Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why Doesn't the UK Buy LHA-6 America Class?
68 views
Skip to first unread message
Dean
Apr 4, 2012, 1:27:15 PM4/4/12
to
All this vacillating by the powers that be over super carriers for the
Royal Navy has me wondering? Why does a navy with a limited budget
(and overseers who can't make decisions) need two supercarriers? One
will be in reserve with the other only available at times.
Wouldn't it make more sense for the Royal Navy to acquire either
complete LHA-6 type ships or even build them in the UK? These ships,
while not having the capacity of a super carrier, will exceed the
capacity of the Invincibles.
Since the Russians are buying somewhat similar Mistrals from France,
why would the UK not consider a similar deal?
Dean
Royal Navy has me wondering? Why does a navy with a limited budget
(and overseers who can't make decisions) need two supercarriers? One
will be in reserve with the other only available at times.
Wouldn't it make more sense for the Royal Navy to acquire either
complete LHA-6 type ships or even build them in the UK? These ships,
while not having the capacity of a super carrier, will exceed the
capacity of the Invincibles.
Since the Russians are buying somewhat similar Mistrals from France,
why would the UK not consider a similar deal?
Dean
David E. Powell
Apr 4, 2012, 2:27:16 PM4/4/12
to
they'd like to make, that's easier than paying for an all up new
design.
nik Simpson
Apr 4, 2012, 5:35:39 PM4/4/12
to
and the penalties for cancellation are such that to quote Macbeth,
"Returning were as tedious as go o'er". For good or ill the carriers
will probably be built.
--
Nik Simpson
Bill
Apr 4, 2012, 6:11:01 PM4/4/12
to
In article <f7f3c88f-71c0-45f6-b219-
e8543c...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, dama...@gmail.com says...
It isn't about having super carriers, it's about building them.
> Wouldn't it make more sense for the Royal Navy to acquire either
> complete LHA-6 type ships or even build them in the UK? These ships,
> while not having the capacity of a super carrier, will exceed the
> capacity of the Invincibles.
It would actually make sense to build half a dozen ships similar to HMS
Ocean, but they're essentially militarised merchant hulls and so don't
employ thousands in specialist warship building constituencies.
--
William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.
e8543c...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, dama...@gmail.com says...
>
> All this vacillating by the powers that be over super carriers for the
> Royal Navy has me wondering? Why does a navy with a limited budget
> (and overseers who can't make decisions) need two supercarriers? One
> will be in reserve with the other only available at times.
They don't.
> All this vacillating by the powers that be over super carriers for the
> Royal Navy has me wondering? Why does a navy with a limited budget
> (and overseers who can't make decisions) need two supercarriers? One
> will be in reserve with the other only available at times.
It isn't about having super carriers, it's about building them.
> Wouldn't it make more sense for the Royal Navy to acquire either
> complete LHA-6 type ships or even build them in the UK? These ships,
> while not having the capacity of a super carrier, will exceed the
> capacity of the Invincibles.
Ocean, but they're essentially militarised merchant hulls and so don't
employ thousands in specialist warship building constituencies.
--
William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 5, 2012, 8:34:22 AM4/5/12
to
Il 05/04/2012 00:11, Bill ha scritto:
> It isn't about having super carriers, it's about building them.
>
>> Wouldn't it make more sense for the Royal Navy to acquire either
>> complete LHA-6 type ships or even build them in the UK? These ships,
>> while not having the capacity of a super carrier, will exceed the
>> capacity of the Invincibles.
>
> It would actually make sense to build half a dozen ships similar to HMS
> Ocean, but they're essentially militarised merchant hulls and so don't
> employ thousands in specialist warship building constituencies.
mhm... Ocean-class was a tad smaller for -35Bs and I don't think a
> It isn't about having super carriers, it's about building them.
>
>> Wouldn't it make more sense for the Royal Navy to acquire either
>> complete LHA-6 type ships or even build them in the UK? These ships,
>> while not having the capacity of a super carrier, will exceed the
>> capacity of the Invincibles.
>
> It would actually make sense to build half a dozen ships similar to HMS
> Ocean, but they're essentially militarised merchant hulls and so don't
> employ thousands in specialist warship building constituencies.
skyjump can help; and as pure CVE is obsolete (a FF squadron (Division
in US parlance) has an intrinsic CVE on their sterns...)
and please don't bring the subject "carriers from large merchant ships"
beecause I'm weary watching a certain shipowner's commercial/market
woes, because there's too many italian-flagged large and tempting hulls
(one even conveniently incomplete) and this precedent:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_aircraft_carrier_Aquila
whose should be *bad* news outside and, more seriously, inside Italy.....
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
Bill
Apr 5, 2012, 8:40:50 AM4/5/12
to
In article <jjgfr.155224$GZ3.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
chied...@ask.me says...
> and please don't bring the subject "carriers from large merchant
ships"
> beecause I'm weary watching a certain shipowner's commercial/market
> woes, because there's too many italian-flagged large and tempting hulls
> (one even conveniently incomplete) and this precedent:
>
Conversions don't seem to be an option for anything but cruise ships...
chied...@ask.me says...
>
> Il 05/04/2012 00:11, Bill ha scritto:
>
> > It isn't about having super carriers, it's about building them.
> >
> >> Wouldn't it make more sense for the Royal Navy to acquire either
> >> complete LHA-6 type ships or even build them in the UK? These ships,
> >> while not having the capacity of a super carrier, will exceed the
> >> capacity of the Invincibles.
> >
> > It would actually make sense to build half a dozen ships similar to HMS
> > Ocean, but they're essentially militarised merchant hulls and so don't
> > employ thousands in specialist warship building constituencies.
>
> mhm... Ocean-class was a tad smaller for -35Bs
We don't have any...
> Il 05/04/2012 00:11, Bill ha scritto:
>
> > It isn't about having super carriers, it's about building them.
> >
> >> Wouldn't it make more sense for the Royal Navy to acquire either
> >> complete LHA-6 type ships or even build them in the UK? These ships,
> >> while not having the capacity of a super carrier, will exceed the
> >> capacity of the Invincibles.
> >
> > It would actually make sense to build half a dozen ships similar to HMS
> > Ocean, but they're essentially militarised merchant hulls and so don't
> > employ thousands in specialist warship building constituencies.
>
> mhm... Ocean-class was a tad smaller for -35Bs
> and please don't bring the subject "carriers from large merchant
ships"
> beecause I'm weary watching a certain shipowner's commercial/market
> woes, because there's too many italian-flagged large and tempting hulls
> (one even conveniently incomplete) and this precedent:
>
Paul J. Adam
Apr 6, 2012, 5:12:48 AM4/6/12
to
On 04/04/2012 23:11, Bill wrote:
> It would actually make sense to build half a dozen ships similar to HMS
> Ocean, but they're essentially militarised merchant hulls and so don't
> employ thousands in specialist warship building constituencies.
Not "like OCEAN", please, she was a good concept and a useful ship but
> It would actually make sense to build half a dozen ships similar to HMS
> Ocean, but they're essentially militarised merchant hulls and so don't
> employ thousands in specialist warship building constituencies.
she's got her share of problems. Chief of which was she was built in
unionised yards as a political gesture (meaning all the usual
build-quality disputes where pointing out poor work is grounds for a
protest strike) and to merchant standards - fine when she was expected
to serve 15-20 years as an affordable expedient, not so good when she's
now got to work hard for twice that.
Look at the disaster that the Bay-class turned into when Swan Hunter was
gifted two of them as a vote-buyer... they were finished, and have been
good ships, but cost and time went berserk because Swan Hunter did so
badly at building what wasn't a hugely complex ship.
It's telling that MARS (Maritime Afloat Replenishment Ships - four new
tankers to replace the single-hulled RFAs, basically) are being built in
Korea: for what's basically mercantile construction painted grey, going
overseas is at least cheaper.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Bill
Apr 6, 2012, 7:40:13 AM4/6/12
to
In article <jlmc35$qhm$1...@dont-email.me>, paul....@gmail.com says...
she was a good concept and a useful ship but
> she's got her share of problems. Chief of which was she was built in
> unionised yards as a political gesture (meaning all the usual
> build-quality disputes where pointing out poor work is grounds for a
> protest strike) and to merchant standards - fine when she was expected
> to serve 15-20 years as an affordable expedient, not so good when she's
> now got to work hard for twice that.
Almost all post-war British warships have been built because of votes
rather than built because of a military requirement.
>
> On 04/04/2012 23:11, Bill wrote:
> > It would actually make sense to build half a dozen ships similar to HMS
> > Ocean, but they're essentially militarised merchant hulls and so don't
> > employ thousands in specialist warship building constituencies.
>
> Not "like OCEAN", please,
Did I say 'like'?
> On 04/04/2012 23:11, Bill wrote:
> > It would actually make sense to build half a dozen ships similar to HMS
> > Ocean, but they're essentially militarised merchant hulls and so don't
> > employ thousands in specialist warship building constituencies.
>
> Not "like OCEAN", please,
she was a good concept and a useful ship but
> she's got her share of problems. Chief of which was she was built in
> unionised yards as a political gesture (meaning all the usual
> build-quality disputes where pointing out poor work is grounds for a
> protest strike) and to merchant standards - fine when she was expected
> to serve 15-20 years as an affordable expedient, not so good when she's
> now got to work hard for twice that.
rather than built because of a military requirement.
cman...@gmail.com
Apr 6, 2012, 1:15:33 PM4/6/12
to
On Friday, April 6, 2012 5:12:48 AM UTC-4, Paul.J.Adam wrote:
> Look at the disaster that the Bay-class turned into when Swan Hunter was
> gifted two of them as a vote-buyer... they were finished, and have been
> good ships, but cost and time went berserk because Swan Hunter did so
> badly at building what wasn't a hugely complex ship.
This is what is worrying me, an awful lot lately. Even things that should be easy (let's build a replacement for some 1960's large simple amphibs) are getting screwed up by western defense contractors over the last decade plus. Basically, it really feels like the post Cold War draw-downs[1] really heavily damaged NATO's ability to build new weapons systems. We've been running off our '70's designed, '80's built military gear for so long, and the stuff to replace it just keeps failing and failing.
> Look at the disaster that the Bay-class turned into when Swan Hunter was
> gifted two of them as a vote-buyer... they were finished, and have been
> good ships, but cost and time went berserk because Swan Hunter did so
> badly at building what wasn't a hugely complex ship.
There was a piece I saw yesterday that the very first CH-47- delivered 50 years ago in 1962- is still being operated by the National Guard, and recently returned from a tour in Afghanistan. The NEWEST B-52 delivered turns 50 this year. And after two failed B-52 replacement programs we are starting up another. Maybe this one will actually work, but I'm doubtful. (I tend to keep quiet about Army programs because that's where I work, but they don't seem much better.)
[1]: I know the US context better than any other countries, because of the whole job thing. There was a meeting, known today as the 'Last Supper' where the SecDef invited the CEO's of most of the large defense contractors and a deputy SecDef gave a presentation on how budgets would be shrinking over the next few years. The lesson that everyone took from that was the necessity of merging to reduce overhead, gain better negotiation leverage with their sole customer, and risk reduction from a broader selection of contracts. While it has worked reasonably well for the companies bottom lines- defense contractors have had fatter profit margins over the past decade than in any other period of American history- it seems to have created a great deal of dysfunction in all parts of the DoD procurement process. There are other factors besides industrial consolidation: inexperienced project management (with so few- but much larger-programs actual project management experience is harder to find, while requiring far more difficult work), bizarre requirements (too much emphasis on speed, IMO), regulatory capture, etc., but that's a very important one.
Chris Manteuffel
Alistair Gunn
Apr 7, 2012, 12:17:01 PM4/7/12
to
Paul J. Adam twisted the electrons to say:
stories of Gordon Brown (as chancellor) being against them because he
wanted to spend the money on moreschoolsandhospitals instead until the
jobs = votes in labour constituencies was firmly pointed out. Then we
got the wondrous idea of "We like Thales' idea better but we need BAe to
build it in the UK"!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
> Look at the disaster that the Bay-class turned into when Swan Hunter was
> gifted two of them as a vote-buyer... they were finished, and have been
> good ships, but cost and time went berserk because Swan Hunter did so
> badly at building what wasn't a hugely complex ship.
Well the new carriers where a political football too, what with the
> gifted two of them as a vote-buyer... they were finished, and have been
> good ships, but cost and time went berserk because Swan Hunter did so
> badly at building what wasn't a hugely complex ship.
stories of Gordon Brown (as chancellor) being against them because he
wanted to spend the money on moreschoolsandhospitals instead until the
jobs = votes in labour constituencies was firmly pointed out. Then we
got the wondrous idea of "We like Thales' idea better but we need BAe to
build it in the UK"!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Bill
Apr 7, 2012, 3:45:25 PM4/7/12
to
In article <jlpp9t$e2f$4...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
says...
building them rather than the needs of the navy.
The big carriers are no exception.
Of course now and again we get dropped into the ludicrous situation of
having a major warship with no role.
Apart from the current scandalous situation we're going to be in soon
when we'll have two vast and expensive carriers and no fixed wing
aircraft, we built a large escort cruiser (HMS Bristol) which sailed the
seven seas for two decades doing nothing because it had no real role
before being used, more or less, as a headquarters ship for the
Falklands.
That the Royal Navy manages to even operate as a serious force, never
mind being able to execute operations is a testament to the officers and
men and their superb skills rather than the rather odd assortment of
ships they have, all of which were designed to give men jobs in
shipyards rather than to fight in a conflict of any kind.
Actually, that's a touch over the top and I'm starting to sound a bit
like Weatherlawyer, but it's closer to the truth than anyone really
wants to admit.
says...
>
> Paul J. Adam twisted the electrons to say:
> > Look at the disaster that the Bay-class turned into when Swan Hunter was
> > gifted two of them as a vote-buyer... they were finished, and have been
> > good ships, but cost and time went berserk because Swan Hunter did so
> > badly at building what wasn't a hugely complex ship.
>
> Well the new carriers where a political football too, what with the
> stories of Gordon Brown (as chancellor) being against them because he
> wanted to spend the money on moreschoolsandhospitals instead until the
> jobs = votes in labour constituencies was firmly pointed out. Then we
> got the wondrous idea of "We like Thales' idea better but we need BAe to
> build it in the UK"!
Almost all post war British warships have been built because of the jobs
> Paul J. Adam twisted the electrons to say:
> > Look at the disaster that the Bay-class turned into when Swan Hunter was
> > gifted two of them as a vote-buyer... they were finished, and have been
> > good ships, but cost and time went berserk because Swan Hunter did so
> > badly at building what wasn't a hugely complex ship.
