yougov 'methodology' it seems (unsurprising really, given the owners) to be selecting a cohort with inbuilt Labour Bias and then trying to use the Labour leads to encourage people to vote for the winning team".

I think the owners are all Tories but I'm sure that like most businessmen in public companies their business comes first which involves being accurate

FalseFlag said:

Tabman said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.

I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.

Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.

I'm also very strong on defence.

I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.

It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.

The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.

The Navy have very few fixed-wing pilots left since the demise of the Harrier (and even then Joint Force Harrier meant some of the ship-borne jobs were undertaken by RAF pilots). I believe the handful that remain are currently flying Super Entendards with the French in order to keep carrier skills alive until 2020.

When the F-35 comes on stream again I believe its going to be a joint force with complete interoperability between land and ship based aircraft and pilots, so ship-borne crews will be a mix of RN and RAF pilots (and vice versa).

Optimistic that you think the F35 will come into service. Awful plane, designed to be all things to all services and so does nothing well. Anyway everything will be drones and remote controlled in the future.

Not a view that I necessarily disagree with. I would have much preferred the Cat and Trap version if we have to have it.

We could have bought F18s or Super Etendards off the shelf.

JosiasJessop said:

Dair said:

Danny565 said:

Dair said:

Labour are on a core vote strategy. Dropping Trident 2 would have absolutely no effect on their core vote. Might even get them a LOT of Greens onside and a big chunk of the former Liberals.

Imo, a lot of "working-class" core Labour voters wouldn't take well to any impression of Labour being soft on defence. It was one of the main reasons Thatcher made inroads with those voters.

If they committed to fitting out HMS Prince Charles and arming it along with thousands of jobs that would bring, they don't need to look soft, they can sell it as "far more suited to the modern threats like ISIS" there little risk of that.

Not persuaded they would lose anything even without the Prince Charles commitment.

Cameron and the Conservatives have already committed to fitting out the PoW and putting it (*) into service.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29075307

(*) I think ships are meant to be referred to as 'her'., but that seems wrong with one called the Prince of Wales?

She's still a she even with a male name.

And oh, those Tories, spending from the Magic Money Tree again. When will they learn.

The thing about the core vote strategies the Tories and Labour are currently pursuing is that they also end up galvanising the other side. If you want to drive anti-Tories to Labour, the kind of attack that Fallon engaged in today is almost custom made to do it. as it plays perfectly into that Nasty Party image. Of course, Labour has done similar stuff to Cameron so it can hardly complain, but that's not really the point: it's all about general perceptions and rightly or wrongly Labour can get away with this kind of stuff more than the Tories can.

This type of direct attack is brutal. I assume that it has been focus grouped within an inch of its life. I don't care for it one little bit, but it isn't aimed at me.

Such attacks can work, viz Michael Foot in 1983. Ed Miliband complaining about the personal nature of the attacks will not assist Labour. People will agree with him, but they might still agree with the substance of the attack on him.

That said, the Conservatives urgently need some policy substance. So far we've just had pap and Long Term Economic Plan. It isn't enough to get David Cameron back into Number 10.

Scott_P said:

@faisalislam: Con HQ candidate document wordcloud: "Labour" (360 mentions)/ "Miliband" (99) large. "Cameron" (10) didn't register: http://t.co/YEOfAE2b8B

...and still some people claim today's events are the Tories off message...

I'd have thought you'd want Miliband and Labour switched round.

FalseFlag said:

Alistair said:

Dair said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.

I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.

Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.

I'm also very strong on defence.

I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.

It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.

The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.

Perhaps you should do some reading up on how useful Carriers actually are.

Here's a clue. Aircraft Carriers have no defence against Ballistic Missiles (1940s technology). None.

No-one has a proven anti-ship ballistic missile.

I know, I know, you've heard about some Chinese something or other but that's a project, it's not an actual thing that's actually been used. IT was used by the US Navy to try and get more funding for their toys.

And, in practice no-one would use a ballistic missile against an actual carrier group because the trouble with ballistic missiles is that they look like ballistic missiles and that means they are indistinguishable from a nuclear weapon launch.

The war nerd had good article explaining why the navy, but especially carriers, are just sitting ducks.

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/2/

The central theme of that article seems bogus to me: Harpoon missiles are in no way 'ballistic' missiles, and the pop-up manoeuvre does not make it one.

All those referencing Cain and Abel should recall that Cain was the older brother. And it was Cain that ended up in the land of Nod, while when Ed Miliband speaks, it's the audience that is sent there.

JosiasJessop said:

FalseFlag said:

Alistair said:

Dair said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.

I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.

Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.

I'm also very strong on defence.

I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.

It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.

The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.

Perhaps you should do some reading up on how useful Carriers actually are.

Here's a clue. Aircraft Carriers have no defence against Ballistic Missiles (1940s technology). None.

No-one has a proven anti-ship ballistic missile.

I know, I know, you've heard about some Chinese something or other but that's a project, it's not an actual thing that's actually been used. IT was used by the US Navy to try and get more funding for their toys.

And, in practice no-one would use a ballistic missile against an actual carrier group because the trouble with ballistic missiles is that they look like ballistic missiles and that means they are indistinguishable from a nuclear weapon launch.

The war nerd had good article explaining why the navy, but especially carriers, are just sitting ducks.

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/2/

The central theme of that article seems bogus to me: Harpoon missiles are in no way 'ballistic' missiles, and the pop-up manoeuvre does not make it one.

When asked by Congress the USN admitted that a carrier's life expectancy was a few days, maybe a week if they stayed in port in real war scenario.

FalseFlag said:

Tabman said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Indigo said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Danny565 said:

I'm a loony lefty, but I like the idea of keeping Trident. It might be irrational, but I don't want to risk being "naked" in this world with so many threats, thanks.

I'm a far right Tory, and I'd be ok with us not replacing Trident.

Your the liberal metro elite leader of Economical Dry But Not Banging On About Europe and Gays.

I'm also very strong on defence.

I'd increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and spend the money on the Navy and our conventional forces.

It is a shame, the RAF really have become the few.

The role for the RAF is fading fast, projecting power is about carriers, you could almost reduce the RAF to an airspace defense/interdiction force and move all the strike capability to Fleet Air Arm (if we had a few real carriers and support ships). Sadly a Nimitz class carrier costs around $4.5bn, so about twice as much as the whole trident replacement program.

The Navy have very few fixed-wing pilots left since the demise of the Harrier (and even then Joint Force Harrier meant some of the ship-borne jobs were undertaken by RAF pilots). I believe the handful that remain are currently flying Super Entendards with the French in order to keep carrier skills alive until 2020.

When the F-35 comes on stream again I believe its going to be a joint force with complete interoperability between land and ship based aircraft and pilots, so ship-borne crews will be a mix of RN and RAF pilots (and vice versa).

Optimistic that you think the F35 will come into service. Awful plane, designed to be all things to all services and so does nothing well. Anyway everything will be drones and remote controlled in the future.

Have you ever heard of Duncan Sandys, and the damage similar thinking did to Britain's defence?