The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Reports that British fighter jets are mobilising in Cyprus air base

Scroll to see replies

Original post by AngeryPenguin


https://twitter.com/airlivenet/status/983780330216853504
https://www.ft.com/content/09846378-3ccf-11e8-b7e0-52972418fec4

The Dassault Rafale is capable of launching the 300kt A-SMP nuclear standoff missile, although tonight they'll most likely be using the AASM "Hammer" guided missile - a highly accurate piece of equipment.


Pwwwhoooooaarrrr that is impressive.
Hardly news, we've been using the bases on Cyprus for the last however many years we've been bombing IS.
Reply 22
Avatar for Napp
Napp
22
Original post by Jammy Duel
Hardly news, we've been using the bases on Cyprus for the last however many years we've been bombing IS.


We havent been using them to try and beat Assad over the head though.
Original post by Napp
We havent been using them to try and beat Assad over the head though.


Is there any evidence that the sorties in question are against Assad?
Reply 24
Avatar for Napp
Napp
22
Original post by Jammy Duel
Is there any evidence that the sorties in question are against Assad?


Well given that Trump has announced he is about to bomb assad its a reasonable deduction.
Original post by Napp
Well given that Trump has announced he is about to bomb assad its a reasonable deduction.


I didn't realise that Trump was Commander-in-Chief of the RAF
Original post by Napp
Well given that Trump has announced he is about to bomb assad its a reasonable deduction.


It's a reasonable deduction to say that previous ones have been, or that future ones will be?

I took the original question to be asking about the air ops that have been ongoing for a couple of years.
Original post by Jammy Duel
I didn't realise that Trump was Commander-in-Chief of the RAF


We are called Airstrip One for a reason.

The UK will always follow the US.
Original post by AngeryPenguin
We are called Airstrip One for a reason.

The UK will always follow the US.


The US has more air assets based in mainland Europe than in the UK, not to mention the aircraft carriers they can base moreorless where they like.
Original post by AngeryPenguin
Presumably in response to the Middle Eastern country's (supposed) mowing down of civilians. Assad clearly hasn't got the message that we don't tolerate attacks on civilians.

If the reports are accurate, it means that May is being wise and avoiding Parliament (as is her right as the Democratically Elected Leader of our Nation), because we all that that Traitor Corbyn would just whine about "peace" and "evidence" and stop us from taking any Action. If that man was in charge back before the Gulf War, god only knows how many countries Saddam would have nuked before Corbyn let us liberate Iraq!

Hopefully we also kill some of the Russian mercenaries who are helping Assad commit his crimes. Revenge for their attack on British soil. Pip pip!

https://twitter.com/airlivenet/status/983780330216853504
https://www.ft.com/content/09846378-3ccf-11e8-b7e0-52972418fec4

The Dassault Rafale is capable of launching the 300kt A-SMP nuclear standoff missile, although tonight they'll most likely be using the AASM "Hammer" guided missile - a highly accurate piece of equipment.


I think it’s stupid, I don’t even think the regime used to the chemical weapons I think Isis did for me it’s the only plausible explanation.
Original post by AngeryPenguin
Presumably in response to the Middle Eastern country's (supposed) mowing down of civilians.


Genuinely thought you meant Israel for a second there...
Original post by AngeryPenguin
Presumably in response to the Middle Eastern country's (supposed) mowing down of civilians. Assad clearly hasn't got the message that we don't tolerate attacks on civilians.

If the reports are accurate, it means that May is being wise and avoiding Parliament (as is her right as the Democratically Elected Leader of our Nation), because we all that that Traitor Corbyn would just whine about "peace" and "evidence" and stop us from taking any Action. If that man was in charge back before the Gulf War, god only knows how many countries Saddam would have nuked before Corbyn let us liberate Iraq!

Hopefully we also kill some of the Russian mercenaries who are helping Assad commit his crimes. Revenge for their attack on British soil. Pip pip!

https://twitter.com/airlivenet/status/983780330216853504
https://www.ft.com/content/09846378-3ccf-11e8-b7e0-52972418fec4

The Dassault Rafale is capable of launching the 300kt A-SMP nuclear standoff missile, although tonight they'll most likely be using the AASM "Hammer" guided missile - a highly accurate piece of equipment.


This is incredibly stupid. People like you cause harm to British lives more than the enemy. What is our business with Syria? Why send our soldiers to harms way when it is non of our business.

I am sure you are rested, well fed and safe, then you go on TSR to disgrace your nation. Why should the leader of the UK voluntarily risk the lives of her citizens in a war that is not our concern?

Then you call Jeremy Corbyn a traitor for demanding calm and engagement. I think you should be ashamed of openly supporting the threat to British lives in a direct assault on a nation that is not our concern.
Original post by Wired_1800
This is incredibly stupid. People like you cause harm to British lives more than the enemy. What is our business with Syria? Why send our soldiers to harms way when it is non of our business.

I am sure you are rested, well fed and safe, then you go on TSR to disgrace your nation. Why should the leader of the UK voluntarily risk the lives of her citizens in a war that is not our concern?

Then you call Jeremy Corbyn a traitor for demanding calm and engagement. I think you should be ashamed of openly supporting the threat to British lives in a direct assault on a nation that is not our concern.


Would there be a threat to personnel if there aren't going to be any?

We're extremely unlikely to send troops in, bar the very few SF or liaison/training troops we have there currently, and airstrikes would be equally split between unmanned aircraft and single seat aircraft, risking 0-very few pilots*.


*And I don't say that lightly, a good number of my close friends are frontline RAF pilots who would be involved / have already been involved.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Drewski
Would there be a threat to personnel if there aren't going to be any?

We're extremely unlikely to send troops in, bar the very few SF or liaison/training troops we have there currently, and airstrikes would be equally split between unmanned aircraft and single seat aircraft, risking 0-very few pilots.


First, even the death of 1 British soldier should not happen. The Government will be sending fighter jets with manned personnel, which can get shot down by Syrian anti-aircraft missiles.

Second, Russia and Iran have already warned the US, Israel and UK that further aggression would be considered a direct attack on Russian & Iranian soil which will see hostile retaliation.

The Russians would be secretly wishing that the UK attack so they can wipe them out, as a result of UK aggression during the spy poisoning case.

Three, China has already come out to say that they would not tolerate such Imperial moves by the West, which may mean a retaliatory strike against neighbours e.g. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc.

War-mongers dont realise that this could potentially lead to World War. They think that their cosy lives in the UK would protect them from Russian, North Korean and Chinese weapons.

Even the US Defence Secretary said that they currently don't have sufficient systems to withstand a full Russia & China attack. We know that the UK is nowhere near US military power, so we are basically fu.cked
Original post by Wired_1800
War-mongers dont realise that this could potentially lead to World War.


There will be no world war. Why? Because they'd all lose. No other military has the ability to fight expeditionary warfare. That's not opinion, it's fact. Everybody knows that and it'll cool off long before it gets anywhere near that level. It's not even going to turn into a local war. It might be a few airstrikes, but guess what, we've been doing that for a couple of years. Felt threatened?

Two, armed forces personnel die. It's a sad fact of life that I don't like, being ex-forces. Want an example of how many? Since the end of WW2 there have only been 2 years where no British personnel have died on ops; 1968 and 2016.

With all the above in mind, nothing's going to happen. The world will keep on turning.
Original post by Drewski
There will be no world war. Why? Because they'd all lose. No other military has the ability to fight expeditionary warfare. That's not opinion, it's fact. Everybody knows that and it'll cool off long before it gets anywhere near that level. It's not even going to turn into a local war. It might be a few airstrikes, but guess what, we've been doing that for a couple of years. Felt threatened?

Two, armed forces personnel die. It's a sad fact of life that I don't like, being ex-forces. Want an example of how many? Since the end of WW2 there have only been 2 years where no British personnel have died on ops; 1968 and 2016.

With all the above in mind, nothing's going to happen. The world will keep on turning.


Let us see how it goes. I don't think a british PM should intentionally put the lives of her soldiers and indirectly citizens at risk, just to brown-nose the Americans.
Original post by AngeryPenguin
Presumably in response to the Middle Eastern country's (supposed) mowing down of civilians. Assad clearly hasn't got the message that we don't tolerate attacks on civilians.


it' up to Assad what he does in his OWN country, the public won't let May and retard Boris into another Iraq
Original post by So-Sarah
it' up to Assad what he does in his OWN country, the public won't let May and retard Boris into another Iraq


So if a future British PM starts culling some of the British population because they didn't vote for then in an election will you agree with that too?
Original post by So-Sarah
it' up to Assad what he does in his OWN country, the public won't let May and retard Boris into another Iraq


No it’s up to his people, however we don’t know what they want until we have a free election there.

I still don’t think we should get involved
Original post by paul514
No it’s up to his people, however we don’t know what they want until we have a free election there.

I still don’t think we should get involved


I agree, we should mind our business and stop being America’s bit.ch

Original post by Tempest II
So if a future British PM starts culling some of the British population because they didn't vote for then in an election will you agree with that too?


It is not our job to interfere. There are UN Peace keepers and military command that should be involved. We are not the world’s police officer.

Theresa May is telling us that she does not have money to fund our services, but then venturing into a potentially expensive international conflict without our direct mandate or that of our elected officials.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you