>
> Well the new carriers where a political football too, what with the
> stories of Gordon Brown (as chancellor) being against them because he
> wanted to spend the money on moreschoolsandhospitals instead until the
> jobs = votes in labour constituencies was firmly pointed out. Then we
> got the wondrous idea of "We like Thales' idea better but we need BAe to
> build it in the UK"!
building them rather than the needs of the navy.
The big carriers are no exception.
Of course now and again we get dropped into the ludicrous situation of
having a major warship with no role.
Apart from the current scandalous situation we're going to be in soon
when we'll have two vast and expensive carriers and no fixed wing
aircraft, we built a large escort cruiser (HMS Bristol) which sailed the
seven seas for two decades doing nothing because it had no real role
before being used, more or less, as a headquarters ship for the
Falklands.
That the Royal Navy manages to even operate as a serious force, never
mind being able to execute operations is a testament to the officers and
men and their superb skills rather than the rather odd assortment of
ships they have, all of which were designed to give men jobs in
shipyards rather than to fight in a conflict of any kind.
Actually, that's a touch over the top and I'm starting to sound a bit
like Weatherlawyer, but it's closer to the truth than anyone really
wants to admit.
Eugene Griessel
Apr 7, 2012, 3:51:38 PM4/7/12
to
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 20:45:25 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>aircraft, we built a large escort cruiser (HMS Bristol) which sailed the
>seven seas for two decades doing nothing because it had no real role
>before being used, more or less, as a headquarters ship for the
>Falklands.
Rather a unique achievement for a ship that commissioned in 1973 ....
>aircraft, we built a large escort cruiser (HMS Bristol) which sailed the
>seven seas for two decades doing nothing because it had no real role
>before being used, more or less, as a headquarters ship for the
>Falklands.
Eugene L Griessel
Doctors, dentists, and lawyers are only on time for appointments
when you're not.
Bill
Apr 7, 2012, 5:03:02 PM4/7/12
to
In article <uj61o7hnpj31t9056...@4ax.com>,
eug...@dynagen.co.za says...
eug...@dynagen.co.za says...
>
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 20:45:25 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >aircraft, we built a large escort cruiser (HMS Bristol) which sailed the
> >seven seas for two decades doing nothing because it had no real role
> >before being used, more or less, as a headquarters ship for the
> >Falklands.
>
> Rather a unique achievement for a ship that commissioned in 1973 ....
>
OK, a decade then.
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 20:45:25 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >aircraft, we built a large escort cruiser (HMS Bristol) which sailed the
> >seven seas for two decades doing nothing because it had no real role
> >before being used, more or less, as a headquarters ship for the
> >Falklands.
>
> Rather a unique achievement for a ship that commissioned in 1973 ....
>
Eugene Griessel
Apr 7, 2012, 5:17:12 PM4/7/12
to
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 22:03:02 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <uj61o7hnpj31t9056...@4ax.com>,
>eug...@dynagen.co.za says...
>>
>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 20:45:25 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >aircraft, we built a large escort cruiser (HMS Bristol) which sailed the
>> >seven seas for two decades doing nothing because it had no real role
>> >before being used, more or less, as a headquarters ship for the
>> >Falklands.
>>
>> Rather a unique achievement for a ship that commissioned in 1973 ....
>>
>
>OK, a decade then.
A very useful ship she was too - better than the Counties. Maybe the
>In article <uj61o7hnpj31t9056...@4ax.com>,
>eug...@dynagen.co.za says...
>>
>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 20:45:25 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >aircraft, we built a large escort cruiser (HMS Bristol) which sailed the
>> >seven seas for two decades doing nothing because it had no real role
>> >before being used, more or less, as a headquarters ship for the
>> >Falklands.
>>
>> Rather a unique achievement for a ship that commissioned in 1973 ....
>>
>
>OK, a decade then.
carriers she, and her class, were designed to screen never
materialised but she gave the RN it's first experience of Sea Dart and
the Mk8 4.5 inch gun, not to mention Ikara. Her major problem was
expense - she was big and costly to run and the power projection of
which she was part of was falling to pieces - finally finishing when
Ark Royal decommissioned. BTW she was never designated a cruiser -
not even from the drawing board.
But your argument can be reduced to the general "we don't need a navy"
rather than "we don't (or didn't) need this particular ship". The
empire was shrinking rapidly. In 1965(?) when she was conceived the
RN was still fielding a substantial carrier borne air wing. By the
time she commissioned this had almost disappeared and was not due to
be replaced by anything of that size and scope. Hindsight is almost
alway 100% when it comes to critical evaluation of a warship - and
ultimately using the correct arguments one can prove virtually every
warship ever built was useless using hindsight. Trouble is naval
designers and planners are not gifted with it!
Eugene L Griessel
What's the use of having power if you don't plan to abuse it?
Bill
Apr 7, 2012, 6:11:07 PM4/7/12
to
In article <s0b1o7912k03ktdt2...@4ax.com>,
Well if the carriers go the same way as the last lot of big carriers
the Type 45's will be about as much use.
I notice they're not calling them cruisers either, but a 8,000 tonnes
and 200 men is still awful big for a destroyer.
We're in the process of building a small blue water fleet that is
capable of operating world wide against small opponents.
In other words we're building a fleet to fight Argentina.
Except that war was won three decades ago...
It's like the British nuclear deterrent, nobody can think of a use for
it but everyone says we need one...
The Eurofighter is another one, a wonderful machine for destroying
incoming Backfires, which are no longer a threat.
What the major powers actually need is something like the old A-10, but
the fast jet pilots who dominate the airforces of the world and the
politicians love a pretty aircraft to pose next to didn't like it.
the Type 45's will be about as much use.
I notice they're not calling them cruisers either, but a 8,000 tonnes
and 200 men is still awful big for a destroyer.
We're in the process of building a small blue water fleet that is
capable of operating world wide against small opponents.
In other words we're building a fleet to fight Argentina.
Except that war was won three decades ago...
It's like the British nuclear deterrent, nobody can think of a use for
it but everyone says we need one...
The Eurofighter is another one, a wonderful machine for destroying
incoming Backfires, which are no longer a threat.
What the major powers actually need is something like the old A-10, but
the fast jet pilots who dominate the airforces of the world and the
politicians love a pretty aircraft to pose next to didn't like it.
ferretygubbins
Apr 7, 2012, 6:17:03 PM4/7/12
to
"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.29eaa9b1a...@news.eternal-september.org...
Pinstriped Line has written an interesting post on this subject:
http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/cvf-and-quiet-success-of-uk.html
"CVF and the quiet success of UK shipbuilding
The author was lucky enough to visit the CVF assembly hall in Portsmouth
recently and see first hand sections of both HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH and HMS
PRINCE OF WALES slowly take form. The result, to put it mildly has left him
feeling genuinely impressed. Put to one side the on-going debate about
whether CVF will be STOVL or CTOL, and ignore much of the argument in the
press about whether we need carriers or not, and suddenly several things
become extremely clear:
a. The CVF project is a clear demonstration of the skills of British
Shipbuilding
b. CVF has probably saved British shipbuilders from oblivion
c. Whisper it quietly, but the CVF build looks like it is going
extremely well.
d. Whisper it even more quietly, but UK military shipbuilding is
looking dangerously healthy right now."
Bill
Apr 7, 2012, 9:33:50 PM4/7/12
to
In article <jlqed7$6i2$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, ferrety...@gmail.com
says...
The government is busy gutting our health service and education system,
along with more or less driving disabled people to suicide for a pair of
carriers we don't have any aircraft for and haven't actually got a role
for unless it's standing next to a US carrier and saying "Look at us,
we're big boys, we got one of these as well".
Our enemy, such as it is, are a collection of fanatics who may or may
not be home grown but who are reasonably dangerous to the locals and
we're spending money on floating airfields that we have no aircraft
for...
says...
>
> The author was lucky enough to visit the CVF assembly hall in Portsmouth
> recently and see first hand sections of both HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH and HMS
> PRINCE OF WALES slowly take form. The result, to put it mildly has left him
> feeling genuinely impressed. Put to one side the on-going debate about
> whether CVF will be STOVL or CTOL, and ignore much of the argument in the
> press about whether we need carriers or not, and suddenly several things
> become extremely clear:
>
> a. The CVF project is a clear demonstration of the skills of British
> Shipbuilding
> b. CVF has probably saved British shipbuilders from oblivion
> c. Whisper it quietly, but the CVF build looks like it is going
> extremely well.
> d. Whisper it even more quietly, but UK military shipbuilding is
> looking dangerously healthy right now."
>
>
>
Guess who pays?
> The author was lucky enough to visit the CVF assembly hall in Portsmouth
> recently and see first hand sections of both HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH and HMS
> PRINCE OF WALES slowly take form. The result, to put it mildly has left him
> feeling genuinely impressed. Put to one side the on-going debate about
> whether CVF will be STOVL or CTOL, and ignore much of the argument in the
> press about whether we need carriers or not, and suddenly several things
> become extremely clear:
>
> a. The CVF project is a clear demonstration of the skills of British
> Shipbuilding
> b. CVF has probably saved British shipbuilders from oblivion
> c. Whisper it quietly, but the CVF build looks like it is going
> extremely well.
> d. Whisper it even more quietly, but UK military shipbuilding is
> looking dangerously healthy right now."
>
>
>
The government is busy gutting our health service and education system,
along with more or less driving disabled people to suicide for a pair of
carriers we don't have any aircraft for and haven't actually got a role
for unless it's standing next to a US carrier and saying "Look at us,
we're big boys, we got one of these as well".
Our enemy, such as it is, are a collection of fanatics who may or may
not be home grown but who are reasonably dangerous to the locals and
we're spending money on floating airfields that we have no aircraft
for...
Andrew Swallow
Apr 7, 2012, 10:04:46 PM4/7/12
to
On 08/04/2012 02:33, Bill wrote:
{snip}
>
> Our enemy, such as it is, are a collection of fanatics who may or may
> not be home grown but who are reasonably dangerous to the locals and
> we're spending money on floating airfields that we have no aircraft
> for...
>
>
The fanatics can be ignored until they take control of an oil state and
use the oil money to buy a navy.
The warships to fight the fanatic's boats need to be built in advance of
the fighting since they take years to build. the same applies to the
aircraft.
Andrew Swallow
{snip}
>
> Our enemy, such as it is, are a collection of fanatics who may or may
> not be home grown but who are reasonably dangerous to the locals and
> we're spending money on floating airfields that we have no aircraft
> for...
>
>
use the oil money to buy a navy.
The warships to fight the fanatic's boats need to be built in advance of
the fighting since they take years to build. the same applies to the
aircraft.
Andrew Swallow
Alistair Gunn
Apr 8, 2012, 4:31:36 AM4/8/12
to
Bill twisted the electrons to say:
NHS but tha's hardly the entire UK health system. Of course, IMHO, it
*deserves* gutting as would any "health service" which declares that the
proper response to a broken bone is to say "pain is normal, take
co-codamol" ...
> The government is busy gutting our health service and education system,
They may, nor may not (depending upon you believe) be gutting the English
NHS but tha's hardly the entire UK health system. Of course, IMHO, it
*deserves* gutting as would any "health service" which declares that the
proper response to a broken bone is to say "pain is normal, take
co-codamol" ...
Alistair Gunn
Apr 8, 2012, 4:33:53 AM4/8/12
to
Dean twisted the electrons to say:
Something like that might well have made sense on financial grounds, but
it would've been politically difficult ... Plus the UK has a terrible
record on buying from abroad, we start by declaring we want to buy a
proven off-the-shelf system to keep costs down and then insist that it
has to be modified to meet our requirements, thus producing an unproven
expensive system ...
it would've been politically difficult ... Plus the UK has a terrible
record on buying from abroad, we start by declaring we want to buy a
proven off-the-shelf system to keep costs down and then insist that it
has to be modified to meet our requirements, thus producing an unproven
expensive system ...
Eugene Griessel
Apr 8, 2012, 5:18:09 AM4/8/12
to
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 23:11:07 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I notice they're not calling them cruisers either, but a 8,000 tonnes
>and 200 men is still awful big for a destroyer.
If the Arleigh Burkes at 11000 tons can be destroyers why not the
>I notice they're not calling them cruisers either, but a 8,000 tonnes
>and 200 men is still awful big for a destroyer.
Darings? Besides the terminology is badly out of date and lingers on
because of tradition. One certainly cannot equate the role of the WW2
destroyer with the role of a current one.
Eugene L Griessel
Freedom is just chaos with better lighting.
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 8, 2012, 7:13:48 AM4/8/12
to
Il 08/04/2012 11:18, Eugene Griessel ha scritto:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 23:11:07 +0100, Bill<black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I notice they're not calling them cruisers either, but a 8,000 tonnes
>> and 200 men is still awful big for a destroyer.
>
> If the Arleigh Burkes at 11000 tons can be destroyers why not the
> Darings? Besides the terminology is badly out of date and lingers on
> because of tradition. One certainly cannot equate the role of the WW2
> destroyer with the role of a current one.
indeed I use the semi-archaism "cruising ship" not only for the CGs, but
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 23:11:07 +0100, Bill<black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I notice they're not calling them cruisers either, but a 8,000 tonnes
>> and 200 men is still awful big for a destroyer.
>
> If the Arleigh Burkes at 11000 tons can be destroyers why not the
> Darings? Besides the terminology is badly out of date and lingers on
> because of tradition. One certainly cannot equate the role of the WW2
> destroyer with the role of a current one.
also the DDG/DD and the larger EU FF, whose have the core cruiser
requisite, capable of operating more or less alone and a good endurance.
I can even consider CGs and DDG as equivalent of the CAs of yore (MMI
and JMSDF definitively reckon this in Naval architecture, esp. the
Japanese ships, whose have actually bringed back the Pagoda) and the EU
FF equivalent to the CLs
Bill
Apr 8, 2012, 7:42:03 AM4/8/12
to
In article <q5mdnaEIY9_Zbx3S...@bt.com>,
am.sw...@btinternet.com says...
Make enquires about who pays the clerics wages down at your local
mosque, and about his English skills and about his understanding of the
Wahhabi path.
> The warships to fight the fanatic's boats need to be built in advance of
> the fighting since they take years to build. the same applies to the
> aircraft.
Oh be real for a moment.
HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
am.sw...@btinternet.com says...
>
> On 08/04/2012 02:33, Bill wrote:
> {snip}
>
> >
> > Our enemy, such as it is, are a collection of fanatics who may or may
> > not be home grown but who are reasonably dangerous to the locals and
> > we're spending money on floating airfields that we have no aircraft
> > for...
> >
> >
> The fanatics can be ignored until they take control of an oil state and
> use the oil money to buy a navy.
That'll be the Saudis then...
