Carry out an attack on another country. Alone without the help of NATO I dont think they are capable
The Future of Britain.
- Thread starter ComeonBritain
- Start date
You should read more before you post:
Add to that a pair of 65,000 ton carriers in the works. Seriously, try to do some reading before you make a statement like "the UK has no offensive capability". Just because you're not aware of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's a silly assumption and adds nothing to the conversation.
Define "attack" and "country" I guess - we could carry out raids at some distance, make disruptive precision strikes using stand off weapons. Could we invade a medium size first world country tomorrow ? No. Do we need to ? No.
We could certainly kick in the door in say, Somalia, take heavy armour and modern attack helicopters inshore, carry out a series of punitive raids and then withdraw in good order. Most of the other countries in the world don't have that reach - they may have forces balanced against a bordering neighbour but they don't have the ships and aircraft to support operations at some remove from their borders.
To suggest the UK has "no offensive capability" is ridiculous.
the concerned
Active Member
you couldn't get much more offensive than a trident missile.I also think we are quite unique in that we have enough allies and support aircraft to strike almost anywhere in the world.That has been proven.
Are you thinking along the lines of what Blackadder is thinking about?
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f8MinrUTpw"]Blackadder - The Army Years - YouTube[/nomedia]
How is this realistic in this day and age? Why would 1 country (such as UK) need to attack another country?
As far as UK interests go, the most likely scenario at the moment is Falklands. And in 1982, Argentina (the mainland) was not attacked by the RN. Hence, even if there is another conflict in the Falklands, I doubt the Argentinian mainland will be attacked.
Well, I'd suggest that (heaven forbid) we had to fight over that lot again, there'd be cruise missiles crossing the coastline of mainland Argentina before the shots had finished echoing across the islands.
The Argentine airforce has I think two air to air refuelling capable transports - we'd want those neutralised asap for instance.
the concerned
Active Member
I was thinking along the same lines,why is it people assume they we have to fight with gentlemenly conduct .If Argentina did become desperate enough to militarily threaten the Falklands again why couldn't we conduct a pre-emptive strike. I mean how many airbases are good enough for Argentina to strike from so taking out the runways with a cruise missile strike would have to be a option.
That can be taken out in the air when they are not over mainland Argentina.
IMO, the key reason why mainland Argentina was not attacked is simply to prevent further escalation of the conflict. Confining the conflict around Falklands means leaving it to the military to slug it out without undue collateral damage.
By extending the fighting to mainland Argentina means that the Argentinian government will have a very good basis to rally its nation against the British. This has the potential to change a confined conflict around the Falklands to a total war where the entire Argentinian economy and society is mobilised for war. In that scenario, does the UK military have the means to out-last an Argentinian economy and society on war-footing in the long run while defending the Falklands?
Getting dragged OT guys, continue it in the Falklands thread if you're interested in carrying it on 
The bigger issue to me is that - in terms of military expenditure - Britain doesn't particlarly like designing things for export as well as their own use.
Getting Tiffy up to date in terms of A2G would be a very good start for the UK, should've been done sooner considering it was probably one of the big drawbacks for Indias MMRCA comp.
The T26 is developed under the right theory, but nothing really seems to be coming from it, IIRC out of those listed as being 'interested', Canada, Australia, Turkey and India are out of the picture leaving - mainly - Brazil. A bit depressing really.
The bigger issue to me is that - in terms of military expenditure - Britain doesn't particlarly like designing things for export as well as their own use.
Getting Tiffy up to date in terms of A2G would be a very good start for the UK, should've been done sooner considering it was probably one of the big drawbacks for Indias MMRCA comp.
The T26 is developed under the right theory, but nothing really seems to be coming from it, IIRC out of those listed as being 'interested', Canada, Australia, Turkey and India are out of the picture leaving - mainly - Brazil. A bit depressing really.
the concerned
Active Member
By the time that the last tornado is retired will we be any nearer to having a ucav capability to replace it.
BAE and Dassault signed a deal about a future UCAV but it's not due in until 2030-2040, so nope, not at all.
It looks relatively promsing, considering the 2 companies experiences with UCAV technology with Taranis and Neuron.
France, U.K. Sign Deals on Watchkeeper, UCAV | Defense News | defensenews.com
Back in the day when Shaun was a happy little airman in the RAF it was made quite clear this is about 2000 that the euro fighter and JSF as they were then were seen by the top brass as needing a life if thirty to forty years and were probably the last manned front line planes the RAF would be buying. I think ucav will come the forming of the predator units are the first step in this process.
the concerned
Active Member
What concern's me is that when the tornado's are replaced with jsf's, how would they help in battle senarios like Afghanistan. Especially when it requires a show of force or even a strafe.Are we really going to put a £100 million pound plane in small arms range.
I don't think they will Afghanistan is getting ready to wind down tornado will plod
Till then he tornado is a very capable ground attack aircraft fully updated and moded and capable of carrying the full offensive armoury of the RAF I can't see the RAF letting go till the F.35 is fully up and running the advantage that no Afghanistan will create is time to bed the aircraft in properly. Also cost does not come into it taxpayers don't stump up 100 million for a plane to sit on the tarmac and look pretty when it ready it will be required to take up exactly where its predecessors left off.
Till then he tornado is a very capable ground attack aircraft fully updated and moded and capable of carrying the full offensive armoury of the RAF I can't see the RAF letting go till the F.35 is fully up and running the advantage that no Afghanistan will create is time to bed the aircraft in properly. Also cost does not come into it taxpayers don't stump up 100 million for a plane to sit on the tarmac and look pretty when it ready it will be required to take up exactly where its predecessors left off.
I think you are assuming that an Afghanistan type situation will not arise again whilst the F35s are being bedded in. There is the western posturing over Iran. Pakistan is not exactly stable, plus it is nuclear armed and there is Syria. Finally Afghanistan is not going to go away and disappear. It and Pakistan will be a hot bed of insurgencies in the medium term. If the US and / or Israel decide to mount a strike against the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program then I think that will drag all the current security problems of Afghanistan and Pakistan west across to the Arabian Peninsula, Red Sea and Indian Ocean.
Another point I think that has been only mentioned in passing on this topic is the current lack of RAF MPA. What are the plans for RAF MPA (if any)?
Last edited:
No need - small arms and cannon fire tops out at a few thousand feet. A Tiffy with 8 brimstone can stroll around all day long well above that altitude. Even MANPADS run out of steam at 12-15K with the exception of the RBS-70 I believe.
Just stay at 20K feet and it's all gravy.
Show of force? The Taleban tend to hit the deck and stay down if there's a jet overhead as they don't know if there's an LGB on the way. Strafing runs are not very common I suspect.
Ian
If it all did kick off with Iran etc I think you will see the RAF as a small contingent as part of a much bigger coalition as for strafing runs etc don't we squadrons of Apaches for that. If things like this are to become common place then we could look at a couple of squadrons of cheap counter insurgency airframes maybe run them up as reserve squadrons in the new reserve forces set up we already operate tucano airframes as the primary jet trainer so have experience with an available airframe.
How many fast jets have been lost in Afghanistan to small arms fire?
the concerned
Active Member
Is the UK actually going to buy gun pods for the Jsf .Who wants to put money on that being no.Please don't get me wrong i think the Jsf is an incredible plane just think we need another look at close air support .Maybe an extra squadron of apaches or take a look at the avenger uav.