Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Leaving the EU will make the EU defenceless? (!NO THE EU MAKES US DEFENCELESS!) watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Seriously, kid, stop it.

    You have no idea about the topic.
    I have more idea of this topic than Donald Trump.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2016_GCSE)
    I have more idea of this topic than Donald Trump.
    Hardly a ringing endorsement.

    Come back after a few years service in the RAF.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Hardly a ringing endorsement.

    Come back after a few years service in the RAF.
    That is the direction i'm heading.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    But after all of this, i'm still in favour of out.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2016_GCSE)
    That is the direction i'm heading.
    You aren't there yet.

    You're also entirely wrong about your war scenario.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    You aren't there yet.

    You're also entirely wrong about your war scenario.
    Entirely wrong???

    To make it simple:
    Russian planes can reach us.

    Russian planes are armed and capable.

    WW3 is likely, I'm going to give you a rough date: 2020 - 2025
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2016_GCSE)
    Entirely wrong???

    To make it simple:
    Russian planes can reach us.

    Russian planes are armed and capable.

    WW3 is likely, I'm going to give you a rough date: 2020 - 2025
    Not when they're carrying weapons they can't.

    And only a very small proportion are anything like fully operational. The Russians have had an atrocious history with repairs, upgrades, spares and training, their aircraft aren't up to it. What they have on paper is very different to what they could put in the air.

    Even if they could put them in the air, when they take any weapons with them their range is dramatically reduced and they simply wouldn't be able to reach us.

    Then you take into account we have fighters that will have them on radar before the Russians know we've taken off and have destroyers afloat that can clear the sky.

    We also have numerous nearby neighbours who would also take part in action - a blockade on our ports would be a virtual blockade on French and Dutch ports, after all.

    And then you completely ignore the fact that you cannot blockade anything without a navy. Russia simply doesn't have a fully blue water navy right now.

    WW3 in that scenario is as likely as the moon crashing into the earth.

    Sorry, but you're simply wrong. If you really want in to the RAF (and good god I hope you're not going for my old branch) you need to spend a lot more time learning.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Not when they're carrying weapons they can't.

    And only a very small proportion are anything like fully operational. The Russians have had an atrocious history with repairs, upgrades, spares and training, their aircraft aren't up to it. What they have on paper is very different to what they could put in the air.

    Even if they could put them in the air, when they take any weapons with them their range is dramatically reduced and they simply wouldn't be able to reach us.

    Then you take into account we have fighters that will have them on radar before the Russians know we've taken off and have destroyers afloat that can clear the sky.

    We also have numerous nearby neighbours who would also take part in action - a blockade on our ports would be a virtual blockade on French and Dutch ports, after all.

    And then you completely ignore the fact that you cannot blockade anything without a navy. Russia simply doesn't have a fully blue water navy right now.

    WW3 in that scenario is as likely as the moon crashing into the earth.

    Sorry, but you're simply wrong. If you really want in to the RAF (and good god I hope you're not going for my old branch) you need to spend a lot more time learning.
    this guy underestimates Russia , just check out my profile picture and see how weak RAF response is. They admons won allow me to speak my native language, So my Translation will have to do.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Советский Гай)
    this guy underestimates Russia , just check out my profile picture and see how weak RAF response is. They admons won allow me to speak my native language, So my Translation will have to do.
    We got Russians in here??? O_o
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Not when they're carrying weapons they can't.

    And only a very small proportion are anything like fully operational. The Russians have had an atrocious history with repairs, upgrades, spares and training, their aircraft aren't up to it. What they have on paper is very different to what they could put in the air.

    Even if they could put them in the air, when they take any weapons with them their range is dramatically reduced and they simply wouldn't be able to reach us.

    Then you take into account we have fighters that will have them on radar before the Russians know we've taken off and have destroyers afloat that can clear the sky.

    We also have numerous nearby neighbours who would also take part in action - a blockade on our ports would be a virtual blockade on French and Dutch ports, after all.

    And then you completely ignore the fact that you cannot blockade anything without a navy. Russia simply doesn't have a fully blue water navy right now.

    WW3 in that scenario is as likely as the moon crashing into the earth.

    Sorry, but you're simply wrong. If you really want in to the RAF (and good god I hope you're not going for my old branch) you need to spend a lot more time learning.

    "WW3 in that scenario is as likely as the moon crashing into the earth."
    In that case the moon should have crashed to earth twice all ready.

    I doubt these small European nations have there defences up to scratch, they get through them all the time and then get in to our airspace.