> On 08/04/2012 02:33, Bill wrote:
> {snip}
>
> >
> > Our enemy, such as it is, are a collection of fanatics who may or may
> > not be home grown but who are reasonably dangerous to the locals and
> > we're spending money on floating airfields that we have no aircraft
> > for...
> >
> >
> The fanatics can be ignored until they take control of an oil state and
> use the oil money to buy a navy.
Make enquires about who pays the clerics wages down at your local
mosque, and about his English skills and about his understanding of the
Wahhabi path.
> The warships to fight the fanatic's boats need to be built in advance of
> the fighting since they take years to build. the same applies to the
> aircraft.
HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
Bill
Apr 8, 2012, 7:44:33 AM4/8/12
to
In article <jlrid8$fre$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
says...
But the sight of our government disintegrating over a silly tax on meat
pies and then getting caught increasing taxes on pensioners to pay for a
tax cut for the rich is something of a disconcerting experience for
people who'd forgotten just how nasty Tories are when they have power.
says...
>
> Bill twisted the electrons to say:
> > The government is busy gutting our health service and education system,
>
> They may, nor may not (depending upon you believe) be gutting the English
> NHS but tha's hardly the entire UK health system. Of course, IMHO, it
> *deserves* gutting as would any "health service" which declares that the
> proper response to a broken bone is to say "pain is normal, take
> co-codamol" ...
I think you miss the point.
> Bill twisted the electrons to say:
> > The government is busy gutting our health service and education system,
>
> They may, nor may not (depending upon you believe) be gutting the English
> NHS but tha's hardly the entire UK health system. Of course, IMHO, it
> *deserves* gutting as would any "health service" which declares that the
> proper response to a broken bone is to say "pain is normal, take
> co-codamol" ...
But the sight of our government disintegrating over a silly tax on meat
pies and then getting caught increasing taxes on pensioners to pay for a
tax cut for the rich is something of a disconcerting experience for
people who'd forgotten just how nasty Tories are when they have power.
Paul J. Adam
Apr 8, 2012, 10:16:08 AM4/8/12
to
On 07/04/2012 23:11, Bill wrote:
> Well if the carriers go the same way as the last lot of big carriers
> the Type 45's will be about as much use.
Given that non-state actors are now using anti-ship missiles, and the
> Well if the carriers go the same way as the last lot of big carriers
> the Type 45's will be about as much use.
scary supersonic sea-skimming weapons that the 45s were designed to
counter are proliferating to countries like Syria and Algeria, there's
definitely a threat.
Bluntly, if the PM decides to do a noncombatant evacuation from Syria,
and the Syrians say "try it and we'll fire on you", is the answer "okay,
forget it then, we'll stay home" or "please don't waste your ammunition?"
> I notice they're not calling them cruisers either, but a 8,000 tonnes
> and 200 men is still awful big for a destroyer.
metres above the sea and remaining (very) stable. As for crew, a Type 42
needed well over 200 crew (on half the tonnage) - a 45 does a lot more
with fewer men, both relative and absolute. Which means that what
Dauntless calls "the austerity accomodation" is on a par with what a 42
just called "accomodation"...
And one of the painful lessons from the 42s, especially the stumpies, is
that building a ship to an arbitrary size constraint hurts you for the
rest of that ship's life.
> We're in the process of building a small blue water fleet that is
> capable of operating world wide against small opponents.
>
> In other words we're building a fleet to fight Argentina.
downhill quite a lot since) the fleet would look rather different.
The problem is there are lots of missions, from real ones (NEOs in the
Middle East, chasing pirates, protecting oil platforms in the Gulf) many
of which could be done with fairly inexpensive OPVs, to occasional
oddballs like Libya, to credible risks of "...and now Iran is
retaliating against US and UK shipping throughout the Gulf" that need a
pretty top-end capability, and the politicians want us to do them *all*
as required, which means a very wide spread of requirements.
Add into that the "must be built in Britain" and "must be customised to
unique UK requirements" vote-buyers - I mean, cost drivers - and you get
a hell of a mess, even before you add "...and must subsidise this
Europrogramme whether it's the best answer or not", and "we're demanding
this capability but won't actually fund it".
> The Eurofighter is another one, a wonderful machine for destroying
> incoming Backfires, which are no longer a threat.
F.3, it was designed for that job. Typhoon's designed to beat Flankers
and the like, which - again - are proliferating into the oddest places;
and then, having won air superiority, drop bombs on the locals. (Yes,
the ground-attack capability is delayed - political choices again, it's
been a comedy of errors)
> What the major powers actually need is something like the old A-10, but
> the fast jet pilots who dominate the airforces of the world and the
> politicians love a pretty aircraft to pose next to didn't like it.
it so it isn't MANPADS-bait, and the targeting and comms to let it do
effective attack and close support, it's no longer the simple cheap
Blitzfighter of the old Cold War days; and its limitations (speed,
energy recovery, desperately limited flexibility) really become stark
compared to more versatile aircraft.
The A-10's an awkward hybrid of fast jet and attack helicopter, with
drawbacks from both and not many of the advantages.
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 8, 2012, 10:44:39 AM4/8/12
to
Il 08/04/2012 13:42, Bill ha scritto:
> Oh be real for a moment.
>
> HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
> deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
Playing Taranto at Tripoli, yes, but playing it in the actual Taranto ?
> Oh be real for a moment.
>
> HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
> deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
(or Toulon, or St. Petersburg, I mean playing it against a real Navy)
Bill
Apr 8, 2012, 11:04:01 AM4/8/12
to
In article <jls6jj$4e1$1...@dont-email.me>, paul....@gmail.com says...
Hizbollah and Hamas) and only just 'none state'.
They're independent countries by every measurement that matters.
> Bluntly, if the PM decides to do a noncombatant evacuation from Syria,
> and the Syrians say "try it and we'll fire on you", is the answer "okay,
> forget it then, we'll stay home" or "please don't waste your ammunition?"
The chances of us pulling some sort of opposed evacuation from Syria
without there being blood on the carpet is exactly zero.
And when did Cyprus sink?
they'll still be a sight less force than the US Navy has deployed in the
Gulf right now, and if we weren't in this with the US we probably
wouldn't be there.
Think 'What would Harold Wilson have done' rather than 'What would Tony
Blair have done'.
> Add into that the "must be built in Britain" and "must be customised to
> unique UK requirements" vote-buyers - I mean, cost drivers - and you get
> a hell of a mess, even before you add "...and must subsidise this
> Europrogramme whether it's the best answer or not", and "we're demanding
> this capability but won't actually fund it".
Except the new RFA's aren't being built in the UK, which, be honest,
changes a lot of things.
> > The Eurofighter is another one, a wonderful machine for destroying
> > incoming Backfires, which are no longer a threat.
>
> Again, if we just needed to bash Backfires we'd have stuck with Tornado
> F.3, it was designed for that job. Typhoon's designed to beat Flankers
> and the like, which - again - are proliferating into the oddest places;
> and then, having won air superiority, drop bombs on the locals. (Yes,
> the ground-attack capability is delayed - political choices again, it's
> been a comedy of errors)
The whole Eurofighter thing has been a tragedy.
What's interesting to me is that it has been driven in the UK by the
need to protect BAE's combat aircraft building capacity.
With the current government that requirement has died. If there's one
thing the Tories aren't sentimental over it's arms factories...
> > What the major powers actually need is something like the old A-10,
but
> > the fast jet pilots who dominate the airforces of the world and the
> > politicians love a pretty aircraft to pose next to didn't like it.
>
> The problem with the A-10 is that, by the time you put the hardware into
> it so it isn't MANPADS-bait, and the targeting and comms to let it do
> effective attack and close support, it's no longer the simple cheap
> Blitzfighter of the old Cold War days; and its limitations (speed,
> energy recovery, desperately limited flexibility) really become stark
> compared to more versatile aircraft.
>
> The A-10's an awkward hybrid of fast jet and attack helicopter, with
> drawbacks from both and not many of the advantages.
So you build something that is more 'Buccaneer' or 'Jaguar' like.
Both had outstanding records.
>
> On 07/04/2012 23:11, Bill wrote:
> > Well if the carriers go the same way as the last lot of big carriers
> > the Type 45's will be about as much use.
>
> Given that non-state actors are now using anti-ship missiles, and the
> scary supersonic sea-skimming weapons that the 45s were designed to
> counter are proliferating to countries like Syria and Algeria, there's
> definitely a threat.
The only 'non state actors' I can think of who have them (Lebanese
> On 07/04/2012 23:11, Bill wrote:
> > Well if the carriers go the same way as the last lot of big carriers
> > the Type 45's will be about as much use.
>
> Given that non-state actors are now using anti-ship missiles, and the
> scary supersonic sea-skimming weapons that the 45s were designed to
> counter are proliferating to countries like Syria and Algeria, there's
> definitely a threat.
Hizbollah and Hamas) and only just 'none state'.
They're independent countries by every measurement that matters.
> Bluntly, if the PM decides to do a noncombatant evacuation from Syria,
> and the Syrians say "try it and we'll fire on you", is the answer "okay,
> forget it then, we'll stay home" or "please don't waste your ammunition?"
without there being blood on the carpet is exactly zero.
And when did Cyprus sink?
> > In other words we're building a fleet to fight Argentina.
>
> No, if we were trying to fight Argentina (at 1982 strength, they've gone
> downhill quite a lot since) the fleet would look rather different.
>
>
> The problem is there are lots of missions, from real ones (NEOs in the
> Middle East, chasing pirates, protecting oil platforms in the Gulf) many
> of which could be done with fairly inexpensive OPVs, to occasional
> oddballs like Libya, to credible risks of "...and now Iran is
> retaliating against US and UK shipping throughout the Gulf" that need a
> pretty top-end capability, and the politicians want us to do them *all*
> as required, which means a very wide spread of requirements.
|Except that fully worked up and equipped with a reasonable aircraft
>
> No, if we were trying to fight Argentina (at 1982 strength, they've gone
> downhill quite a lot since) the fleet would look rather different.
>
>
> The problem is there are lots of missions, from real ones (NEOs in the
> Middle East, chasing pirates, protecting oil platforms in the Gulf) many
> of which could be done with fairly inexpensive OPVs, to occasional
> oddballs like Libya, to credible risks of "...and now Iran is
> retaliating against US and UK shipping throughout the Gulf" that need a
> pretty top-end capability, and the politicians want us to do them *all*
> as required, which means a very wide spread of requirements.
they'll still be a sight less force than the US Navy has deployed in the
Gulf right now, and if we weren't in this with the US we probably
wouldn't be there.
Think 'What would Harold Wilson have done' rather than 'What would Tony
Blair have done'.
> Add into that the "must be built in Britain" and "must be customised to
> unique UK requirements" vote-buyers - I mean, cost drivers - and you get
> a hell of a mess, even before you add "...and must subsidise this
> Europrogramme whether it's the best answer or not", and "we're demanding
> this capability but won't actually fund it".
changes a lot of things.
> > The Eurofighter is another one, a wonderful machine for destroying
> > incoming Backfires, which are no longer a threat.
>
> Again, if we just needed to bash Backfires we'd have stuck with Tornado
> F.3, it was designed for that job. Typhoon's designed to beat Flankers
> and the like, which - again - are proliferating into the oddest places;
> and then, having won air superiority, drop bombs on the locals. (Yes,
> the ground-attack capability is delayed - political choices again, it's
> been a comedy of errors)
What's interesting to me is that it has been driven in the UK by the
need to protect BAE's combat aircraft building capacity.
With the current government that requirement has died. If there's one
thing the Tories aren't sentimental over it's arms factories...
> > What the major powers actually need is something like the old A-10,
but
> > the fast jet pilots who dominate the airforces of the world and the
> > politicians love a pretty aircraft to pose next to didn't like it.
>
> The problem with the A-10 is that, by the time you put the hardware into
> it so it isn't MANPADS-bait, and the targeting and comms to let it do
> effective attack and close support, it's no longer the simple cheap
> Blitzfighter of the old Cold War days; and its limitations (speed,
> energy recovery, desperately limited flexibility) really become stark
> compared to more versatile aircraft.
>
> The A-10's an awkward hybrid of fast jet and attack helicopter, with
> drawbacks from both and not many of the advantages.
Both had outstanding records.
Bill
Apr 8, 2012, 11:12:07 AM4/8/12
to
In article <rvhgr.156265$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
chied...@ask.me says...
They say "Show me a credible enemy who could be a threat to the UK
mainland within five years"
This happened with Germany in 1934, and in 1939 the UK had rearmed and
was ready for war.
Right now Sir Humphrey (the name often used to denote a senior
professional civil servant) is looking around and can't see one. Any
arms ordered at this moment are being bought because politicians see
votes in them.
chied...@ask.me says...
>
> Il 08/04/2012 13:42, Bill ha scritto:
>
> > Oh be real for a moment.
> >
> > HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
> > deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
>
> Playing Taranto at Tripoli, yes, but playing it in the actual Taranto ?
> (or Toulon, or St. Petersburg, I mean playing it against a real Navy)
>
The senior officials of the British government play a game.
> Il 08/04/2012 13:42, Bill ha scritto:
>
> > Oh be real for a moment.
> >
> > HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
> > deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
>
> Playing Taranto at Tripoli, yes, but playing it in the actual Taranto ?
> (or Toulon, or St. Petersburg, I mean playing it against a real Navy)
>
They say "Show me a credible enemy who could be a threat to the UK
mainland within five years"
This happened with Germany in 1934, and in 1939 the UK had rearmed and
was ready for war.
Right now Sir Humphrey (the name often used to denote a senior
professional civil servant) is looking around and can't see one. Any
arms ordered at this moment are being bought because politicians see
votes in them.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Bill
Apr 8, 2012, 1:09:20 PM4/8/12
to
In article <ljg3o7tjcm5ri8phu...@4ax.com>,
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> might have been avoided. And of course, it's not like the UK didn't
> have a military in 1933. The Royal Navy was a pretty sizeable force,
> after all.
We weren't ready.
Going to war earlier would have meant that, for example, we'd have
been fighting German meschersmitts with Hurricanes rather than
|Spiutfires...
>
> >
> >Right now Sir Humphrey (the name often used to denote a senior
> >professional civil servant) is looking around and can't see one. Any
> >arms ordered at this moment are being bought because politicians see
> >votes in them.
> >
>
> And five years is about ten years too few to develop a modern force
> should you find that you need one.
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <rvhgr.156265$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> >chied...@ask.me says...
> >>
> >> Il 08/04/2012 13:42, Bill ha scritto:
> >>
> >> > Oh be real for a moment.
> >> >
> >> > HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
> >> > deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
> >>
> >> Playing Taranto at Tripoli, yes, but playing it in the actual Taranto ?
