I applaud this trend.
I'm not really a fan of the military or it's bloated budget in the US, but we don't live in a world where war is impossible.
So to say "not end up like Crimea" is perhaps not the best example.
All that said, I agree with your basic premise that the world has not put war behind it forever and to abandon defence, or be unable to mount defence due to a population that considers it "unsexy", might well one day lead to very problematic military defeat.
Opinion polling conducted before Russian occupation say 38% wanted to join Russia, 40% wanted to remain an autonomous republic within Ukraine.
Here’s a link (Russian): http://www.km.ru/world/2012/09/14/polozhenie-russkoyazychnog...
70% saying they'd pick to join Russia. Phone poll just before the vote, by Gfk Ukraine, 600 participants.
There were other such polls after the vote by western polling agencies too. But I don't have the links handy right now.
Same thing with referendum, the one Russia hastily organized was a joke, but independent polls were showing preference for annexation anyway.
This is hardly a design fault. Instead, how about Type-45 destroyer gas turbine engines suffering from overheating in gulf/Mediterranean temperatures.
Remember the audacious class that could fly an array of aircraft, as well as being inter-operable with our NATO allies (our aircraft could land on their ships). I suppose that is true in a way with the QE2, as only our NATO partners aircraft will fly off it for some years...because we don't have any.
The aircraft are expected to begin trials flying from Queen Elizabeth in 2018 with a carrier air wing fully operational by 2020
So what it's saying is that the new set of aircraft won't be fully delivered until 2020, but given the very long timescales associated with building an aircraft carrier and designing and building a new carrier air group in this case, is that such a big procurement failure? The HMS QE is still engaged in sea trials throughout 2018 anyway.
Also it can carry US planes and will do so sometimes.
Yes it is planned to work up the ship for operational deployment using USMC F35's if they are available in time.
Regarding the long timescale, the Audacious class Ark Royal carrier had an operational life of 24 years, so I would say not having the air wing ready until 3 or 4 years after commissioning is a pretty serious procurement issue. You have to remember that the UK does't have any carrier pilots (unless seconded to the US, but certainly not a squadron) waiting to just do a type conversion, you would have hoped that some aircraft were available to work up pilots before the ships are commissioned.
This is also ignoring the cats-and-traps vs VTOL debacle and the propulsion debacle that delayed both carriers. It makes you wonder actually, had the carriers not been delayed by this, they may have been ready even more years before the aircraft
The Bismarck was sunk by a handful of guys throwing torpedoes out of WW1 biplanes.
Incredibly that the nation which brought us the U-boat thought it prudent to forgo all anti-submarine measures.
Here's a picture of what a Swordfish torpedo looks like, before it's mounted: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205146243 (dated 20 October 1942).
Here's a picture of a Swordfish flying while carrying a torpedo: https://www.navywings.org.uk/aircraft/twin-aircraft/swordfis... .
We've always been better at building submarines anyway.
Can't they seriously accept dogecoin or redd or whatevercoin with low transaction costs to view articles?
I know next to nothing about strategic planning, but it doesn’t seem that any missile battery whatever would be a better deterrent to Russia than the great big German flag flying on the top of the thing. How much effort should Germany really be trying to put into challenging the Russians?
So what are the options? Surrender when russian partisans cross the border?
The odds of Russia attacking Germany, even indirectly, are absolutely minimal. Germany is one of their main export countries and is one of the leading countries in the EU (more big trading partners for Russia) plus a member of NATO.
On top of that, Russia is a shadow of the USSR. A bit more than half the population and an economy which in relative terms is a dwarf (i.e. the USSR had a much higher share of the world economy than Russia does now). Let's say they occupy Germany after a "clean" campaign. Their economy would be completely shot.
And let's not go into guerrilla warfare territory, they couldn't even control Chechnya, let alone 80 million educated people which would surely get foreign support in terms of arms and supplies.
So thought Adolf Hitler, until he found out that Soviet army was 4 times the size his recon told him, bristling with technologically superior weapons in great numbers, and busy preparing its own invasion of Europe 24/7.
>Let's say they occupy Germany after a "clean" campaign. Their economy would be completely shot.
Russian political establishment has said repeatedly that it don't object to Russians having to eating grass. Do you think those guys address those speeches to Russian population? No, they are saying it to you and strategic planners of Western states. They expect them to cowardly concede without a fight.
Regarding Russia, if the Russians truly have to eat grass again, Putin's head will be in a basket within 1 week.
Unfortunately for them, places like the Ukraine are the proxy battlefields in the global chess game. “Crossing the rubicon” is a step the only ends one way.