    You can blockade wit out navy, you just need range and fire power....
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Советский Гай)
    this guy underestimates Russia , just check out my profile picture and see how weak RAF response is. They admons won allow me to speak my native language, So my Translation will have to do.
    Not underestimating, just aware of current deficiencies.

    Russia remains a capable military force, but not a capable expeditionary force. It cannot project power. It doesn't possess the requisite force multipliers to make a difference and cannot support a long logistical chain.

    And what's weak about responding to a Tu95 with a pair of Typhoons?

    (Original post by 2016_GCSE)
    "WW3 in that scenario is as likely as the moon crashing into the earth."
    In that case the moon should have crashed to earth twice all ready.

    I doubt these small European nations have there defences up to scratch, they get through them all the time and then get in to our airspace.

    You can blockade wit out navy, you just need range and fire power....
    Yes, well done, that's the point. It won't happen.

    Wrong. Every time the Russians fly around to us, they do so around Norway. Every time the Norwegian air force meets them. Then the Danes. Then us. We're all linked together. This thing called NATO, you might have heard of it...

    And I don't know why you'd think F16s aren't up to scratch... Again, your lack of knowledge on the subject is showing you up.

    No, you can't blockade without a navy. Take a guess where the word blockade comes from. The 'block' part should be a decent clue.

    No air force wins a war on it's own, it has never happened once in the history of warfare. Aircraft have the power to disrupt shipping, sure. But not the ones you've quoted. And definitely not at that range.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Not underestimating, just aware of current deficiencies.

    Russia remains a capable military force, but not a capable expeditionary force. It cannot project power. It doesn't possess the requisite force multipliers to make a difference and cannot support a long logistical chain.

    And what's weak about responding to a Tu95 with a pair of Typhoons?



    Yes, well done, that's the point. It won't happen.

    Wrong. Every time the Russians fly around to us, they do so around Norway. Every time the Norwegian air force meets them. Then the Danes. Then us. We're all linked together. This thing called NATO, you might have heard of it...

    And I don't know why you'd think F16s aren't up to scratch... Again, your lack of knowledge on the subject is showing you up.

    No, you can't blockade without a navy. Take a guess where the word blockade comes from. The 'block' part should be a decent clue.

    No air force wins a war on it's own, it has never happened once in the history of warfare. Aircraft have the power to disrupt shipping, sure. But not the ones you've quoted. And definitely not at that range.
    F-16's..... Come on man those aircraft are not made for fast action combat, There made to be a flagship plane that has a long time to get operational.

    NATO's cool but is it really effective? I certainly don't think so as no one ever get's the Russian't to head back home.

    Blockade: "an act or means of sealing off a place to prevent goods or people from entering or leaving."

    Practically the iron curtain. A blockade does not need a navy.....

    Well may be those jets I quoted have better chance at air to air with dealing with aircraft that are dispatched, Then the Russian bear's could probably come in and deal with the ships.

    If your blocking a ship from getting from point A to B it is practically a blockade.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2016_GCSE)
    F-16's..... Come on man those aircraft are not made for fast action combat, There made to be a flagship plane that has a long time to get operational.

    NATO's cool but is it really effective? I certainly don't think so as no one ever get's the Russian't to head back home.

    Blockade: "an act or means of sealing off a place to prevent goods or people from entering or leaving."

    Practically the iron curtain. A blockade does not need a navy.....

    Well may be those jets I quoted have better chance at air to air with dealing with aircraft that are dispatched, Then the Russian bear's could probably come in and deal with the ships.

    If your blocking a ship from getting from point A to B it is practically a blockade.
    F16s are a direct equivalent to that Fulcrum you were talking up a few posts ago. What makes one so much better than the other aside from your prejudices and biases?

    Is NATO really effective? After two global wars in 20 years that began in Europe, there has been none in the following 70. Even the most ignorant of commentators would say that was rather effective...

    Sealing off or blocking. Aircraft cannot do that. Only a physical barrier can.

    I'll say it again. You're wrong.

    Don't bother replying, there's no point, you refuse to listen to any knowledge, logic or frame your arguments with any intelligence. Go and revise for those GCSEs.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    F16s are a direct equivalent to that Fulcrum you were talking up a few posts ago. What makes one so much better than the other aside from your prejudices and biases?

    Is NATO really effective? After two global wars in 20 years that began in Europe, there has been none in the following 70. Even the most ignorant of commentators would say that was rather effective...

    Sealing off or blocking. Aircraft cannot do that. Only a physical barrier can.

    I'll say it again. You're wrong.
    Well I can say your wrong , The only way to test this is to carry out some practicals and give up on theory.

