UK Considers Aircraft Carrier Deployment to Red Sea as Tensions Rise

[Morch]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

They already are doing something. You have been remarkably coy about specifying what more they are likely to do. It looks like the current level of engagement isn't enough. So what's left, but landing troops? And that doesn't seem likely. And even on the off chance it does occur, what would be the prospects of that for success?

 

You're missing some steps, which are almost customary in such situations.

 

- rinse, repeat.

- take it up a notch or two in terms of target value.

- increase the scope.

- go up the food chain (commanders etc).

 

This while applying whatever diplomatic pressure that can be brought to bear.

 

After that, there may be more noticeable (or advertised) use of special forces.

 

An actual invasion is unlikely unless something really dramatic happens.

[placeholder]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You're missing some steps, which are almost customary in such situations.

 

- rinse, repeat.

- take it up a notch or two in terms of target value.

- increase the scope.

- go up the food chain (commanders etc).

 

This while applying whatever diplomatic pressure that can be brought to bear.

 

After that, there may be more noticeable (or advertised) use of special forces.

 

An actual invasion is unlikely unless something really dramatic happens.

I guess they can try.  If they do, it seems like a Hail Mary pass. I can't think of a country where that has worked in recent times. This isn't just an organization of terrorists. These people are the defacto rulers of most of North Yemen and the capital. And they are very tough customers by all accounts. LIke the Afghanis. Seems like a forlorn hope. If anything, their active support of Hamas seems to have given a big boost to their popularity which was fading due to their bad governance. Attacks by foreign forces most likely will serve to sustain that popularity.

[Morch]

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

I guess they can try.  If they do, it seems like a Hail Mary pass. I can't think of a country where that has worked in recent times. This isn't just an organization of terrorists. These people are the defacto rulers of most of North Yemen and the capital. And they are very tough customers by all accounts. LIke the Afghanis. Seems like a forlorn hope. If anything, their active support of Hamas seems to have given a big boost to their popularity which was fading due to their bad governance. Attacks by foreign forces most likely will serve to sustain that popularity.

 

I was addressing the what's-next and ground troops angle. There's an almost routine pattern as to how these things evolve and proceed. Be it do to strategy, legal issues or limited options. There's usually no 'invasion', and no significant involvement of ground troops before other avenues of action are exhausted.

 

I don't think that the domestic 'support' they temporarily gain is a very significant element in this. Doubt that there were concrete options/possibilities of deposing them through popular dissatisfaction prior to this, or much chances that such a move would have seen decisive results - guess more like another episode in the political struggles there, if that. Regardless, such shifts in support do not necessarily hold for long - all the more so if there are consequences involved, and little to show for it - plus standing issues not addressed/resolved.

 

Hyping such groups is a choice. So if framing things in a context of win/lose. The likelihood of the Houthies capitulating, or a bombing campaign making them disappear is not, as far as I'm aware, a prevalent scenario in various assessments, government or otherwise. It's more a straw man argument, IMO. Often time, when fighting such groups, there is not going to be some clear 'victory'. The way to measure success is more to do with conditions changing after a while, the group becoming less of a threat/factor, and comparing the potential outcomes of not taking action vs. engaging in action which will have a limited effect.

 

You repeat, on many posts now, that this won't work. 'Hail  Mary pass', 'forlorn hope', etc.. And, if defining 'work' as something very unlikely to happen, that could be true. Employing a more humble version of 'work' and things may look different. Not doing anything about it, or just maintaining a 'defensive' strategy would have not led to better results, sent the wrong message, and would not have been sustainable in the long run.

 

It's probably going to last for a while more, then the economic implications will force countries currently less involved or not pulling their weight to get on it. Maybe not a 100% proof solution, but I would venture that's where it's heading.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/6/2024 at 6:35 PM, rabas said:

Once upon a time, in an alternate universe, Britain made it's own aircraft that were excellent, but does it make anything now?

 

sources: Not RT

 

[wiki] The aerospace industry of the United Kingdom is the second-largest national aerospace industry in the world (after the United States) and the largest in Europe by turnover, with a global market share of 17% in 2019. In 2020, the industry employed 116,000 people.

 

Long article, see Current Main projects (about 66+) under these sections.

