No-Fly Zone + No Aircraft Carrier= Government full of fuckwits?

Discussion in 'The NAAFI Bar' started by SpannerSpanker, Mar 18, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Does anyone else think that this government is full of fuckwits, we have no aircraft carrier, but are sending a few measley planes to help enforce the no-fly zone over Libya, yes they can fly from Cyprus, but that is 1000 miles away. It sort of says to the rest of the world we are a bunch of gyppos and can we borrow some space on your aircraft carrier please? We dont need much space as we have binned loads of our planes as it is too expensive to keep them along with the only aircraft carrier we had left!! Pretty please!!
  2. It's ok-we can fly off Malta. It's closer..........;-)
  4. I thought Malta said no!
  5. They did. The whole situation is fucking appalling...

    breathe, you've had this rant once tonight already...
  6. Fairy swordfish.They let them fly off Malta.What gives?
  7. I thought they were flying from Sicily and southern France? We cant even be pikeys and ask for some space on other people carriers. We dont have anything that can fly from one. I know they are saying this OP dosent require a carrier as luckily we can fly from France, Italy and Cyprus. But what if it was somewhere a bit further away and nobody wanted to play with us. Suerly it does prove that we need the carriers and planes to fly from them.
  8. France, Italy and Cyprus are MILES away, and for Typhoon - the only aircraft we can contribute due to Tornado being Afghan-used and everyone knows that Afghanistan is the only thing in the world, and only operation in existance.

    So we ahve Typhoon, which will need air to air refuelling THREE times to get to Libya, have a useful time on station, and get back. Estimates suggest we need around 11 tankers for this.

    We have 9. Total.

    We cannot contribute, our fallicy of land-basing supplying every need ever has been mostly exposed. USAF studies prove CaS and air support is best provided from within 500nm of the AOO. Not to be an archtypal RN type banging the carrier drum but its very hard to avoid the point that in this case, and in many possible scenarios, NOT having decent carriers has once again been proven idiotic in the extreme.
  9. To be honest, even if we had the Ark on station - just how good would a few GR.9 actually be in enforcing a no-fly zone?

    And in cross examining my own client - the Devil - I would have to ask what would be the consequences to our National defence if we could not supply aircraft to support the UN Resolution?
  10. A) Fuck all, GR9s are as far as I can see too slow, and armed with short ranged missiles. They would be more use attacking ground targets however as the UN mandate DOES authorise this. Otherwise however, pretty poor.

    B) nothing much, we're dammed if we do, dammed if we don't. Do you however subscribe to the common humanity theory? It can only be a good thing getting rid of Gaddafi

  11. Erm...less chance of a UNFILYB medal?
  12. Indeed, and maybe this is the case for CVF. But if supporting Un no-fly zones is the case, then we should be honest with ourselves.

    I still think getting rid of Saddam was a good thing in itself. However, we soon learnt the law of unintended consequences on that one...

    ...if the UK wants to play international policeman, then so be it. But the SDSR was supposed to be out Defence and Security of our own country first and foremost.
  13. Indeed. I'm 100% in agreement in this point, but part of our own security IS found abroad in supporting this kind of operation. Now much as i'll get slated for saying this on an Army site, i'm firmly of the belief that the UK's security, and policy abroad can be well covered by strong Air and Naval power, land and sea based. The Army, useful and important as it is, does not provide the same level of utility and flexibility as the other two services, and indeed isn't half as essential as a strong air, naval and good intelligence picture for actual UK security. Plus, as Iraq then Afghanistan have shown, having a deployable LAND force isn't exactly a good thing sometimes as it gets you trapped in some awkward situations.

    Two carriers and a land base, with an RAF/FAA mix of pilots flying a single carrier capable multi-role aircraft replacing tornado, typhoon and harrier into say 4 12 cab squadrons would provide all the capability we need for ops abroad. 3 Cdo Bgde in our twin LPD's all the land presence.

  14. Did you say that for a bite? I'm Army so I'm up for it.....
  15. Apparently they're flying from Sicily (based 300 miles from Tripoli), Corsica, France, Italy and possibly Spain as well as allied carriers. I also heard in some news reports that they're flying from bases in Libya (presumably rebel parts) but I don't know how true that one is. Basically, carriers would be nice, but it can be done without them.