Born Hunter
-
Content Count
17,994 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Everything posted by Born Hunter
-
HMS Dragon was earmarked to become the flagship of Standing NATO Maritime Group One, but her maintenance period has been expedited and she is being taken out of dry dock and will begin loading munitions today. Dragon is expected to sail early next week. She completed FOST in December but has not been to sea since and will need to conduct a brief workup while in transit. HMS Duncan is available but is earmarked to join HMS Prince of Wales and the carrier strike group on Operation FIRECREST. However, she has some defects that need addressing and is due for a short maintenance period.
-
Not sure about that one. It’s fairly well documented what the status and availability of our fleet is. This job requires one of the T-45s really and at the time there was only two really available, the other one needing to go into maintenance before deploying later this year. I’d argue that an Army sky Sabre system could’ve been deployed much more quickly and provide similar protection though. No idea why that wasn’t done.
-
Starmer is an absolute disaster. I’m not challenging that. I just think it’s easy for farage to throw stones like our military isn’t a f***ing skeleton of what it used to be back when we might’ve had the balls for this stuff.
-
Fair, in that case I agree but given the most recent one that passed through he might’ve clarified!
-
Has Nigel lost his f***ing mind!? The tanker had a warship escorting it! Which realistically means we’d have had to Belgrano the c**t before commandos could go anywhere near the tanker. And there’s rumours the tankers have armed PMCs onboard so we’d have to expect boarding would be resisted heavily. Even a coked up Hegseth wouldn’t fancy that.
-
No not even cadets.
-
I like to think that Wilf and I have had very respectful online discourse over the years tbf. This forum isn’t a great medium for proper discussion sometimes.
-
Good honest and decent response. And I think we may have been talking at cross purposes now that you explained your view of it. To me strategy is a higher level of ‘planning’ or ‘how’. Extreme violence or kill everyone isn’t really a strategy. It might form part of a strategy or even be considered doctrine but in a war planning scenario, say the falklands as an example. If Admiral Fieldhouse had just said “my plan is simply to go down there with the boys and leather the f**k our the argies, ma’am!” and not actually explain how that force is directed and why that is better than a more targeted
-
Okay mate, I think we’re struggling to have an even basic level of conversation if that’s the case. I’m a bit surprised you think what I’m saying is unreasonable when you’re referencing the Roman and mongol empires. If “anything can be strategy” then quite literally the word has no meaning.
-
I feel like you’re cherry picking the times it worked and digging a fair way back in history to do that and also ignoring other factors that contributed to those examples of victory. If everything is strategy then the word has no meaning.
-
Exactly, it was a poor strategy! Exactly why I think this Iran war will ultimately fail to achieve the desired outcome/s. Assuming the desired outcome is one that is in the US’ national interest and not Israel’s, Russias, Chinas, France’s. I know we will not agree on this. I don’t know why I keep it up.
-
Okay so you think that violence is exclusively the recipe for success, that’s it. However as I said the gulf was a success but according to your opinion we weren’t violent enough. Equally vietnam could hardly have been more violent (nukes weren’t an option for obvious reasons) and that was broadly a total failure. Violence without strategy is not a good recipe. History shows us that. The Germans showed equal levels of violence to anything we could muster and yet lost. Why?
-
I guess I’m trying to establish that you recognise a viable alternative relationships to just annihilation. We’ve managed to find a way of working with the Arab gulf states that doesn’t involve just bombing them so it’s surely possible we can achieve the same with the Iranians? You suggested that reasoning/diplomacy/trade is not an option for them but clearly it’s worked for the Arab gulf states. That’s why I ask if you include them as one and the same animal, which I know you do. I’d argue that outright mindless violence is no more successful than pure western good will and decency.
-
Correct but as I say it’s not the only option for gnss.
-
Hence why you need to choose your allies and supply chain partners wisely. Every foreign policy decision has to be weighed against this risk.
-
Interestingly (to nerds like me), we’re already seeing US allies start to look elsewhere for their weapons. 6th gen fighter programmes like our own tempest are getting more interest from nations that currently run 4th gen US jets. Israel have too much of a strangle hold if the US to worry about that though.
-
GPS is a free use GNSS constellation. But there are like half a dozen others too. Not to mention other positioning and guidance technologies. GPS is probably a bad example. Having the US as a big supporter of arms is a big benefit but I wouldn’t go so far as to say Israel would be wiped out in a day without them. There is a domestic arms industry and other suppliers. For example had they not bought F35s they could’ve bought Typhoons, Rafales or Gripens. Same for most all other systems, strike missiles, air defence systems. Theyd be in a weaker position but then there current position
-
So I guess the logical conclusion to that is all out total war until one side is annihilated? When you say “these people” do you include Arabs in that too or just Iranians? If so then do we declare war on the Arab gulf states too and just be done with it?
-
This conversation is so much more nuanced than “who won”. It’s not exactly a game of darts.
-
It’s so strange because Middle Eastern cease fires normally last so long, especially when Israel’s involved.
-
They were decommissioned 5 yrs ago.
-
Way too many subtopics there to respond to on here. I disagree with much of it of course but I think that’s fine.
-
I think it’s far too early to tell. Despite my criticism this is a great step towards a good outcome. My view is that tactically this has shown what the US is capable of once again to the world. Stuff that no other nation could even begin to dream of. But then I don’t think any of that was really in doubt. Strategically however I don’t think this has delivered anything very positive for the US (or us in the UK). It has seriously damaged almost all US strategic relations/alliances. Literally everyone has been politically attacked by POTUS and SecWar. After at least a year of bein
-
Well, I’d say this is a great step in the direction of deescalation and finding a diplomatic resolution. However, the Israelis need to be stopped from sabotaging it and equally the extremists in the IRGC.
-
So I see, Charlie Kirk would’ve been too. But I don’t spend too much time listening to them. But it is noted. Ive spent more time paying attention to people less well known I guess but from the military/intelligence community. Anyone who is walking the walk and sounds like a rational person I could actually work with in real life. People who live the core founding values of the US. Talking of which, look how quiet Tulsi Gabbard has been. The head of the entire us intelligence community!