 

- Crewed civil fixed-wing aircraft

- Crewed military fixed-wing aircraft

- Civil and military UAVs and UCAVs

- Helicopters

- Engines

- Missiles (Hi, Storm Shadow)

- Radars

- Satellites

- Spaceplanes

Perhaps you can inform us of the carrier capable fighters that the UK makes now then? Long range bombers? Supersonic fighter bombers?

 

Have to be designed and made entirely in the UK, like they used to be, not in some Mickey Duck arrangement with Euro nations.

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps you can inform us of the carrier capable fighters that the UK makes now then? Long range bombers? Supersonic fighter bombers?

 

Have to be designed and made entirely in the UK, like they used to be, not in some Mickey Duck arrangement with Euro nations.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

Aerospace industry doesn't necessarily imply building military aircraft from scratch, fully, or solo.

Another day, another deflection.

[rabas]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps you can inform us of the carrier capable fighters that the UK makes now then? Long range bombers? Supersonic fighter bombers?

Have to be designed and made entirely in the UK, like they used to be, not in some Mickey Duck arrangement with Euro nations.

Why does it "have to be"?  You thinking is out of date. That's not how modern industrial manufacturing works.  

 

Aside from British aerospace industry being no. 2 in the world, BAE makes a significant part of America's F35's fuselage along with two US companies [ref]. So even the US does not build everything. 

 

Also, performance matters. Today's top video shows Russians going berserk in an open field as their S400  missile system fails to shoot down multiple British Storm Shadows whizzing directly overhead. Lol. But Putin said it would work...

 

Edited February 7 by rabas

[Morch]

51 minutes ago, rabas said:

Why does it "have to be"?  You thinking is out of date. That's not how modern industrial manufacturing works.  

 

Aside from British aerospace industry being no. 2 in the world, BAE makes a significant part of America's F35's fuselage along with two US companies [ref]. So even the US does not build everything. 

 

Also, performance matters. Today's top video shows Russians going berserk in an open field as their S400  missile system fails to shoot down multiple British Storm Shadows whizzing directly overhead. Lol. But Putin said it would work...

 

 

Wait until he discovers who makes the new defensive armor bits on British tanks....

[placeholder]

On 2/7/2024 at 10:03 AM, Morch said:

 

I was addressing the what's-next and ground troops angle. There's an almost routine pattern as to how these things evolve and proceed. Be it do to strategy, legal issues or limited options. There's usually no 'invasion', and no significant involvement of ground troops before other avenues of action are exhausted.

 

I don't think that the domestic 'support' they temporarily gain is a very significant element in this. Doubt that there were concrete options/possibilities of deposing them through popular dissatisfaction prior to this, or much chances that such a move would have seen decisive results - guess more like another episode in the political struggles there, if that. Regardless, such shifts in support do not necessarily hold for long - all the more so if there are consequences involved, and little to show for it - plus standing issues not addressed/resolved.

 

Hyping such groups is a choice. So if framing things in a context of win/lose. The likelihood of the Houthies capitulating, or a bombing campaign making them disappear is not, as far as I'm aware, a prevalent scenario in various assessments, government or otherwise. It's more a straw man argument, IMO. Often time, when fighting such groups, there is not going to be some clear 'victory'. The way to measure success is more to do with conditions changing after a while, the group becoming less of a threat/factor, and comparing the potential outcomes of not taking action vs. engaging in action which will have a limited effect.

 

You repeat, on many posts now, that this won't work. 'Hail  Mary pass', 'forlorn hope', etc.. And, if defining 'work' as something very unlikely to happen, that could be true. Employing a more humble version of 'work' and things may look different. Not doing anything about it, or just maintaining a 'defensive' strategy would have not led to better results, sent the wrong message, and would not have been sustainable in the long run.

 

It's probably going to last for a while more, then the economic implications will force countries currently less involved or not pulling their weight to get on it. Maybe not a 100% proof solution, but I would venture that's where it's heading.

Well, my comment on this thread began with a claim from Sirineou that America was inevitably going to take decisive action.  I asked what that decisive action would like like. Nothing in his comments specified what that might be. Your comments on the other hand suggest that decisive action is not likely for the time being and certainly not inevitable.

Apart from something unforeseen happening. I suppose if the Iranian regime were to collapse, that might do it. Possibly the Chinese might prevail on the Iranians since Iran sells China a lot of petroleum and the Chinese economy is more dependent than most on external trade.

As for a clear victory in this matter...that would be not about overthrowing the Houthis but rather the  far more modest goal of restoring free passage in the Red Sea. The 2 shipping giants, Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, and others are currently not sending vessels through the Suez Canal. And all the experts I have read on the subject seem to agree that nothing that air and sea power are likely to accomplish will persuade them otherwise. So, for the time being, it's Houthis 1, Opponents 0.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, rabas said:

Why does it "have to be"?  You thinking is out of date. That's not how modern industrial manufacturing works.  

 

Aside from British aerospace industry being no. 2 in the world, BAE makes a significant part of America's F35's fuselage along with two US companies [ref]. So even the US does not build everything. 

 

Also, performance matters. Today's top video shows Russians going berserk in an open field as their S400  missile system fails to shoot down multiple British Storm Shadows whizzing directly overhead. Lol. But Putin said it would work...

 

Fair enough. I should have said "capable" of making them entirely in the UK.

I have no doubt that the US is capable of making their aircraft entirely in the US.

 

If British aerospace industry is no. 2 in the world why is Britain not making it's own aircraft to put on the carriers? Why would the UK give loadsacash to the US to make them instead of spending the money on British industry?

 

As for the storm shadows "whizzing directly overhead" it's much harder to shoot something down close to the ground than high in the sky, which is why military pilots practice low level flight. If the storm shadows have technology to allow them to fly at a low level that will make them invulnerable to most existing air defense systems, IMO.

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, my comment on this thread began with a claim from Sirineou that America was inevitably going to take decisive action.  I asked what that decisive action would like like. Nothing in his comments specified what that might be. Your comments on the other hand suggest that decisive action is not likely for the time being and certainly not inevitable.

Apart from something unforeseen happening. I suppose if the Iranian regime were to collapse, that might do it. Possibly the Chinese might prevail on the Iranians since Iran sells China a lot of petroleum and the Chinese economy is more dependent than most on external trade.

As for a clear victory in this matter...that would be not about overthrowing the Houthis but rather the  far more modest goal of restoring free passage in the Red Sea. The 2 shipping giants, Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, and others are currently not sending vessels through the Suez Canal. And all the experts I have read on the subject seem to agree that nothing that air and sea power are likely to accomplish will persuade them otherwise. So, for the time being, it's Houthis 1, Opponents 0.

 

No, that would be you trying to force your views on my posts. As usual. I did not 'suggest' what you allege. On a similar note - you do not actually address most of what I've posted, but cherry pick those parts easier to deal with given your position. That's one way of 'winning', I suppose.

 

The 'time being' is not all that important, it's how things will develop and what the outcome will be.

 

As for my original comment about there being some sort of 'etiquette' tied with such actions:

 

US airstrike in Baghdad kills militia leader behind attacks on American forces

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-airstrike-in-baghdad-kills-militia-leader-behind-attacks-on-us-forces/ar-BB1hWjkj

 

Step by step, notch by notch.

 

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Fair enough. I should have said "capable" of making them entirely in the UK.

I have no doubt that the US is capable of making their aircraft entirely in the US.

 

If British aerospace industry is no. 2 in the world why is Britain not making it's own aircraft to put on the carriers? Why would the UK give loadsacash to the US to make them instead of spending the money on British industry?

 

As for the storm shadows "whizzing directly overhead" it's much harder to shoot something down close to the ground than high in the sky, which is why military pilots practice low level flight. If the storm shadows have technology to allow them to fly at a low level that will make them invulnerable to most existing air defense systems, IMO.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

If the UK would have declared a massive shift on independent combat aircraft manufacturing capability, you be complaining, criticizing, ridiculing and whining about it too. It's a win-win from your angle, no matter what.

 

The USA is capable of manufacturing it's aircraft on it's own - but chooses not to. The F-35 productions involved quite a few countries producing parts, systems, sub-systems, etc. It's a choice. Guess they aren't as smart as you.

 

As for your astute observation that low-flying objects are harder to intercept, do you think the Russians were not aware of it? They boasted and hyped their systems, now these do not deliver as advertised. Not too complicated. Also, there's much more to it than flying low.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Fair enough. I should have said "capable" of making them entirely in the UK.

I have no doubt that the US is capable of making their aircraft entirely in the US.

 

If British aerospace industry is no. 2 in the world why is Britain not making it's own aircraft to put on the carriers? Why would the UK give loadsacash to the US to make them instead of spending the money on British industry?

 

As for the storm shadows "whizzing directly overhead" it's much harder to shoot something down close to the ground than high in the sky, which is why military pilots practice low level flight. If the storm shadows have technology to allow them to fly at a low level that will make them invulnerable to most existing air defense systems, IMO.

 

Point 1. Modern high tech industry is not the way it use to be, anywhere. 

 

Point2. S-400 WIKI

"The anti-aircraft version of the missile system, designed to destroy aircraft, cruise, and ballistic missiles, can also be used against ground targets. The S-400 is able to intercept cruise missiles at a range of only 40 km (25 mi) due to their low-altitude flight paths." 

 

This was not the first S-400 catastrophe. Watch Putin claim to his power base that Crimea is now completely safe because of S-400, right before his Crimea headquarters is wiped from Ukraine by Storm Shadow. (best video ever)

 

 https://twitter.com/HerryRodinNapit/status/1705545040096104656

 

 

Edited February 8 by rabas

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/6/2024 at 5:23 PM, sirineou said:

So what remains? The petroleum industry will not tolerate the disruption of 5% of the worlds   petroleum flow. Remember that at a minimum insurance on these shipments  must be skyrocketing  affecting the final price. They are predicting  a $93 per barrel bench mark if conditions in Ukraine and middle east continue.

I missed this before, so apologies for the late response.

 

The petroleum industry tolerated the "disruption" of the worlds petroleum flow during the years the Egyptians closed the canal, and it's not a disruption anyway. It just takes longer around Africa and they pass the costs on to the users.

The petroleum industry have no problem raising prices as long as people will pay. They've used covid as an excuse to do so already. Petrol is significantly more expensive than pre covid.

[thaibeachlovers]

 

20 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Point 1. Modern high tech industry is not the way it use to be, anywhere. 

 

Point2. S-400 WIKI

"The anti-aircraft version of the missile system, designed to destroy aircraft, cruise, and ballistic missiles, can also be used against ground targets. The S-400 is able to intercept cruise missiles at a range of only 40 km (25 mi) due to their low-altitude flight paths." 

 

This was not the first S-400 catastrophe. Watch Putin claim to his power base that Crimea is now completely safe because of S-400, right before his Crimea headquarters is wiped from Ukraine by Storm Shadow. (best video ever)

 

 https://twitter.com/HerryRodinNapit/status/1705545040096104656

 

 

You seem to have avoided answering my question with a deflection to Putin, so I'll ask it again.

 

"If British aerospace industry is no. 2 in the world why is Britain not making it's own aircraft to put on the carriers? Why would the UK give loadsacash to the US to make them instead of spending the money on British industry?"

Edited February 9 by thaibeachlovers

[placeholder]

22 hours ago, Morch said:

 

No, that would be you trying to force your views on my posts. As usual. I did not 'suggest' what you allege. On a similar note - you do not actually address most of what I've posted, but cherry pick those parts easier to deal with given your position. That's one way of 'winning', I suppose.

 

The 'time being' is not all that important, it's how things will develop and what the outcome will be.

 

As for my original comment about there being some sort of 'etiquette' tied with such actions:

 

US airstrike in Baghdad kills militia leader behind attacks on American forces

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-airstrike-in-baghdad-kills-militia-leader-behind-attacks-on-us-forces/ar-BB1hWjkj

 

Step by step, notch by notch.

 

 

Whatever the gist of your comments may be, they certainly do not support Sirineou's prediction of the inevitability of decisive action being taken by the US. I don't see how a gradual step-by-step increase in pressure is compatible with that assertion. As far as I can tell, you haven't addressed that point at all but rather chosen to delineate what steps the US might take to ratchet up pressure. So, you may disagree about my contention that we basically are in agreement on the issue of decisive action, but I don't see that you have explained why that is the case. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree about agreement.

[zhounan]

What about simply renounce to be a global empire, think about your citizens and let 2/3 of humanity live as they want to live?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Whatever the gist of your comments may be, they certainly do not support Sirineou's prediction of the inevitability of decisive action being taken by the US. I don't see how a gradual step-by-step increase in pressure is compatible with that assertion. As far as I can tell, you haven't addressed that point at all but rather chosen to delineate what steps the US might take to ratchet up pressure. So, you may disagree about my contention that we basically are in agreement on the issue of decisive action, but I don't see that you have explained why that is the case. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree about agreement.

 

I'm not responsible for what others post. I'm also not responsible for you trying to foist your argument (such as it is) on my posts. As said, the USA will probably continue with such actions, gradually increasing their scope/means employed/targets chosen. I'm not under obligation to frame my comments according to your wishes. The rest of your comment is the usual waffle with extra nothing topping.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, zhounan said:

What about simply renounce to be a global empire, think about your citizens and let 2/3 of humanity live as they want to live?

 

How about the Houthis let other people live as they want?

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm not responsible for what others post. I'm also not responsible for you trying to foist your argument (such as it is) on my posts. As said, the USA will probably continue with such actions, gradually increasing their scope/means employed/targets chosen. I'm not under obligation to frame my comments according to your wishes. The rest of your comment is the usual waffle with extra nothing topping.

Here's how this sub-thread began:

No arguments or evidence you have posted since has contradicted my assessment. Unless you count repeated denials unbacked by arguments or evidence as valid rebuttals.

[sirineou]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I missed this before, so apologies for the late response.

 

The petroleum industry tolerated the "disruption" of the worlds petroleum flow during the years the Egyptians closed the canal, and it's not a disruption anyway. It just takes longer around Africa and they pass the costs on to the users.

The petroleum industry have no problem raising prices as long as people will pay. They've used covid as an excuse to do so already. Petrol is significantly more expensive than pre covid.

Apples and oranges 

Egypt was not and is not  the Houthis , in addition when  Nasser, nationalised the canal  Egypt at the time, was aligning himself with the Soviet Union. So there were three major players involved. 

The disruption is not in denial of passage, the disruption is in impeding free flow causing prices to rise , consequently impacting sectors far removed geographically. 

As I said if these conflicts continue unabated  analyst predict a per barrel price in the $90 price range. I don't remember the exact number and am to busy at the time to research it. 

But let my quote a major insurance publication. 

" Yemeni-based Houthi rebels have attacked more than a dozen Red Sea vessels since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, leading to a hike in marine war insurance premiums and inflationary pressure warnings."

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/marine/red-sea-attacks--whats-the-war-insurance-impact-473010.aspx

Edited February 9 by sirineou

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

Apples and oranges 

Egypt was not and is not the the Houthis , in addition when  Nasser, nationalised the canal  Egypt at the time, was aligning himself with the Soviet Union. So there were three major players involved. 

The disruption is not in denial of passage, the disruption is in ipeding free flow causing prices to rise , consequently impacting sectors far removed geographically. 

As I said if these conflicts continue unabated  analyst predict a per barrel price in the $90 price range. I don't remember the exact number and am to busy at the time to research it. 

But let my quote a major insurance publication. 

" Yemeni-based Houthi rebels have attacked more than a dozen Red Sea vessels since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, leading to a hike in marine war insurance premiums and inflationary pressure warnings."

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/marine/red-sea-attacks--whats-the-war-insurance-impact-473010.aspx

I am aware of the "facts" and was not commenting on them, but only that the oil industry probably doesn't give a rat's bottom if they have to put the price up to buy their product.

 

As for the actual situation, as usual the US has ignored the simple solution- forcing the israelis to stop killing innocent people in Gaza- and chosen the "make weapons manufacturers rich" option.

 

What a vile world we live in!

[Morch]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I am aware of the "facts" and was not commenting on them, but only that the oil industry probably doesn't give a rat's bottom if they have to put the price up to buy their product.

 

As for the actual situation, as usual the US has ignored the simple solution- forcing the israelis to stop killing innocent people in Gaza- and chosen the "make weapons manufacturers rich" option.

 

What a vile world we live in!

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

I doubt you have any insight as to the considerations and motivations of 'the oil industry'.

 

What you try to paint as 'the simple solution' is not actually simple.

 

What you're after is double appeasement - of both the Hamas and the Houthis.