> >> (or Toulon, or St. Petersburg, I mean playing it against a real Navy)
> >>
> >
> >The senior officials of the British government play a game.
> >
> >They say "Show me a credible enemy who could be a threat to the UK
> >mainland within five years"
> >
> >This happened with Germany in 1934, and in 1939 the UK had rearmed and
> >was ready for war.
> >
>
> Whereas if they had been ready a year or two earlier the whole mess
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <rvhgr.156265$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> >chied...@ask.me says...
> >>
> >> Il 08/04/2012 13:42, Bill ha scritto:
> >>
> >> > Oh be real for a moment.
> >> >
> >> > HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
> >> > deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
> >>
> >> Playing Taranto at Tripoli, yes, but playing it in the actual Taranto ?
> >> (or Toulon, or St. Petersburg, I mean playing it against a real Navy)
> >>
> >
> >The senior officials of the British government play a game.
> >
> >They say "Show me a credible enemy who could be a threat to the UK
> >mainland within five years"
> >
> >This happened with Germany in 1934, and in 1939 the UK had rearmed and
> >was ready for war.
> >
>
> might have been avoided. And of course, it's not like the UK didn't
> have a military in 1933. The Royal Navy was a pretty sizeable force,
> after all.
We weren't ready.
Going to war earlier would have meant that, for example, we'd have
been fighting German meschersmitts with Hurricanes rather than
|Spiutfires...
>
> >
> >Right now Sir Humphrey (the name often used to denote a senior
> >professional civil servant) is looking around and can't see one. Any
> >arms ordered at this moment are being bought because politicians see
> >votes in them.
> >
>
> should you find that you need one.
Bill
Apr 8, 2012, 1:10:00 PM4/8/12
to
In article <qbf3o7h22hfcqnn3m...@4ax.com>,
> it yourself.
> guys with swords.
Now there's a reasoned and articulate critique
> >> The warships to fight the fanatic's boats need to be built in advance of
> >> the fighting since they take years to build. the same applies to the
> >> aircraft.
> >
> >Oh be real for a moment.
> >
>
> Great advice. One wishes that you would at least intermittently take
> >> the fighting since they take years to build. the same applies to the
> >> aircraft.
> >
> >Oh be real for a moment.
> >
>
> it yourself.
>
> >
> >HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
> >deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
> >
>
> Yeah. Tactical analysis from the guy who still thinks in terms of
> >
> >HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
> >deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
> >
>
> guys with swords.
Now there's a reasoned and articulate critique
Message has been deleted
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 8, 2012, 1:49:35 PM4/8/12
to
Il 08/04/2012 17:12, Bill ha scritto:
> In article<rvhgr.156265$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> chied...@ask.me says...
>>
>> Il 08/04/2012 13:42, Bill ha scritto:
>>
>>> Oh be real for a moment.
>>>
>>> HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
>>> deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
>>
>> Playing Taranto at Tripoli, yes, but playing it in the actual Taranto ?
>> (or Toulon, or St. Petersburg, I mean playing it against a real Navy)
>>
>
> The senior officials of the British government play a game.
>
> They say "Show me a credible enemy who could be a threat to the UK
> mainland within five years"
>
> This happened with Germany in 1934, and in 1939 the UK had rearmed and
> was ready for war.
I'm thinking that this game should have a rule change, instead of five,
> In article<rvhgr.156265$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> chied...@ask.me says...
>>
>> Il 08/04/2012 13:42, Bill ha scritto:
>>
>>> Oh be real for a moment.
>>>
>>> HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
>>> deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
>>
>> Playing Taranto at Tripoli, yes, but playing it in the actual Taranto ?
>> (or Toulon, or St. Petersburg, I mean playing it against a real Navy)
>>
>
> The senior officials of the British government play a game.
>
> They say "Show me a credible enemy who could be a threat to the UK
> mainland within five years"
>
> This happened with Germany in 1934, and in 1939 the UK had rearmed and
> was ready for war.
should be one or two (I admit, not much time for major Naval
procurement) and, as 7/7 shows, the "threat to UK mainland" also should
to be carefully defined (or to be more precise, redefined)
And indeed I see a threat, not to UK mainland, but to UK overseas
territory, in the next five years, that is, Argentina; and as pointed in
past, the issue will be automatically solved when at least one of the
QEs is fully operational and with air wing. (a sizeable part of the
Argentine braggodacio is the current carrier vacuum)
Message has been deleted
Andrew Swallow
Apr 8, 2012, 3:12:08 PM4/8/12
to
size as a destroyer of surface ships. However both need the ability to
destroy.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
Apr 8, 2012, 3:17:30 PM4/8/12
to
On 08/04/2012 12:42, Bill wrote:
> In article<q5mdnaEIY9_Zbx3S...@bt.com>,
> am.sw...@btinternet.com says...
>>
>> On 08/04/2012 02:33, Bill wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>>
>>> Our enemy, such as it is, are a collection of fanatics who may or may
>>> not be home grown but who are reasonably dangerous to the locals and
>>> we're spending money on floating airfields that we have no aircraft
>>> for...
>>>
>>>
>> The fanatics can be ignored until they take control of an oil state and
>> use the oil money to buy a navy.
>
> That'll be the Saudis then...
>
Yes and no. The Saudis have calmed down a bit. Old men do.
> In article<q5mdnaEIY9_Zbx3S...@bt.com>,
> am.sw...@btinternet.com says...
>>
>> On 08/04/2012 02:33, Bill wrote:
>> {snip}
>>
>>>
>>> Our enemy, such as it is, are a collection of fanatics who may or may
>>> not be home grown but who are reasonably dangerous to the locals and
>>> we're spending money on floating airfields that we have no aircraft
>>> for...
>>>
>>>
>> The fanatics can be ignored until they take control of an oil state and
>> use the oil money to buy a navy.
>
> That'll be the Saudis then...
>
> Make enquires about who pays the clerics wages down at your local
> mosque, and about his English skills and about his understanding of the
> Wahhabi path.
>
>> The warships to fight the fanatic's boats need to be built in advance of
>> the fighting since they take years to build. the same applies to the
>> aircraft.
>
> Oh be real for a moment.
>
> HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
> deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
>
in advance.
Syria's air defences are too strong for helicopters from a single ship.
Pakistan's defence will take a while to suppress as well.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
Apr 8, 2012, 3:31:05 PM4/8/12
to
On 08/04/2012 16:12, Bill wrote:
> In article<rvhgr.156265$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> chied...@ask.me says...
>>
>> Il 08/04/2012 13:42, Bill ha scritto:
>>
>>> Oh be real for a moment.
>>>
>>> HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
>>> deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
>>
>> Playing Taranto at Tripoli, yes, but playing it in the actual Taranto ?
>> (or Toulon, or St. Petersburg, I mean playing it against a real Navy)
>>
>
> The senior officials of the British government play a game.
>
> They say "Show me a credible enemy who could be a threat to the UK
> mainland within five years"
>
> This happened with Germany in 1934, and in 1939 the UK had rearmed and
> was ready for war.
>
> Right now Sir Humphrey (the name often used to denote a senior
> professional civil servant) is looking around and can't see one. Any
> arms ordered at this moment are being bought because politicians see
> votes in them.
>
>
Real navy = China.
> In article<rvhgr.156265$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> chied...@ask.me says...
>>
>> Il 08/04/2012 13:42, Bill ha scritto:
>>
>>> Oh be real for a moment.
>>>
>>> HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
>>> deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
>>
>> Playing Taranto at Tripoli, yes, but playing it in the actual Taranto ?
>> (or Toulon, or St. Petersburg, I mean playing it against a real Navy)
>>
>
> The senior officials of the British government play a game.
>
> They say "Show me a credible enemy who could be a threat to the UK
> mainland within five years"
>
> This happened with Germany in 1934, and in 1939 the UK had rearmed and
> was ready for war.
>
> Right now Sir Humphrey (the name often used to denote a senior
> professional civil servant) is looking around and can't see one. Any
> arms ordered at this moment are being bought because politicians see
> votes in them.
>
>
China is not a threat to the UK mainland at the moment.
Is China a threat to Britain's supply lines?
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
Apr 8, 2012, 3:36:31 PM4/8/12
to
On 08/04/2012 17:57, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Bill<black...@gmail.com> wrote:
{snip}
Andrew Swallow
> Bill<black...@gmail.com> wrote:
{snip}
>> This happened with Germany in 1934, and in 1939 the UK had rearmed and
>> was ready for war.
>>
>
>> was ready for war.
>>
>
> Whereas if they had been ready a year or two earlier the whole mess
> might have been avoided. And of course, it's not like the UK didn't
> have a military in 1933. The Royal Navy was a pretty sizeable force,
> after all.
Czechoslovakia is in land. There was nowhere nearby to park the warships.
> might have been avoided. And of course, it's not like the UK didn't
> have a military in 1933. The Royal Navy was a pretty sizeable force,
> after all.
Andrew Swallow
Message has been deleted
Bill
Apr 8, 2012, 7:04:58 PM4/8/12
to
In article <hij3o718446t7gerf...@4ax.com>,
> >We weren't ready.
> >
>
> Yes, I know you weren't. That's the POINT. The short-sightedness
> that you are advocating leads to precisely the lack of readiness that
> lets things like WWII happen.
How on earth do you avoid a war with someone like Hitler?
> >Going to war earlier would have meant that, for example, we'd have
> >been fighting German meschersmitts with Hurricanes rather than
> >|Spiutfires...
> >
>
> I find it funny that you are now pointing out the FLAWS with the
> policy that you are advocating.
It isn't a flaw.
> >We weren't ready.
> >
>
> Yes, I know you weren't. That's the POINT. The short-sightedness
> that you are advocating leads to precisely the lack of readiness that
> lets things like WWII happen.
How on earth do you avoid a war with someone like Hitler?
> >Going to war earlier would have meant that, for example, we'd have
> >been fighting German meschersmitts with Hurricanes rather than
> >|Spiutfires...
> >
>
> policy that you are advocating.
It isn't a flaw.
Bill
Apr 8, 2012, 7:06:28 PM4/8/12
to
In article <Qckgr.156282$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
Argentina hasn't spent a bean on military procurement since the last war
with the UK.
They don't have a chance of doing anything but dying if they try again
for the foreseeable future.
with the UK.
They don't have a chance of doing anything but dying if they try again
for the foreseeable future.
Bill
Apr 8, 2012, 7:07:29 PM4/8/12
to
In article <omj3o79as1ocu1vdn...@4ax.com>,
> remark.
>
> So, what would have happened in the Falklands in the absence of
> fixed-wing seaborne assets?
>
Lets talk about facts rather than 'might have been'.
Right now there's no significant threat to the Falklands.
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <qbf3o7h22hfcqnn3m...@4ax.com>,
> >fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <q5mdnaEIY9_Zbx3S...@bt.com>,
> >> >am.sw...@btinternet.com says...
> >> >>
> >> >> The warships to fight the fanatic's boats need to be built in advance of
> >> >> the fighting since they take years to build. the same applies to the
> >> >> aircraft.
> >> >
> >> >Oh be real for a moment.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Great advice. One wishes that you would at least intermittently take
> >> it yourself.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
> >> >deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yeah. Tactical analysis from the guy who still thinks in terms of
> >> guys with swords.
> >
> >Now there's a reasoned and articulate critique
> >
>
> I note you had to clip the rest of my reply in order to make this
>
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <qbf3o7h22hfcqnn3m...@4ax.com>,
> >fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <q5mdnaEIY9_Zbx3S...@bt.com>,
> >> >am.sw...@btinternet.com says...
> >> >>
> >> >> The warships to fight the fanatic's boats need to be built in advance of
> >> >> the fighting since they take years to build. the same applies to the
> >> >> aircraft.
> >> >
> >> >Oh be real for a moment.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Great advice. One wishes that you would at least intermittently take
> >> it yourself.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >HMS Ocean and a few helicopters can do that quite as well and a great
> >> >deal more cheaply than the two new carriers.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yeah. Tactical analysis from the guy who still thinks in terms of
> >> guys with swords.
> >
> >Now there's a reasoned and articulate critique
> >
>
> remark.
>
> So, what would have happened in the Falklands in the absence of
> fixed-wing seaborne assets?
>
Lets talk about facts rather than 'might have been'.
Right now there's no significant threat to the Falklands.
Bill
Apr 8, 2012, 7:09:09 PM4/8/12
to
In article <FI2dncgozqTaeRzS...@bt.com>,
True.
Let's do that...
> Syria's air defences are too strong for helicopters from a single ship.
Syria is within range of land based aircraft on Cyprus.
> Pakistan's defence will take a while to suppress as well.
Without Indian or Afghan help that won't happen.
With their help you don't need carriers...
Let's do that...
> Syria's air defences are too strong for helicopters from a single ship.
> Pakistan's defence will take a while to suppress as well.
With their help you don't need carriers...
Bill
Apr 8, 2012, 7:09:40 PM4/8/12
to
In article <yJydnQ16dNbqehzS...@bt.com>,
am.sw...@btinternet.com says...
Not, we are told, for at least a decade.
am.sw...@btinternet.com says...
Bill
Apr 8, 2012, 7:10:10 PM4/8/12
to
In article <yJydnQx6dNYhdRzS...@bt.com>,
am.sw...@btinternet.com says...
Stop confusing him with facts, he doesn't like it...
am.sw...@btinternet.com says...
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 8, 2012, 7:42:07 PM4/8/12
to
Il 09/04/2012 01:09, Bill ha scritto:
> Without Indian or Afghan help that won't happen.
>
> With their help you don't need carriers...
I don't have much of an idea of the foreseeable development of the
> Without Indian or Afghan help that won't happen.
>
> With their help you don't need carriers...
current row between Italy and India, but for reasons well-known to RN
the operational status of the trio of .in CVLs isn't to be taken for
granted in war contingency planning....
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Andrew Swallow
Apr 8, 2012, 8:18:22 PM4/8/12
to
On 09/04/2012 00:03, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> As usual, you completely miss the point.
>
Hitler would not have been deterred. He had to be fought.
Andrew Swallow
>
Hitler would not have been deterred. He had to be fought.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
Apr 8, 2012, 8:22:25 PM4/8/12
to
Falkland Islands that they can show their population. I suggest a visit
from the Foreign Secretary. He is to fly there in a bomber launched
from the airport on the Falkland Islands.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
Apr 8, 2012, 8:26:33 PM4/8/12
to
>
> Please identify the threat to the UK homeland inside a 5 year horizon
> that justifies such a thing.
>
Ever heard of the UK Independence Party?
If it gains power they could declare war on the European Union.
Andrew Swallow
Bill
Apr 8, 2012, 8:48:40 PM4/8/12
to
In article <v484o7d5j3r99p4kf...@4ax.com>,
> to do because of short sighted policies like the one you're
> advocating.
>
So you're advocating the UK going to war with Germany unilaterally at
some earlier date, persuaded, no doubt, by some telepathic superman
that it was necessary?
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <hij3o718446t7gerf...@4ax.com>,
> >fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >We weren't ready.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, I know you weren't. That's the POINT. The short-sightedness
> >> that you are advocating leads to precisely the lack of readiness that
> >> lets things like WWII happen.
> >>
> >
> >How on earth do you avoid a war with someone like Hitler?
> >
>
> By standing up to them earlier, which you didn't have the capability
>
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <hij3o718446t7gerf...@4ax.com>,
> >fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >We weren't ready.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, I know you weren't. That's the POINT. The short-sightedness
> >> that you are advocating leads to precisely the lack of readiness that
> >> lets things like WWII happen.
> >>
> >
> >How on earth do you avoid a war with someone like Hitler?
> >
>
> to do because of short sighted policies like the one you're
> advocating.
>
So you're advocating the UK going to war with Germany unilaterally at
some earlier date, persuaded, no doubt, by some telepathic superman
that it was necessary?
Bill
Apr 8, 2012, 8:50:41 PM4/8/12
to
In article <jnpgr.156326$GZ3....@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
chied...@ask.me says...
knowledge of how South Asia works.
I believe it was a man who'd been the Italian ambassador in Kabul.
One assumes he found out who needed to be paid, and paid them.
chied...@ask.me says...
>
> Il 09/04/2012 01:09, Bill ha scritto:
>
> > Without Indian or Afghan help that won't happen.
> >
> > With their help you don't need carriers...
>
> I don't have much of an idea of the foreseeable development of the
> current row between Italy and India,
That fizzled out when Italy sent someone down there with a lot of
> Il 09/04/2012 01:09, Bill ha scritto:
>
> > Without Indian or Afghan help that won't happen.
> >
> > With their help you don't need carriers...
>
> I don't have much of an idea of the foreseeable development of the
> current row between Italy and India,
knowledge of how South Asia works.
I believe it was a man who'd been the Italian ambassador in Kabul.
One assumes he found out who needed to be paid, and paid them.
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 8, 2012, 8:52:03 PM4/8/12
to
Il 09/04/2012 01:36, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>>> I find it funny that you are now pointing out the FLAWS with the
>>> policy that you are advocating.
>>
>> It isn't a flaw.
>>
>
> So you think WWII was a FEATURE?
>>> I find it funny that you are now pointing out the FLAWS with the
>>> policy that you are advocating.
>>
>> It isn't a flaw.
>>
>
I'll try to suggest a workable exercise: if EU-UK relationship quickly
degenerates, what happens to poor britannia ?
notice that EU is substantially:
- France
- Germany
- Italy
- Spain
abstracting from the US will to get drawn in another major european
unpleasantness, what are the (rather bleak) perspectives ?
let's look a bit on these:
Spain's main role is obviously that of getting rid of Gibraltar,
enabling Italy to freely access the Atlantic
Italy also, lock out UK to quick access to oil ('nuff said)
Germany, well, what is the best thing Germany known to do ? and pls
notice that with
France _is allied with germany_ so the logistic support to U-boot will
be far superior and far better to that of WWII, and with Italy & Spain
free Germany from the distraction in handling a surface fleet (not that
Italian and french contribuition to the renewed Underwater Atlantic
Siege will be marginal)
now, on the actual "credible threat to UK mainland" let's do a bit of
overall comparision with the Battle of Atlantic:
first and foremost, UK population is more than doubled, and the
agricultural production is much inferior to that of 1940s
second, the Merchant fleets of today is composed of few and much larger
vessel, an U-boat commander today can outace every WWI and WWII ace with
few torpedoes, so even if UK start convoying since day one, a single
loss is much more felt.
Third, because there's two nuclear powers on opposite side, the pressure
from the rest of world to quickly get rid of the potential WWIII (with
the European precedents in screwing badly the rest of the world, I can
understand that the other nuclear powers will want a truce and talks
ASAP w/o involvements)
summing all up ? I can say that with the current EU economic mess, isn't
unfeasible that the UK (mainly the City) is seen as the main obstacle to
EU economical health, and the rest of UK get the brunt of the
consequences of what the old man from Trier called "capitalist greed" ;)
but its' only my being a Marxist old fart....
Now, the opinion of _both_ of you on is or isn't feasible having UK more
or less suddenly in actual dire situation, and from the usual direction...
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 8, 2012, 8:57:26 PM4/8/12
to
Il 09/04/2012 02:50, Bill ha scritto:
> That fizzled out when Italy sent someone down there with a lot of
> knowledge of how South Asia works.
>
> I believe it was a man who'd been the Italian ambassador in Kabul.
>
> One assumes he found out who needed to be paid, and paid them.
And, sir, why our Marine infantrymen still aren't back here ?
> That fizzled out when Italy sent someone down there with a lot of
> knowledge of how South Asia works.
>
> I believe it was a man who'd been the Italian ambassador in Kabul.
>
> One assumes he found out who needed to be paid, and paid them.
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 8, 2012, 9:00:01 PM4/8/12
to
Il 09/04/2012 02:26, Andrew Swallow ha scritto:
>> Please identify the threat to the UK homeland inside a 5 year horizon
>> that justifies such a thing.
>>
>
> Ever heard of the UK Independence Party?
> If it gains power they could declare war on the European Union.
we're discussing *external* threats, not *internal* ones....
>> Please identify the threat to the UK homeland inside a 5 year horizon
>> that justifies such a thing.
>>
>
> Ever heard of the UK Independence Party?
> If it gains power they could declare war on the European Union.
In another words, if that party ever get to power, this means ending
Britannia, as just described in another thread... pleaseeeee.....
Bill
Apr 8, 2012, 9:11:33 PM4/8/12
to
In article <Wtqgr.156334$GZ3.1...@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
chied...@ask.me says...
I imagine they'll be along in a few months when it has all quietened
down a bit more.
It's India, be happy they're not festering in a prison while the court
considers the qualifications of the translators.
If you remember a couple of weeks ago the Indian courts was busy telling
the Italian government that its representative didn't represent these
men and other arrangements would have to be made.
chied...@ask.me says...
>
> Il 09/04/2012 02:50, Bill ha scritto:
>
> > That fizzled out when Italy sent someone down there with a lot of
> > knowledge of how South Asia works.
> >
> > I believe it was a man who'd been the Italian ambassador in Kabul.
> >
> > One assumes he found out who needed to be paid, and paid them.
>
> And, sir, why our Marine infantrymen still aren't back here ?
Because they shot some fishermen.
> Il 09/04/2012 02:50, Bill ha scritto:
>
> > That fizzled out when Italy sent someone down there with a lot of
> > knowledge of how South Asia works.
> >
> > I believe it was a man who'd been the Italian ambassador in Kabul.
> >
> > One assumes he found out who needed to be paid, and paid them.
>
> And, sir, why our Marine infantrymen still aren't back here ?
I imagine they'll be along in a few months when it has all quietened
down a bit more.
It's India, be happy they're not festering in a prison while the court
considers the qualifications of the translators.
If you remember a couple of weeks ago the Indian courts was busy telling
the Italian government that its representative didn't represent these
men and other arrangements would have to be made.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Andrew Swallow
Apr 8, 2012, 10:21:25 PM4/8/12
to
> everything the most perfect way possible" position. WWII was
> wonderful. We should have another....
>
That was not the perfect way, it was the *necessary* way.
The actions of the other side have to be unforgivable.
Bribery before war. Germany had to break the deal.
Andrew Swallow
Message has been deleted
Andrew Swallow
Apr 9, 2012, 12:02:32 AM4/9/12
to
> before you're ready to stop them?
>
That depends on how long it takes to build the radar network.
Andrew Swallow
Message has been deleted
Paul J. Adam
Apr 9, 2012, 9:16:49 AM4/9/12
to
On 08/04/2012 16:04, Bill wrote:
> In article<jls6jj$4e1$1...@dont-email.me>, paul....@gmail.com says...
>> Given that non-state actors are now using anti-ship missiles, and the
>> scary supersonic sea-skimming weapons that the 45s were designed to
>> counter are proliferating to countries like Syria and Algeria, there's
>> definitely a threat.
>
> The only 'non state actors' I can think of who have them (Lebanese
> Hizbollah and Hamas) and only just 'none state'.
There are a few others in the "possible" to "likely" bracket, though
again there's a blurring of whether they're national entities or not.
Point remains, these beasties are out there, and unlike the days of
massively proliferated Styxalikes they're actually quite a serious risk:
making a Styx usable needed some seriously nasty chemicals in quantity
(hundreds of gallons of red fuming nitric acid isn't something you buy
over-the-counter) whereas the currently widespread weapons are simpler,
solid-fuelled, and pretty much maintenance free.
>> Bluntly, if the PM decides to do a noncombatant evacuation from Syria,
>> and the Syrians say "try it and we'll fire on you", is the answer "okay,
>> forget it then, we'll stay home" or "please don't waste your ammunition?"
>
> The chances of us pulling some sort of opposed evacuation from Syria
> without there being blood on the carpet is exactly zero.
>
> And when did Cyprus sink?
You won't keep missiles out of ships with aircraft. Given the track
record of finding and destroying (much larger, more distinctive)
Scud-type weapons from the air, you won't even take them out pre-launch.
Something like Type 45 or an AEGIS ship becomes a "go/no go" decision
for an operation of that ilk.
>> The problem is there are lots of missions, from real ones (NEOs in the
>> Middle East, chasing pirates, protecting oil platforms in the Gulf) many
>> of which could be done with fairly inexpensive OPVs, to occasional
>> oddballs like Libya, to credible risks of "...and now Iran is
>> retaliating against US and UK shipping throughout the Gulf" that need a
>> pretty top-end capability, and the politicians want us to do them *all*
>> as required, which means a very wide spread of requirements.
>
> |Except that fully worked up and equipped with a reasonable aircraft
> they'll still be a sight less force than the US Navy has deployed in the
> Gulf right now, and if we weren't in this with the US we probably
> wouldn't be there.
>
> Think 'What would Harold Wilson have done' rather than 'What would Tony
> Blair have done'.
Valid, but we're where our elected lords and masters put us, and whining
about the hole doesn't help you out of it. (Any more than the annoyingly
frequent habit of trying to dig deeper does).
Sometimes a politician says something on the lines of "we need fewer
foreign interventions", and has *almost* come to the end of the sentence
before finding somewhere like Libya to add to the list of operational
taskings. Unfortunately, that somehow doesn't stop them cutting the
defence budget in line with the reductions they didn't make...
>> Add into that the "must be built in Britain" and "must be customised to
>> unique UK requirements" vote-buyers - I mean, cost drivers - and you get
>> a hell of a mess, even before you add "...and must subsidise this
>> Europrogramme whether it's the best answer or not", and "we're demanding
>> this capability but won't actually fund it".
>
> Except the new RFA's aren't being built in the UK, which, be honest,
> changes a lot of things.
That was really, unexpectedly good news. Four ships, built in line with
the MARS specifications, and the Koreans have a good reputation for
delivering decent ships on time and cost. Is it a stopped clock being
right twice a day, or a sign of improvement?
>> Again, if we just needed to bash Backfires we'd have stuck with Tornado
>> F.3, it was designed for that job. Typhoon's designed to beat Flankers
>> and the like, which - again - are proliferating into the oddest places;
>> and then, having won air superiority, drop bombs on the locals. (Yes,
>> the ground-attack capability is delayed - political choices again, it's
>> been a comedy of errors)
>
> The whole Eurofighter thing has been a tragedy.
One of several.
>> The A-10's an awkward hybrid of fast jet and attack helicopter, with
>> drawbacks from both and not many of the advantages.
>
> So you build something that is more 'Buccaneer' or 'Jaguar' like.
>
> Both had outstanding records.
The Jaguar's an interesting case - it was considered a robust, reliable
and austere aircraft and so in Granby it was sent out to one of the
satellite fields (can't remember where exactly, offhand) where the
locals also flew Jag Internationals. However, its utility was seriously
limited by its lack of equipment: to be inexpensive it lacked a capable
radar warning receiver (it had a "Simon Says" game. with four red lights
in a quadrant to indicate which 90-degree sector had a potentially
hostile emitter: usually switched off because they just all came on all
the time), no chaff or flares, no ECM, no targetting systems beyond a
LRMTS, and no self-defence capability except for its internal cannon.
It got a mad rush of Granby jobs - overwing Sidewinders, PHIMAT
chaff/flare pod, ALQ-101 jammer pod, modern RWR, decent navigation
system replacing the 1960s moving-map display - and became rather useful
in that campaign, and post-Granby it got a rather good integration of
TIALD pod and helmet sight and a modern comms suite: but by that point
it was overweight and seriously limited on available payload (the joke
sign at their base asked pilots not to use reheat while taxying), and
very definitely no longer inexpensive.
I really liked the Jaguar, but it wouldn't have done well in a 1980s
Central Front conflict: like quite a few systems of its era, there was a
definite shopfront aspect.
As for the Buccaneer... don't forget, that was a peer to the A-6
Intruder. Complex, expensive avionics for its day, and a very
sophisticated airframe with some clever boundary layer control (novel
back then) which was one reason it stayed in service and was so
successful for so long. Perhaps that's a lesson?
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
> In article<jls6jj$4e1$1...@dont-email.me>, paul....@gmail.com says...
>> Given that non-state actors are now using anti-ship missiles, and the
>> scary supersonic sea-skimming weapons that the 45s were designed to
>> counter are proliferating to countries like Syria and Algeria, there's
>> definitely a threat.
>
> The only 'non state actors' I can think of who have them (Lebanese
> Hizbollah and Hamas) and only just 'none state'.
There are a few others in the "possible" to "likely" bracket, though
again there's a blurring of whether they're national entities or not.
Point remains, these beasties are out there, and unlike the days of
massively proliferated Styxalikes they're actually quite a serious risk:
making a Styx usable needed some seriously nasty chemicals in quantity
(hundreds of gallons of red fuming nitric acid isn't something you buy
over-the-counter) whereas the currently widespread weapons are simpler,
solid-fuelled, and pretty much maintenance free.
>> Bluntly, if the PM decides to do a noncombatant evacuation from Syria,
>> and the Syrians say "try it and we'll fire on you", is the answer "okay,
>> forget it then, we'll stay home" or "please don't waste your ammunition?"
>
> The chances of us pulling some sort of opposed evacuation from Syria
> without there being blood on the carpet is exactly zero.
>
> And when did Cyprus sink?
You won't keep missiles out of ships with aircraft. Given the track
record of finding and destroying (much larger, more distinctive)
Scud-type weapons from the air, you won't even take them out pre-launch.
Something like Type 45 or an AEGIS ship becomes a "go/no go" decision
for an operation of that ilk.
>> The problem is there are lots of missions, from real ones (NEOs in the
>> Middle East, chasing pirates, protecting oil platforms in the Gulf) many
>> of which could be done with fairly inexpensive OPVs, to occasional
>> oddballs like Libya, to credible risks of "...and now Iran is
>> retaliating against US and UK shipping throughout the Gulf" that need a
>> pretty top-end capability, and the politicians want us to do them *all*
>> as required, which means a very wide spread of requirements.
>
> |Except that fully worked up and equipped with a reasonable aircraft
> they'll still be a sight less force than the US Navy has deployed in the
> Gulf right now, and if we weren't in this with the US we probably
> wouldn't be there.
>
> Think 'What would Harold Wilson have done' rather than 'What would Tony
> Blair have done'.
Valid, but we're where our elected lords and masters put us, and whining
about the hole doesn't help you out of it. (Any more than the annoyingly
frequent habit of trying to dig deeper does).
Sometimes a politician says something on the lines of "we need fewer
foreign interventions", and has *almost* come to the end of the sentence
before finding somewhere like Libya to add to the list of operational
taskings. Unfortunately, that somehow doesn't stop them cutting the
defence budget in line with the reductions they didn't make...
>> Add into that the "must be built in Britain" and "must be customised to
>> unique UK requirements" vote-buyers - I mean, cost drivers - and you get
>> a hell of a mess, even before you add "...and must subsidise this
>> Europrogramme whether it's the best answer or not", and "we're demanding
>> this capability but won't actually fund it".
>
> Except the new RFA's aren't being built in the UK, which, be honest,
> changes a lot of things.
That was really, unexpectedly good news. Four ships, built in line with
the MARS specifications, and the Koreans have a good reputation for
delivering decent ships on time and cost. Is it a stopped clock being
right twice a day, or a sign of improvement?
>> Again, if we just needed to bash Backfires we'd have stuck with Tornado
>> F.3, it was designed for that job. Typhoon's designed to beat Flankers
>> and the like, which - again - are proliferating into the oddest places;
>> and then, having won air superiority, drop bombs on the locals. (Yes,
>> the ground-attack capability is delayed - political choices again, it's
>> been a comedy of errors)
>
> The whole Eurofighter thing has been a tragedy.
One of several.
>> The A-10's an awkward hybrid of fast jet and attack helicopter, with
>> drawbacks from both and not many of the advantages.
>
> So you build something that is more 'Buccaneer' or 'Jaguar' like.
>
> Both had outstanding records.
The Jaguar's an interesting case - it was considered a robust, reliable
and austere aircraft and so in Granby it was sent out to one of the
satellite fields (can't remember where exactly, offhand) where the
locals also flew Jag Internationals. However, its utility was seriously
limited by its lack of equipment: to be inexpensive it lacked a capable
radar warning receiver (it had a "Simon Says" game. with four red lights
in a quadrant to indicate which 90-degree sector had a potentially
hostile emitter: usually switched off because they just all came on all
the time), no chaff or flares, no ECM, no targetting systems beyond a
LRMTS, and no self-defence capability except for its internal cannon.
It got a mad rush of Granby jobs - overwing Sidewinders, PHIMAT
chaff/flare pod, ALQ-101 jammer pod, modern RWR, decent navigation
system replacing the 1960s moving-map display - and became rather useful
in that campaign, and post-Granby it got a rather good integration of
TIALD pod and helmet sight and a modern comms suite: but by that point
it was overweight and seriously limited on available payload (the joke
sign at their base asked pilots not to use reheat while taxying), and
very definitely no longer inexpensive.
I really liked the Jaguar, but it wouldn't have done well in a 1980s
Central Front conflict: like quite a few systems of its era, there was a
definite shopfront aspect.
As for the Buccaneer... don't forget, that was a peer to the A-6
Intruder. Complex, expensive avionics for its day, and a very
sophisticated airframe with some clever boundary layer control (novel
back then) which was one reason it stayed in service and was so
successful for so long. Perhaps that's a lesson?
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Bill
Apr 9, 2012, 9:44:26 AM4/9/12
to
In article <jlungh$e58$1...@dont-email.me>, paul....@gmail.com says...
"If they collect taxes and police a civilian population then they're a
state."
Somebody once said to me "If the have a full time liaison office in
London then they're a state" but recently a number of purely terrorist
organisations have tried that one and so it has become blurred.
> >> Bluntly, if the PM decides to do a noncombatant evacuation from
Syria,
> >> and the Syrians say "try it and we'll fire on you", is the answer "okay,
> >> forget it then, we'll stay home" or "please don't waste your ammunition?"
> >
> > The chances of us pulling some sort of opposed evacuation from Syria
> > without there being blood on the carpet is exactly zero.
> >
> > And when did Cyprus sink?
>
> You won't keep missiles out of ships with aircraft. Given the track
> record of finding and destroying (much larger, more distinctive)
> Scud-type weapons from the air, you won't even take them out pre-launch.
> Something like Type 45 or an AEGIS ship becomes a "go/no go" decision
> for an operation of that ilk.
The chances of a ship system failing and someone putting something nasty
through the side of an evacuation ship is high enough to ensure that a
selection of the people usually kept in cages and fed on raw meat and
vodka will be put on shore with instruction to offer violence to anyone
attempting to even point anything in a seawards direction.
> >> Add into that the "must be built in Britain" and "must be
customised to
> >> unique UK requirements" vote-buyers - I mean, cost drivers - and you get
> >> a hell of a mess, even before you add "...and must subsidise this
> >> Europrogramme whether it's the best answer or not", and "we're demanding
> >> this capability but won't actually fund it".
> >
> > Except the new RFA's aren't being built in the UK, which, be honest,
> > changes a lot of things.
>
> That was really, unexpectedly good news. Four ships, built in line with
> the MARS specifications, and the Koreans have a good reputation for
> delivering decent ships on time and cost. Is it a stopped clock being
> right twice a day, or a sign of improvement?
It has more to do with the lack of Tory constituencies in shipbuilding
communities than anything much else.
It's being used as a stick to hit the craft unions (the few that are
left that have some members and influence) with.
> >> The A-10's an awkward hybrid of fast jet and attack helicopter,
with
> >> drawbacks from both and not many of the advantages.
> >
> > So you build something that is more 'Buccaneer' or 'Jaguar' like.
> >
> > Both had outstanding records.
>
> The Jaguar's an interesting case - it was considered a robust, reliable
> and austere aircraft and so in Granby it was sent out to one of the
> satellite fields (can't remember where exactly, offhand) where the
> locals also flew Jag Internationals. However, its utility was seriously
> limited by its lack of equipment: to be inexpensive it lacked a capable
> radar warning receiver (it had a "Simon Says" game. with four red lights
> in a quadrant to indicate which 90-degree sector had a potentially
> hostile emitter: usually switched off because they just all came on all
> the time), no chaff or flares, no ECM, no targetting systems beyond a
> LRMTS, and no self-defence capability except for its internal cannon.
Now I actually did a rather interesting course once on Jaguars and they
did have an ECM/ECCM board with a dozen switches and lamps on it. I
understand that the pilots tended never ever to use it as it was
considered far too complicated. Now this was before the end of the Cold
War and the whole thing was 'Central Front' focused.
Certainly the bloke taking the course showed no interest in it,
although all it consisted of was a selection of receivers and a
rebroadcasting transmitter. I imagine keeping silent and low was
considered preferable to trying to fox the radar systems finding them.
> As for the Buccaneer... don't forget, that was a peer to the A-6
> Intruder. Complex, expensive avionics for its day, and a very
> sophisticated airframe with some clever boundary layer control (novel
> back then) which was one reason it stayed in service and was so
> successful for so long. Perhaps that's a lesson?
Possibly, but that's certainly not what they're try to build now.
I reiterate, there's no viable threat and no real use for these
carriers.
They've been ordered and built for political reasons.
>
> On 08/04/2012 16:04, Bill wrote:
> > In article<jls6jj$4e1$1...@dont-email.me>, paul....@gmail.com says...
> >> Given that non-state actors are now using anti-ship missiles, and the
> >> scary supersonic sea-skimming weapons that the 45s were designed to
> >> counter are proliferating to countries like Syria and Algeria, there's
> >> definitely a threat.
> >
> > The only 'non state actors' I can think of who have them (Lebanese
> > Hizbollah and Hamas) and only just 'none state'.
>
> There are a few others in the "possible" to "likely" bracket, though
> again there's a blurring of whether they're national entities or not.
Here's easy definition:
> On 08/04/2012 16:04, Bill wrote:
> > In article<jls6jj$4e1$1...@dont-email.me>, paul....@gmail.com says...
> >> Given that non-state actors are now using anti-ship missiles, and the
> >> scary supersonic sea-skimming weapons that the 45s were designed to
> >> counter are proliferating to countries like Syria and Algeria, there's
> >> definitely a threat.
> >
> > The only 'non state actors' I can think of who have them (Lebanese
> > Hizbollah and Hamas) and only just 'none state'.
>
> There are a few others in the "possible" to "likely" bracket, though
> again there's a blurring of whether they're national entities or not.
"If they collect taxes and police a civilian population then they're a
state."
Somebody once said to me "If the have a full time liaison office in
London then they're a state" but recently a number of purely terrorist
organisations have tried that one and so it has become blurred.
> >> Bluntly, if the PM decides to do a noncombatant evacuation from
Syria,
> >> and the Syrians say "try it and we'll fire on you", is the answer "okay,
> >> forget it then, we'll stay home" or "please don't waste your ammunition?"
> >
> > The chances of us pulling some sort of opposed evacuation from Syria
> > without there being blood on the carpet is exactly zero.
> >
> > And when did Cyprus sink?
>
> You won't keep missiles out of ships with aircraft. Given the track
> record of finding and destroying (much larger, more distinctive)
> Scud-type weapons from the air, you won't even take them out pre-launch.
> Something like Type 45 or an AEGIS ship becomes a "go/no go" decision
> for an operation of that ilk.
through the side of an evacuation ship is high enough to ensure that a
selection of the people usually kept in cages and fed on raw meat and
vodka will be put on shore with instruction to offer violence to anyone
attempting to even point anything in a seawards direction.
> >> Add into that the "must be built in Britain" and "must be
customised to
> >> unique UK requirements" vote-buyers - I mean, cost drivers - and you get
> >> a hell of a mess, even before you add "...and must subsidise this
> >> Europrogramme whether it's the best answer or not", and "we're demanding
> >> this capability but won't actually fund it".
> >
> > Except the new RFA's aren't being built in the UK, which, be honest,
> > changes a lot of things.
>
> That was really, unexpectedly good news. Four ships, built in line with
> the MARS specifications, and the Koreans have a good reputation for
> delivering decent ships on time and cost. Is it a stopped clock being
> right twice a day, or a sign of improvement?
communities than anything much else.
It's being used as a stick to hit the craft unions (the few that are
left that have some members and influence) with.
> >> The A-10's an awkward hybrid of fast jet and attack helicopter,
with
> >> drawbacks from both and not many of the advantages.
> >
> > So you build something that is more 'Buccaneer' or 'Jaguar' like.
> >
> > Both had outstanding records.
>
> The Jaguar's an interesting case - it was considered a robust, reliable
> and austere aircraft and so in Granby it was sent out to one of the
> satellite fields (can't remember where exactly, offhand) where the
> locals also flew Jag Internationals. However, its utility was seriously
> limited by its lack of equipment: to be inexpensive it lacked a capable
> radar warning receiver (it had a "Simon Says" game. with four red lights
> in a quadrant to indicate which 90-degree sector had a potentially
> hostile emitter: usually switched off because they just all came on all
> the time), no chaff or flares, no ECM, no targetting systems beyond a
> LRMTS, and no self-defence capability except for its internal cannon.
did have an ECM/ECCM board with a dozen switches and lamps on it. I
understand that the pilots tended never ever to use it as it was
considered far too complicated. Now this was before the end of the Cold
War and the whole thing was 'Central Front' focused.
Certainly the bloke taking the course showed no interest in it,
although all it consisted of was a selection of receivers and a
rebroadcasting transmitter. I imagine keeping silent and low was
considered preferable to trying to fox the radar systems finding them.
> As for the Buccaneer... don't forget, that was a peer to the A-6
> Intruder. Complex, expensive avionics for its day, and a very
> sophisticated airframe with some clever boundary layer control (novel
> back then) which was one reason it stayed in service and was so
> successful for so long. Perhaps that's a lesson?
I reiterate, there's no viable threat and no real use for these
carriers.
They've been ordered and built for political reasons.
peter skelton
Apr 9, 2012, 9:44:44 AM4/9/12
to
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:hci4o7t1to7tt8n5q...@4ax.com...
an accommodation with Hitler in 1942? However silly the British were
pre-war, that's one sillier.
news:hci4o7t1to7tt8n5q...@4ax.com...
>And the next deal. And the next deal. How many strikes do they get
before you're ready to stop them?
Aren't you the person who posted not a month ago that the US could have made
before you're ready to stop them?
an accommodation with Hitler in 1942? However silly the British were
pre-war, that's one sillier.
Message has been deleted
Alistair Gunn
Apr 9, 2012, 10:29:29 AM4/9/12
to
Bill twisted the electrons to say:
the re-militarisation of the Rhineland[1] or the Anschluss with
Austria[2].
[1] Didn't the German forces involved have orders to retreat if they
meant troops coming the other way?
[2] If Schuschnigg gets his own referendum done and the Austrians vote
for independence that would've stalled Hitler for a while.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
> So you're advocating the UK going to war with Germany unilaterally at
> some earlier date, persuaded, no doubt, by some telepathic superman
> that it was necessary?
I believe Fred is advocating standing up to Germany earlier over either
> some earlier date, persuaded, no doubt, by some telepathic superman
> that it was necessary?
the re-militarisation of the Rhineland[1] or the Anschluss with
Austria[2].
[1] Didn't the German forces involved have orders to retreat if they
meant troops coming the other way?
[2] If Schuschnigg gets his own referendum done and the Austrians vote
for independence that would've stalled Hitler for a while.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Alistair Gunn
Apr 9, 2012, 10:39:02 AM4/9/12
to
Bill twisted the electrons to say:
> > Syria's air defences are too strong for helicopters from a single ship.
> Syria is within range of land based aircraft on Cyprus.
Working on the figures from Wikipedia, the air-to-air mission with a 10
minute loiter covers Syria. If you want a 3 hour CAP then you're just
covering Cyprus. (And this assumes you can fly the great circle route
from Akrotiri without flying through Cypriot airspace.) How many
Eurofighters and tankers can we squeeze onto RAF Akrotiri at once?
Though since the Syrian Air Force doesn't appear to own any Backfires
and, according to some, that's the only threat the Eurofighter is able to
deal with there doesn't seem much point in deploying them anyway>
Message has been deleted
Alistair Gunn
Apr 9, 2012, 10:43:10 AM4/9/12
to
Bill twisted the electrons to say:
> In article <jlrid8$fre$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
> says...
> > Bill twisted the electrons to say:
> > > The government is busy gutting our health service and education system,
> > They may, nor may not (depending upon you believe) be gutting the English
> > NHS but tha's hardly the entire UK health system. Of course, IMHO, it
> > *deserves* gutting as would any "health service" which declares that the
> > proper response to a broken bone is to say "pain is normal, take
> > co-codamol" ...
> I think you miss the point.
Nope I rather think you do ... The NHS in Scotland & Wales, and the HSC
in Northern Ireland have been completely unaffected by the current
government in Westminster so claiming the UK's health care system has
been "gutted" is a gross exageration at best.
Plus, the English NHS is broken anyway ... So gutting it and starting
again would probably be a good idea.
> But the sight of our government disintegrating over a silly tax on meat
> pies and then getting caught increasing taxes on pensioners to pay for a
Please name the tax that's been increased, or newly levied, on
pensioners. We can safely say to start with that it wasn't income tax
since income tax rates remained the same or where reduced (depending upon
which bracket you're talking about) and the size of the tax free
allowance either increased or remained the same ...
> tax cut for the rich is something of a disconcerting experience for
> people who'd forgotten just how nasty Tories are when they have power.
AH, so you where in favour of retaining the 50% bracket even through
HMR&C where saying it brought in no extra income?
peter skelton
Apr 9, 2012, 10:49:29 AM4/9/12
to
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:ghs5o71os8fvjvmnu...@4ax.com...
getting into a war with the US. Britain, meanwhile, made a point of
being unready (if Wee Willie is to be believed), leading to deal after
deal, and then declared war over something she had no hope of doing
anything about.
So you would prefer the US to make an accommodation like the one the Soviets
made?
>Most honest historians believe things would have turned out quite
differently had Britain and France (been able to and have) stood up
much earlier - say, when Germany instituted conscription in violation
of Versailles or when she occupied the Ruhr.
Certainly. Or if the US banks hadn't financed the bugger, or if the US had
stood up with France and Britain, or, or, or.
Bill
Apr 9, 2012, 11:25:06 AM4/9/12
to
In article <jlusa6$ehl$5...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
says...
But it's well within our capabilities.
But the idea that the UK would go in against Syria alone and without
either support or UN backing is absurd.
What you have to consider is what we would bring to the force mix,
assuming the US delivers the usual carrier task force.
says...
>
> Bill twisted the electrons to say:
> > In article <FI2dncgozqTaeRzS...@bt.com>,
> > am.sw...@btinternet.com says...
> > > Syria's air defences are too strong for helicopters from a single ship.
> > Syria is within range of land based aircraft on Cyprus.
>
> Working on the figures from Wikipedia, the air-to-air mission with a 10
> minute loiter covers Syria. If you want a 3 hour CAP then you're just
> covering Cyprus. (And this assumes you can fly the great circle route
> from Akrotiri without flying through Cypriot airspace.) How many
> Eurofighters and tankers can we squeeze onto RAF Akrotiri at once?
That depends on how many tankers we choose to send.
> Bill twisted the electrons to say:
> > In article <FI2dncgozqTaeRzS...@bt.com>,
> > am.sw...@btinternet.com says...
> > > Syria's air defences are too strong for helicopters from a single ship.
> > Syria is within range of land based aircraft on Cyprus.
>
> Working on the figures from Wikipedia, the air-to-air mission with a 10
> minute loiter covers Syria. If you want a 3 hour CAP then you're just
> covering Cyprus. (And this assumes you can fly the great circle route
> from Akrotiri without flying through Cypriot airspace.) How many
> Eurofighters and tankers can we squeeze onto RAF Akrotiri at once?
But it's well within our capabilities.
But the idea that the UK would go in against Syria alone and without
either support or UN backing is absurd.
What you have to consider is what we would bring to the force mix,
assuming the US delivers the usual carrier task force.
Message has been deleted
Bill
Apr 9, 2012, 11:26:17 AM4/9/12
to
In article <jlustq$e0l$1...@dont-email.me>, skel...@yahoo.ca says...
Turning up late, twice, to save the world...
>
> Certainly. Or if the US banks hadn't financed the bugger, or if the US
had
> stood up with France and Britain, or, or, or.
That's always the one that smarts isn't it.
> Certainly. Or if the US banks hadn't financed the bugger, or if the US
had
> stood up with France and Britain, or, or, or.
Turning up late, twice, to save the world...
Bill
Apr 9, 2012, 11:31:26 AM4/9/12
to
How many
> Eurofighters and tankers can we squeeze onto RAF Akrotiri at once?
An awful lot, I think it's the only RAF station that is both an
> Eurofighters and tankers can we squeeze onto RAF Akrotiri at once?
operational airfield and a RoRo port...
If you look at the base area on Google Map it covers a vast area.
Bill
Apr 9, 2012, 11:37:31 AM4/9/12
to
In article <jlushu$mp4$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
says...
> > But the sight of our government disintegrating over a silly tax on meat
> > pies and then getting caught increasing taxes on pensioners to pay for a
>
> Please name the tax that's been increased, or newly levied, on
> pensioners.
Sophistry.
says...
> > But the sight of our government disintegrating over a silly tax on meat
> > pies and then getting caught increasing taxes on pensioners to pay for a
>
> Please name the tax that's been increased, or newly levied, on
> pensioners.
Eugene Griessel
Apr 9, 2012, 11:40:24 AM4/9/12
to
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:37:31 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <jlushu$mp4$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
>says...
>
>> > But the sight of our government disintegrating over a silly tax on meat
>> > pies and then getting caught increasing taxes on pensioners to pay for a
>>
>> Please name the tax that's been increased, or newly levied, on
>> pensioners.
>
>Sophistry.
Indeed? You just usually say "cite" don't you?
>In article <jlushu$mp4$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
>says...
>
>> > But the sight of our government disintegrating over a silly tax on meat
>> > pies and then getting caught increasing taxes on pensioners to pay for a
>>
>> Please name the tax that's been increased, or newly levied, on
>> pensioners.
>
>Sophistry.
Eugene L Griessel
You should not confuse your career with your life.
Alistair Gunn
Apr 9, 2012, 11:41:37 AM4/9/12
to
Bill twisted the electrons to say:
> In article <jlushu$mp4$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
> says...
> > > But the sight of our government disintegrating over a silly tax on meat
> > > pies and then getting caught increasing taxes on pensioners to pay for a
> > Please name the tax that's been increased, or newly levied, on
> > pensioners.
> Sophistry.
No evidence presented, claim fails ...
> says...
> > > But the sight of our government disintegrating over a silly tax on meat
> > > pies and then getting caught increasing taxes on pensioners to pay for a
> > Please name the tax that's been increased, or newly levied, on
> > pensioners.
> Sophistry.
The so-called "Granny Tax" is solely the creation of a tabloid editor who
wanted a good headline.
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 9, 2012, 12:07:22 PM4/9/12
to
Il 09/04/2012 16:40, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
> Not really. Germany had lots of things to keep her busy without
> getting into a war with the US. Britain, meanwhile, made a point of
> being unready (if Wee Willie is to be believed), leading to deal after
> deal, and then declared war over something she had no hope of doing
> anything about.
>
> Not really. Germany had lots of things to keep her busy without
> getting into a war with the US. Britain, meanwhile, made a point of
> being unready (if Wee Willie is to be believed), leading to deal after
> deal, and then declared war over something she had no hope of doing
> anything about.
>
> Most honest historians believe things would have turned out quite
> differently had Britain and France (been able to and have) stood up
> much earlier - say, when Germany instituted conscription in violation
> of Versailles or when she occupied the Ruhr.
depend on the means of "stood up". Granted that already in mid-1930s the
> differently had Britain and France (been able to and have) stood up
> much earlier - say, when Germany instituted conscription in violation
> of Versailles or when she occupied the Ruhr.
"para bellum" is rather lenghty in the Naval field; but in the 2nd half
of 1930s was'nt easy to quick bring a modern Army and airforce, and
starting WWII in 1936-7 (when the nazist & fascist menace was clear)
mens having to do with what is around (that was, weaponry still in
transition or still needed to be perfected) leading to a more or less
repeat of BM1 (on a narrower and more fortified frontline, Germany not
having not much immediate manpower, will not have extended the war to
the Belgium & Netherland)
Hitler's war plan was for igniting the powder in 1942-44, but its
parkinson (and his euthanasia policy) led it to precipitate the war
three to five years earlier; In his really questionable mind, he wants
to won the war, then quetly being euthanized (notice its favouring and
actively suggesting poison as end-life method, when bullets was more
readily available in May 1945...)
Bill
Apr 9, 2012, 1:01:57 PM4/9/12
to
In article <9m06o75ogvd9leubl...@4ax.com>,
eug...@dynagen.co.za says...
eug...@dynagen.co.za says...
>
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:37:31 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <jlushu$mp4$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
> >says...
> >
> >> > But the sight of our government disintegrating over a silly tax on meat
> >> > pies and then getting caught increasing taxes on pensioners to pay for a
> >>
> >> Please name the tax that's been increased, or newly levied, on
> >> pensioners.
> >
> >Sophistry.
>
> Indeed? You just usually say "cite" don't you?
>
The cite is easy, any UK newspaper last week.
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:37:31 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <jlushu$mp4$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
> >says...
> >
> >> > But the sight of our government disintegrating over a silly tax on meat
> >> > pies and then getting caught increasing taxes on pensioners to pay for a
> >>
> >> Please name the tax that's been increased, or newly levied, on
> >> pensioners.
> >
> >Sophistry.
>
> Indeed? You just usually say "cite" don't you?
>
Bill
Apr 9, 2012, 1:02:57 PM4/9/12
to
In article <jluvvh$1fq$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
says...
Read a paper.
says...
>
> Bill twisted the electrons to say:
> > In article <jlushu$mp4$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
> > says...
> > > > But the sight of our government disintegrating over a silly tax on meat
> > > > pies and then getting caught increasing taxes on pensioners to pay for a
> > > Please name the tax that's been increased, or newly levied, on
> > > pensioners.
> > Sophistry.
>
> No evidence presented, claim fails ...
>
Bollocks.
> Bill twisted the electrons to say:
> > In article <jlushu$mp4$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
> > says...
> > > > But the sight of our government disintegrating over a silly tax on meat
> > > > pies and then getting caught increasing taxes on pensioners to pay for a
> > > Please name the tax that's been increased, or newly levied, on
> > > pensioners.
> > Sophistry.
>
> No evidence presented, claim fails ...
>
Read a paper.
Andrew Swallow
Apr 9, 2012, 1:08:04 PM4/9/12
to
>> Here's easy definition:
>>
>> "If they collect taxes and police a civilian population then they're a
>> state."
>>
>> Somebody once said to me "If the have a full time liaison office in
>> London then they're a state" but recently a number of purely terrorist
>> organisations have tried that one and so it has become blurred.
>>
>
> Actually, your new definition doesn't work, either. It makes folks
>>
>> "If they collect taxes and police a civilian population then they're a
>> state."
>>
>> Somebody once said to me "If the have a full time liaison office in
>> London then they're a state" but recently a number of purely terrorist
>> organisations have tried that one and so it has become blurred.
>>
>
> like Hizbollah a state, along with any large organized crime
> organization collecting protection money.
>
I suspect that is the point the friend was making. The Mafia, PLO and
Hizbollah were states. Also many governments in Africa were bandits
that got lucky.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
Apr 9, 2012, 1:17:24 PM4/9/12
to
On 09/04/2012 16:41, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> Bill twisted the electrons to say:
>> In article<jlushu$mp4$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
>> says...
>>>> But the sight of our government disintegrating over a silly tax on meat
>>>> pies and then getting caught increasing taxes on pensioners to pay for a
>>> Please name the tax that's been increased, or newly levied, on
>>> pensioners.
>> Sophistry.
>
> No evidence presented, claim fails ...
>
> The so-called "Granny Tax" is solely the creation of a tabloid editor who
> wanted a good headline.
It comes in next year. Pensioners will get the same tax allowances as
> Bill twisted the electrons to say:
>> In article<jlushu$mp4$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
>> says...
>>>> But the sight of our government disintegrating over a silly tax on meat
>>>> pies and then getting caught increasing taxes on pensioners to pay for a
>>> Please name the tax that's been increased, or newly levied, on
>>> pensioners.
>> Sophistry.
>
> No evidence presented, claim fails ...
>
> The so-called "Granny Tax" is solely the creation of a tabloid editor who
> wanted a good headline.
people with jobs.
Andrew Swallow
peter skelton
Apr 9, 2012, 2:18:16 PM4/9/12
to
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:iov5o7h6otojtlo0r...@4ax.com...
another, hey, Peter?
Just plain no Fred. Correcting silliness in your restrictive interpretation
of my post is not changing context.
>>Most honest historians believe things would have turned out quite
>differently had Britain and France (been able to and have) stood up
>much earlier - say, when Germany instituted conscription in violation
>of Versailles or when she occupied the Ruhr.
>
>Certainly. Or if the US banks hadn't financed the bugger, or if the US had
>stood up with France and Britain, or, or, or.
>
Germany was a EUROPEAN problem. We'd stopped being a colony a long
time before. I think this is what irks some folks here the most.
If Hitler & co. went unchecked, it would eventually become an American
problem. Pretending it wasn't until the situation was desperate is exactly
what you are criticizing the French and British for.
Appealing to the strongest nation on earth for help is not treating it as a
colony.
cman...@gmail.com
Apr 9, 2012, 2:36:12 PM4/9/12
to fmc...@gmail.com
On Sunday, April 8, 2012 12:48:16 PM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
[Re: A-10's]
> Yet they still soldier on in USAF based on their performance in our
> last conflicts.
Where there was minimal MANPAD threat, leave alone a full up IADS. The A-10 is just fine given the extremely permissive air space we have fought in for the past decade. But so is a Super Tucano, which is much cheaper still, and won't fool it's pilots into thinking they can survive in a more hostile airspace.
> Personally, I think the idea of replacing the A-10
> with a $200 million airplane that is orders of magnitude more fragile
> is just a little nuts, but that's the path we're headed down (despite
> not being able to afford enough F-35 to even replace the fast-movers
> that are getting flown out).