    Only a physical barrier can? So if I used some lasers that could kill people as a barrier that count's as not been physical as you can walk through light. A barrier does not need to be a physical object....

    The plane would be like the laser coming in for the kills.

    That NATO thing....... Come on the Cold War, was technically a war making that point invalid. If NATO is letting Russian planes straight through airspace I still can't see that as a good defence platform.

    F16's are just one of those planes that are designed for firepower along with long launch time's making them a wasteful investment.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2016_GCSE)
    Well I can say your wrong.
    You can.

    But by doing so you prove that you are ignorant of grammar as well as air power and it's applications. So if I were you, I would just keep my mouth shut.



    Go and read AP3000. It should be available for free via the net.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    You can.

    But by doing so you prove that you are ignorant of grammar as well as air power and it's applications. So if I were you, I would just keep my mouth shut.



    Go and read AP3000. It should be available for free via the net.
    I still don't get 100% how a discussion of the EU came to talking extensively about military

    That Doctrine states vast advantages of air power over naval and land.

    "Air power exploits the third dimension. Because air has little resistance and aircraft can route directly,air vehicles are invariably faster and generally have greater reach than naval vessels or land vehicles, whileelevation is inherent to air operations. The core characteristics of air power are therefore speed, reach andheight. These attributes are shared with the space environment, but in different ways, and at an entirelydifferent scale; consequently, the unique features of space power are considered separately.

    • SpeedSpeed allows the rapid projection of military power and permits missions to be completed quickly,generating tempo and offering the potential to exploit time, the fourth dimension. At the tacticallevel, high speed reduces exposure to hostile fire and increases survivability.• ReachSeventy percent of the world’s surface is covered by water, but all of it is covered by air, providing airpower with unrivalled reach, usually unimpeded by terrain. This enables distant or isolated targets tobe attacked and potential restrictions to be circumvented.

    • HeightThe advantage of height allows airmen to observe and dominate activities on the surface of the globeand below the sea, enabling direct fire to be used against an adversary’s forces across the battlespace andpermitting three-dimensional manoeuvre, an important survivability factor.While speed, reach and height represent core air power characteristics in their own right, they act togethersynergistically to produce additional strengths:• UbiquityUbiquity is a combination of reach and persistence. Air to Air Refuelling and technological AP 300016BRITISH AIR AND SPACE POWER DOCTRINE17developments, such as the advent of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), have hugely increased theubiquity of air power, allowing aircraft to counter or pose simultaneous threats across a far widergeographical area than is possible with surface systems.

    • AgilityAgility is a blend of responsiveness, adaptability, flexibility, resilience and acuity. Air power isinherently agile, a characteristic amplified by the multi-role capability of many platforms: this permitsair assets to move quickly and decisively between the strategic, operational and tactical levels of warfare,and to move across and between operational theatres – sometimes during the same mission.

    • ConcentrationSpeed, reach and flexibility allow air power to concentrate military force in time and space, when andwhere it is required. Precision weaponry now means that effect can often be concentrated withoutthe requirement for numbers. The psychological and physical shock imposed by the concentration ofeffect is often crucial in achieving successful operational outcomes."

    From this I can't see why barricading with aircraft can't be done.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2016_GCSE)
    I still don't get 100% how a discussion of the EU came to talking extensively about military

    From this I can't see why barricading with aircraft can't be done.
    Quite simply, because you started it.


    Because a barricade is a fixed point. Aircraft are not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Quite simply, because you started it.


    Because a barricade is a fixed point. Aircraft are not.
    If that's the case, then what would you call a blockage caused by planes?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    No air force wins a war on it's own, it has never happened once in the history of warfare.

    You used to work in the RAF and overlooked the Battle of Britain, which solely paralysed attempts at a Nazi invasion??

    But I agree with virtually everything else you say, I think 2016_GCSE has been playing too much CoD. There will be many future wars, but Russia is incapable of sustaining a total war at the moment, and tensions with Russia have been far far worse in the last century than now. Even if they did decide to go to war, the UK wouldn't be on its target list, and the collective defence of NATO would be massively superior.

    And 2016GCSE, the world has moved on from WW2 style wars, everything is done with prescision now; look up the Sampson radar (all we need now is destroyers that don't have engine failures every 10 minutes...)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james813)
    You used to work in the RAF and overlooked the Battle of Britain, which solely paralysed attempts at a Nazi invasion??
    It didn't win the war. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

    It prevented the invasion (though that itself is a debatable fact), but that is not the same thing.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.