General Election 2017
 

Good evening.
Started the thread, like bubonic plague someone had to bring it in for a while.
Was going to open it up on Jet Blast, but somehow.....think its just too infantile at times (jet blast that is).
Well, its massively easy to be emotionally blinkered, politically biased as well in these sort of threads. Would be like soap without water if it wasn't so.
So, try to keep it military aviation based, or even militarily based then?

Have to ask this because I saw it in the letters page of a serious unbiased newspaper today. Has Fallon said we would use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike if we were required to?
Was that true? Is it policy of HMG? Did anyone else see it? Has policy now changed?

HMG does not comment on use of nukes, end of.
Doubt that military aviation will get even a mention in GE campaigning. Not an important topic or relevant to anyone.

It was mentioned in the Independent three days ago, complete with audio of the SoS saying this.

He refers to the most extreme of circumstances and in ambiguous language, making the point (in unambiguous language) that you don't tell would be adversaries who might wish to attack the UK directly whether or not they'd get a Trident warhead in return.

The subtext of such - very, very rare - utterances, if one believes Peter Hennessey [a usually reliable judge] is along the lines of '...and if you have CBW, and are about to use the latter on the UK population, don't think that you can assume that we wouldn't target your delivery systems with something rather more powerful than a TLAM' and '...if you are seen to be opening the silo doors on your missiles in the vicinty of [say] Yongbyon after saying that a weapon will be heading in the direction of London in a few hours, don't be surprised if the wind speed and temperature in that locale go up very, very dramatically as we do a spot of pre-emptive counter-force.'

I assume that in this instance, it was to draw a further distinction between Mrs May and Mr Corbyn, given the latter's statement which was reported as being that he would never authorise nuclear release under any circumstances.

If JC really believes that he would never use the Nuclear option then it makes sense for him not to have it. However if he is happy never to use it whatever the situation he finds himself in, one has to question his judgement in terms of what he'd accept.

I'm sure that seeing people starved to death, mutilated, murdered, buildings destroyed, artifacts smashed, centuries of culture wiped off the map, and ultimately his own family and then himself burned alive or hung from the nearest telegraph pole just because of their religious or personal views are not those of 'A.N.Other' party might change his view. By then it'll be too late of course.............

The naivety of the man astounds me (and I think many others). And is probably a hugely contributory reason as to why he'll never be elected. And if his view is genuinely the view of the rest of the Labour probably the same reason that they are currently seen as widely unelectable in many areas (both geographical and political).

The Labour Party can be electable - Tony Blair proved it. But not in it's current form.

IMHO

Arc

I think it was previously stated that we would not use preemption but what was said then is not necessarily what we would do now. A bit like assassination, the US said it wouldn't then it does. Did they publish the policy change in advance?

Other than the admittedly very important nuclear question, I see little difference between the two parties on the question of defence. In the 40 years since I left the RAF I have lived through successive Conservative and Labour administrations and have seen a continuous reduction in our defence capability, irrespective of who is in power at the time. The Conservatives may talk the talk on defence, but they certainly haven't been walking the walk.

TTN, agree, if I had the time and inclination I would plot put aircraft buys against part in power.

Nuclear weapons - labour
V-bombers - Tory
TSR2 - labour
F111 - labour
C130 -labour
F4 - labour
Buccaneer - labour
Nimrod - Tory all 4
E3 - tory
C17 - labour
Sentinel - labour


Then Tornado, Harrier, Jaguar, Typhoon, A400, Voyager

T
I think labour might have the edge but I don't know how many crossed party boundaries

Remind when we actually bought some TSR2, as opposed to scrapping the prototypes and driving a steam roller over the jigs so the programme couldn't be revived. And the F-111 never got past the price sticker after they'd lied about it to get the TSR2 cancelled.

If you want to include those that were cancelled during development we can recite the entire contents of "Project Cancelled".

ORAC, I put the failures there too. The Tories could not claim TSR2 success, but I included Nimrod 3/4 on their watch. These were all real aircraft on the cusp of delivery, not just projects

Perhaps better to look at who cancelled what?

Most projects have such a long development timeline as to negate any party claiming credit for their purchase.

The origins of TSR-2 can be traced back to GOR.339, made public in 1956, and going back to '55. The Conservatives came to power in '55 and lost to labour in '64. A year later the '2 got canned. P.1154 and the 'CVN' are two others that spring to mind from that era, as well as the 'probably-best-it-never-happened' AW.681.

I've not glanced at other projects, anyone else care to have a crack?

WW, true to a point, but labour definitely wins on nuclear weapons, Buccaneer, F4, C130 K and J, C17.

Tories win on Nimrod 1

Labour lose on TSR2

Tories lose on Nimrod 3/4, Harrier, Jaguar

OK, but Tories ordered Trident D5.

Earlier in history labour went for Chevaline, perhaps instead of Poseidon.

And I feel one should credit Churchill with kickstarting Britain's nuclear ambitions. There's a very interesting book on the subject: Churchill's Bomb. Now, Attlee might be given credit for pushing for development, but I still feel it shows how 'cross-political' major projects are during development.

As an aside I can only think of a single major project that was canned and re-instated by subsequent governments: The B-1 bomber.

The Labour govt initiated the Nimrod Mk 3 project in 1977. It was cancelled under a Conservative govt in 1986.
The signal sent out by the JTU after each sortie used to end with the following words:
Assessment of operational capability: Nil
Assessment of training capability: Nil.
It was far from being on the cusp of delivery.

Some good points here about many weapons projects crossing party boundaries and of course exceeding the life of parliaments . Thing is can we really justify even what we have got in terms of military unless it is combined with other forces.

Realistically that means the Americans where we are just along for the ride or Europe where we are one of the larger powers and probably have a fair amount of influence -France being of similar size and it seems we cooperate quite a bit with the French even if some people do still see them as potential foes.

I have always presumed that as our nukes are American we cannot actually sue them on our own. so as well as what equipment should we have is a question of what alliances and that would also extend beyond any one aprliament.

As for Jeremy C I would trust him more with a nuke that Mad May who seems to have completely lost her mind since becoming PM and looks like she would nuke someone for criticising her hair do

UK would be 'unable to withstand' nuclear strike, Russian senator warns

I found a link about it. On MSN news whatever that really is. But I'm assuming the quotes are good and not false.
Some good points by the Russian I suppose. I don't really like Fallon, have to admit that and I wonder how long he will be in the post if PM May returns to office. Think he is playing a funny game. Should he even be commenting in this manner? It always seems to be better left unsaid.

Referred to by one Labour minister (Castle?) on BBC as "Chevalier" :)

SV, I stand corrected on dates but with all 11 airframes completed all it needed was a bit of kit.

Ok, I know, just joking.

Sadly, Fred Mulley was awake to sign the order!

Willard
 

The Conservatives under Churchill came to power in 1951 and were re-elected in '55.

PN

The Buccaneer entered service in '62, of course with the FAA, but still under the Conservatives.

I really would like to say: "Cut out the sabre rattling!" but Russia has a casual attitude to foreign affairs such as murdering their citizens in MY country.
Perhaps , if they calmed down a bit, we would respond in kind.

Re 'casual': have to admit that one was most impressed by the Mig29 pilot at Paris ditching his parachute and casually lighting a ciggie as he walked off :ok: