Ark Royal decomissioning

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

What!! Er, is this another Yankee myth? Whereby they fought on both sides of the Franco Prussian war, and still won Sorry cobber, Its just that I've never heard this one before; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt

Nope, was an actual offer. Not sure why the British government didn't accept. Maybe it's the same reason why they've rejected an offer of a Wasp & its Harriers to boost security at the coming London Olympic Games, they think it makes the UK look weak.

[Finfan]

What!! Er, is this another Yankee myth? Whereby they fought on both sides of the Franco Prussian war, and still won Sorry cobber, Its just that I've never heard this one before; but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt

Nope, was an actual offer. Not sure why the British government didn't accept. Maybe it's the same reason why they've rejected an offer of a Wasp & its Harriers to boost security at the coming London Olympic Games, they think it makes the UK look weak.

There have always been rumors going about that an offer for a Nimitz-class and a battlegroup was to be made if the FAA or the COAN managed to sink the Hermes. As to the wasp-class in the Thames, well its quite clearly a ridiculous offer that would never be accepted, as it would imply massive weakness by the UK security forces. Furthermore, such a craft just sitting in the river would probably be mostly useless, it certainly could not add anything that the British forces don't already have.

[Hood]

Yeah, but you have to realsitically say that the MOD has been spending a packet on the Falklands all these years since 1982 which probably by now adds up to a chunk of the spending all because of political bluster and the promise of riches beyond your wildest dreams via oil always just seemingly around the corner...

I agree a repeat of the 1982 seems unthinkable now, not enough surface ships, no carriers, not enough amphibious vessels, probably not even enough tankers and replenishment ships to maintain a naval force for a month out there. No where to fly from but let's remember that world poltics has changed a great deal since 1982. Not sure what the RAF could do, but then could a dozen Harriers with limited air-air capability from one carrier really pull off a repeat 1982 performance? All the FRS.2s are scrap now so the FAA has no fighters, just a few RAF gound-attack Harriers, fleet defence would still be in the hands of the last Type 42s and the couple of Type 45s now complete. Still the last few SSNs could have a big impact with Tomahawk etc and sink a few Argentine ships but then I figure todays tabloids wouldn't have headlines like Gocha! these days.

More importantly can one or two scenarios (Afghanistan and the Falklands) really be allowed to warp the enitre defence policy for the next 10-20 years?

[Portsmouth Bill]

Nope, was an actual offer. Not sure why the British government didn't accept. Maybe it's the same reason why they've rejected an offer of a Wasp & its Harriers to boost security at the coming London Olympic Games, they think it makes the UK look weak.

No offence, but I just don't buy any of these scenarios, as Finfan explains. We have to remember that Thatchers goverment was caught unprepared, and it was a minor miracle that the Brits managed to cobble together a task force in the short time required; that was the reality, what actually happened. the USA acted as an honest broker between the two sides, to try to avoid a conflict; but all the time they were providing the Brits with whatever 'goodies' they wanted - and I mean things like the more advanced Sidewinders. It beggars belief that somehow the U.S. could either fight the war on their behalf, or, somehow hand over a major component of its surface fleet to a foreign country, and, in the time period, have that country both integrate the new ships and sytems and operate them!! Well, maybe after a few years

More importantly can one or two scenarios (Afghanistan and the Falklands) really be allowed to warp the enitre defence policy for the next 10-20 years?
Yeah, but you have to realsitically say that the MOD has been spending a packet on the Falklands all these years since 1982 which probably by now adds up to a chunk of the spending all because of political bluster and the promise of riches beyond your wildest dreams via oil always just seemingly around the corner...

I agree a repeat of the 1982 seems unthinkable now, not enough surface ships, no carriers, not enough amphibious vessels, probably not even enough tankers and replenishment ships to maintain a naval force for a month out there. No where to fly from but let's remember that world poltics has changed a great deal since 1982. Not sure what the RAF could do, but then could a dozen Harriers with limited air-air capability from one carrier really pull off a repeat 1982 performance? All the FRS.2s are scrap now so the FAA has no fighters, just a few RAF gound-attack Harriers, fleet defence would still be in the hands of the last Type 42s and the couple of Type 45s now complete. Still the last few SSNs could have a big impact with Tomahawk etc and sink a few Argentine ships but then I figure todays tabloids wouldn't have headlines like Gocha! these days.

More importantly can one or two scenarios (Afghanistan and the Falklands) really be allowed to warp the enitre defence policy for the next 10-20 years?

True, but we have to give credit to the armed forces for using every argument to retain some felxibility. At the risk of starting another 'lively discussion', I'm firmly of the opinion that both Iraq and Afghanistan have been a disaster for the U.K. And that the Falklands/Malvina's was a totally unnecessary conflict, with both sides using the war for political ends. I really beleive that (as we have traditionally) the perceived potential enemy of this country is the one that can threaten us directly, either by potential attack, or attempting hegemony in Europe. And I know who that is at the moment:

THE FRENCH

No, only joking: Viva Entente Cordial

We all know who