 

 

 

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I am aware of the "facts" and was not commenting on them, but only that the oil industry probably doesn't give a rat's bottom if they have to put the price up to buy their product.

That's arguable, but the petroleum industry is not the only player affected by this , And I am sure they are bringing pleasure to act. In addition this is an election year so there are political concerns. 

I don't pretend to know how the US and allied powers will act, and could be wrong.

But given the above mentioned reasons IMO the US would have to act decisively. 

Can you imagine the field day trump would have if Biden did not act decidedly, and the conflict had negative affects in the economy? 

Do you remember what happened to  Jimmy Carter's perceived indecisiveness during the Iran hostage crisis?

[rabas]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

You seem to have avoided answering my question with a deflection to Putin, so I'll ask it again.

 

"If British aerospace industry is no. 2 in the world why is Britain not making it's own aircraft to put on the carriers? Why would the UK give loadsacash to the US to make them instead of spending the money on British industry?"

 

I did answer, clearly, concisely and provided relevant examples. In today's super complex high tech world, cooperation produces optimal, cost effective solutions. It also provides essential weapons system interoperability between allies, not to mention cost effective maintenance.

 

So to continue, you need to establish: 1) what advantage is there in making a fully independent UK carrier jet, and 2) how is your question relevant to sending an aircraft carrier to the Red sea?  

[placeholder]

More information supporting the futility of the kind of responses the US and others are currently executing:

Former Houthi Reveals Secret U.S. Blind Spots in Red Sea Crisis

Instead of leaving the Houthis interested in halting their attacks, the Biden administration’s actions have likely inspired the Houthis to double down, Albukhaiti told The Daily Beast in an exclusive interview through a translator.

“The Houthis, first of all, they’re energized by the whole idea now that they’re fighting the United States,” Albukhaiti, a former spokesperson for the Houthis, said. “The current approach will likely end with… they’re able to mobilize more people.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/former-yemeni-houthi-reveals-secret-us-blind-spots-in-red-sea-crisis

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

More information supporting the futility of the kind of responses the US and others are currently executing:

Former Houthi Reveals Secret U.S. Blind Spots in Red Sea Crisis

Instead of leaving the Houthis interested in halting their attacks, the Biden administration’s actions have likely inspired the Houthis to double down, Albukhaiti told The Daily Beast in an exclusive interview through a translator.

“The Houthis, first of all, they’re energized by the whole idea now that they’re fighting the United States,” Albukhaiti, a former spokesperson for the Houthis, said. “The current approach will likely end with… they’re able to mobilize more people.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/former-yemeni-houthi-reveals-secret-us-blind-spots-in-red-sea-crisis

 

Do Nothing, Says Poster.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Do Nothing, Says Poster.

False. 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

False. 

 

I don't think so.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/9/2024 at 6:30 PM, sirineou said:

That's arguable, but the petroleum industry is not the only player affected by this , And I am sure they are bringing pleasure to act. In addition this is an election year so there are political concerns. 

I don't pretend to know how the US and allied powers will act, and could be wrong.

But given the above mentioned reasons IMO the US would have to act decisively. 

Can you imagine the field day trump would have if Biden did not act decidedly, and the conflict had negative affects in the economy? 

Do you remember what happened to  Jimmy Carter's perceived indecisiveness during the Iran hostage crisis?

Seems the only option the US is not considering is taking the Houthis at their word and making israel stop killing Gazans.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/9/2024 at 7:33 PM, rabas said:

 

I did answer, clearly, concisely and provided relevant examples. In today's super complex high tech world, cooperation produces optimal, cost effective solutions. It also provides essential weapons system interoperability between allies, not to mention cost effective maintenance.

 

So to continue, you need to establish: 1) what advantage is there in making a fully independent UK carrier jet, and 2) how is your question relevant to sending an aircraft carrier to the Red sea?  

War is never clear or  concise, and generally devolves to a man with a rifle grovelling in the dirt to try and not get blown up, and if future circumstances means the UK can't get spares or replacement planes from the US their carriers become irrelevant.

Making their own planes means that situation can't arise.

When did cost effectiveness mean a <deleted> in the middle of a war?

 

2/ If that is irrelevant why did you reply to any of my posts about making aircraft in the UK?