The last time someone took an A-10 down low to let its massive armor face a real working IADS ('91) they got stomped and had to pull back to medium altitudes- above 10k feet. The A-10 is the American airframe most heavily shot down during the Gulf War, and even though there were many more F-16's they didn't get shot down nearly as much, because they stayed high up and had greater energy. And these A-10 losses should not be seen as a mark of effectiveness, either: the Gulf War Air Power Survey credited the F-111 with more tank kills than A-10's- and the only one of those airframes lost was a Spark Vark that probably CFIT'd.
Chris Manteuffel
[Re: A-10's]
> Yet they still soldier on in USAF based on their performance in our
> last conflicts.
Where there was minimal MANPAD threat, leave alone a full up IADS. The A-10 is just fine given the extremely permissive air space we have fought in for the past decade. But so is a Super Tucano, which is much cheaper still, and won't fool it's pilots into thinking they can survive in a more hostile airspace.
> Personally, I think the idea of replacing the A-10
> with a $200 million airplane that is orders of magnitude more fragile
> is just a little nuts, but that's the path we're headed down (despite
> not being able to afford enough F-35 to even replace the fast-movers
> that are getting flown out).
The last time someone took an A-10 down low to let its massive armor face a real working IADS ('91) they got stomped and had to pull back to medium altitudes- above 10k feet. The A-10 is the American airframe most heavily shot down during the Gulf War, and even though there were many more F-16's they didn't get shot down nearly as much, because they stayed high up and had greater energy. And these A-10 losses should not be seen as a mark of effectiveness, either: the Gulf War Air Power Survey credited the F-111 with more tank kills than A-10's- and the only one of those airframes lost was a Spark Vark that probably CFIT'd.
Chris Manteuffel
Alistair Gunn
Apr 9, 2012, 3:27:18 PM4/9/12
to
Bill twisted the electrons to say:
> In article <jluvvh$1fq$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
> says...
> > No evidence presented, claim fails ...
> Bollocks.
> Read a paper.
None of which list a new tax levied solely on pensioners, nor list an
> Bollocks.
> Read a paper.
existing tax which is now levied on pensioners at a higher rate (be that
meaning either a higher rate than non-pensioners or a higher rate on
pensioners than existed before the budget).
So I ask again, please provide the evidence showing either the existence
of either a new tax levied solely on pensioners or an existing tax being
levied at a higher rate ...
Alistair Gunn
Apr 9, 2012, 3:31:51 PM4/9/12
to
Andrew Swallow twisted the electrons to say:
That's still not a granny tax ... And I don't believe the personal
allowance rates for 2013/14 have been announced yet? (Could be wrong,
but couldn't find them online.) For 2012-13 pensioners got an increase
in their personal allowance, albeit not as large an increase as those
aged less than 65.
allowance rates for 2013/14 have been announced yet? (Could be wrong,
but couldn't find them online.) For 2012-13 pensioners got an increase
in their personal allowance, albeit not as large an increase as those
aged less than 65.
Bill
Apr 9, 2012, 4:08:02 PM4/9/12
to
In article <jlvd6m$3vf$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
says...
says...
>
> Bill twisted the electrons to say:
> > In article <jluvvh$1fq$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
> > says...
> > > No evidence presented, claim fails ...
> > Bollocks.
> > Read a paper.
>
> None of which list a new tax levied solely on pensioners, nor list an
> existing tax which is now levied on pensioners at a higher rate (be that
> meaning either a higher rate than non-pensioners or a higher rate on
> pensioners than existed before the budget).
>
Silly man.
> Bill twisted the electrons to say:
> > In article <jluvvh$1fq$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, palmer...@yahoo.com
> > says...
> > > No evidence presented, claim fails ...
> > Bollocks.
> > Read a paper.
>
> None of which list a new tax levied solely on pensioners, nor list an
> existing tax which is now levied on pensioners at a higher rate (be that
> meaning either a higher rate than non-pensioners or a higher rate on
> pensioners than existed before the budget).
>
George152
Apr 9, 2012, 5:34:06 PM4/9/12
to
On 4/10/2012 2:29 AM, Alistair Gunn wrote:
> Bill twisted the electrons to say:
>> So you're advocating the UK going to war with Germany unilaterally at
>> some earlier date, persuaded, no doubt, by some telepathic superman
>> that it was necessary?
> I believe Fred is advocating standing up to Germany earlier over either
> the re-militarisation of the Rhineland[1] or the Anschluss with
> Austria[2].
>
> [1] Didn't the German forces involved have orders to retreat if they
> meant troops coming the other way?
> [2] If Schuschnigg gets his own referendum done and the Austrians vote
> for independence that would've stalled Hitler for a while.
In those days the world was enamored by the League of Nations and after
> Bill twisted the electrons to say:
>> So you're advocating the UK going to war with Germany unilaterally at
>> some earlier date, persuaded, no doubt, by some telepathic superman
>> that it was necessary?
> I believe Fred is advocating standing up to Germany earlier over either
> the re-militarisation of the Rhineland[1] or the Anschluss with
> Austria[2].
>
> [1] Didn't the German forces involved have orders to retreat if they
> meant troops coming the other way?
> [2] If Schuschnigg gets his own referendum done and the Austrians vote
> for independence that would've stalled Hitler for a while.
the WW1 horrors pacifism ruled the sane world.
However Hitler was not sane
Paul J. Adam
Apr 9, 2012, 6:06:36 PM4/9/12
to
On 09/04/2012 14:44, Bill wrote:
> In article<jlungh$e58$1...@dont-email.me>, paul....@gmail.com says...
>> You won't keep missiles out of ships with aircraft. Given the track
>> record of finding and destroying (much larger, more distinctive)
>> Scud-type weapons from the air, you won't even take them out pre-launch.
>> Something like Type 45 or an AEGIS ship becomes a "go/no go" decision
>> for an operation of that ilk.
>
> The chances of a ship system failing and someone putting something nasty
> through the side of an evacuation ship is high enough to ensure that a
> selection of the people usually kept in cages and fed on raw meat and
> vodka will be put on shore with instruction to offer violence to anyone
> attempting to even point anything in a seawards direction.
Good as the Hereford Hooligans can be, their record at hunting down
mobile missile launchers is far from perfect. Iraq managed to get two
Seersuckers away during Granby after *weeks* of surveillance,
bombardment, SF infiltration and general mayhem - which bodes very
poorly for the "we'll take them out pre-launch" plan.
When GLOUCESTER, and then ILLUSTRIOUS, went into Beirut during Op
Highbrow, they were seriously on alert for those Hezbollah C802s, and no
land-based air or special forces support in sight.
>> That was really, unexpectedly good news. Four ships, built in line with
>> the MARS specifications, and the Koreans have a good reputation for
>> delivering decent ships on time and cost. Is it a stopped clock being
>> right twice a day, or a sign of improvement?
>
> It has more to do with the lack of Tory constituencies in shipbuilding
> communities than anything much else.
There used to be Vospers, but for some reason they stopped getting
orders. (Which was a shame because, ignoring the colour of the
constituency, they were far ahead of Govan in terms of efficiency and
effectiveness for the size of ships they could build).
> It's being used as a stick to hit the craft unions (the few that are
> left that have some members and influence) with.
To be honest, having had some peripheral involvement in shipbuilding
through what used to be "Batch 2 Trafalgar", Type 45 and CVF, many UK
shipyards seemed intent on self-destruction. Bad management and unions
out of a "Carry On" movie...
>> As for the Buccaneer... don't forget, that was a peer to the A-6
>> Intruder. Complex, expensive avionics for its day, and a very
>> sophisticated airframe with some clever boundary layer control (novel
>> back then) which was one reason it stayed in service and was so
>> successful for so long. Perhaps that's a lesson?
>
> Possibly, but that's certainly not what they're try to build now.
Buccaneer was designed as a nuclear strike platform, which is pretty
high end. It turned out to be remarkably useful for other tasks as well.
If you don't know what you need, build flexible and capable, and adapt
as you find out what the future holds. Going for the cheap simple
solution to the last war can be... awkward.
> I reiterate, there's no viable threat and no real use for these
> carriers.
Disagree, though the more grandiose visions of HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH
pounding Nastystan with a hundred-plus strike sorties a day are a little
tuppeny-coloured. Two lessons from the Invincibles is that it's been
very useful having a mobile airbase we can put where we need (the
Adriatic, the Falklands, Sierra Leone, the Gulf) and a big flat deck is
easy to adapt by changing the air group (think ARK ROYAL being an LPH
during Op TELIC).
Every time some bright spark suggests shrinking the carriers to save
money (and it's been done from high level in detail *at least* twice, at
considerable cost) it turns out that you don't save much money, but lose
a lot of capability.
We got excellent use out of the INVINCIBLEs and OCEAN, but they're worn
out and mostly gone. Either the politicians need to stop demanding
foreign adventure holidays, or else we need a couple of flexible large
decks.
> They've been ordered and built for political reasons.
That can be true, and yet the ships remain a good solution to the
problem posed by our elected rules. Lots of proposals from converted
container ships to "OCEANalikes" to repeat CVS to CVF-minus have been
pawed over in excruciating detail, often several times, and yet the
bones keep landing in about the same pattern.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
> In article<jlungh$e58$1...@dont-email.me>, paul....@gmail.com says...
>> You won't keep missiles out of ships with aircraft. Given the track
>> record of finding and destroying (much larger, more distinctive)
>> Scud-type weapons from the air, you won't even take them out pre-launch.
>> Something like Type 45 or an AEGIS ship becomes a "go/no go" decision
>> for an operation of that ilk.
>
> The chances of a ship system failing and someone putting something nasty
> through the side of an evacuation ship is high enough to ensure that a
> selection of the people usually kept in cages and fed on raw meat and
> vodka will be put on shore with instruction to offer violence to anyone
> attempting to even point anything in a seawards direction.
Good as the Hereford Hooligans can be, their record at hunting down
mobile missile launchers is far from perfect. Iraq managed to get two
Seersuckers away during Granby after *weeks* of surveillance,
bombardment, SF infiltration and general mayhem - which bodes very
poorly for the "we'll take them out pre-launch" plan.
When GLOUCESTER, and then ILLUSTRIOUS, went into Beirut during Op
Highbrow, they were seriously on alert for those Hezbollah C802s, and no
land-based air or special forces support in sight.
>> That was really, unexpectedly good news. Four ships, built in line with
>> the MARS specifications, and the Koreans have a good reputation for
>> delivering decent ships on time and cost. Is it a stopped clock being
>> right twice a day, or a sign of improvement?
>
> It has more to do with the lack of Tory constituencies in shipbuilding
> communities than anything much else.
There used to be Vospers, but for some reason they stopped getting
orders. (Which was a shame because, ignoring the colour of the
constituency, they were far ahead of Govan in terms of efficiency and
effectiveness for the size of ships they could build).
> It's being used as a stick to hit the craft unions (the few that are
> left that have some members and influence) with.
To be honest, having had some peripheral involvement in shipbuilding
through what used to be "Batch 2 Trafalgar", Type 45 and CVF, many UK
shipyards seemed intent on self-destruction. Bad management and unions
out of a "Carry On" movie...
>> As for the Buccaneer... don't forget, that was a peer to the A-6
>> Intruder. Complex, expensive avionics for its day, and a very
>> sophisticated airframe with some clever boundary layer control (novel
>> back then) which was one reason it stayed in service and was so
>> successful for so long. Perhaps that's a lesson?
>
> Possibly, but that's certainly not what they're try to build now.
Buccaneer was designed as a nuclear strike platform, which is pretty
high end. It turned out to be remarkably useful for other tasks as well.
If you don't know what you need, build flexible and capable, and adapt
as you find out what the future holds. Going for the cheap simple
solution to the last war can be... awkward.
> I reiterate, there's no viable threat and no real use for these
> carriers.
Disagree, though the more grandiose visions of HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH
pounding Nastystan with a hundred-plus strike sorties a day are a little
tuppeny-coloured. Two lessons from the Invincibles is that it's been
very useful having a mobile airbase we can put where we need (the
Adriatic, the Falklands, Sierra Leone, the Gulf) and a big flat deck is
easy to adapt by changing the air group (think ARK ROYAL being an LPH
during Op TELIC).
Every time some bright spark suggests shrinking the carriers to save
money (and it's been done from high level in detail *at least* twice, at
considerable cost) it turns out that you don't save much money, but lose
a lot of capability.
We got excellent use out of the INVINCIBLEs and OCEAN, but they're worn
out and mostly gone. Either the politicians need to stop demanding
foreign adventure holidays, or else we need a couple of flexible large
decks.
> They've been ordered and built for political reasons.
That can be true, and yet the ships remain a good solution to the
problem posed by our elected rules. Lots of proposals from converted
container ships to "OCEANalikes" to repeat CVS to CVF-minus have been
pawed over in excruciating detail, often several times, and yet the
bones keep landing in about the same pattern.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Bill
Apr 9, 2012, 6:59:44 PM4/9/12
to
In article <jlvmhu$dag$1...@dont-email.me>, paul....@gmail.com says...
After BAE took them over they built 'super yachts' for billionaires for
a decade.
I understand that BAE have sold them on and the old Vospers yards and
expertise is now the property of Babcocks and involved with building the
new carriers.
> > It's being used as a stick to hit the craft unions (the few that are
> > left that have some members and influence) with.
>
> To be honest, having had some peripheral involvement in shipbuilding
> through what used to be "Batch 2 Trafalgar", Type 45 and CVF, many UK
> shipyards seemed intent on self-destruction. Bad management and unions
> out of a "Carry On" movie...
Tell me about it...
Union leaders appointed because they once threatened to strike and
personnel and HR staff appointed because 'They're ex army/navy/airforce
and good with 'the chaps'...'
Mainstream management appointments based on who went to school with whom
and who was in the 1st 15...
British industry has been a disaster area since the end of WWI.
> > They've been ordered and built for political reasons.
>
> That can be true, and yet the ships remain a good solution to the
> problem posed by our elected rules. Lots of proposals from converted
> container ships to "OCEANalikes" to repeat CVS to CVF-minus have been
> pawed over in excruciating detail, often several times, and yet the
> bones keep landing in about the same pattern.
One advantage of a pragmatic political system that has a reasonably high
level of party discipline is that the politicians in power try not to
over-reach the capacity of the armed forces because there's always going
to be another election to fight.
Labour went a touch odd at the end of their term and tried to do far too
much, and then had to pay the price when the generals more or less
rebelled unless they got all the toys for Afghanistan they demanded.
The current bunch of retired brass hats singing in harmony about what
the military wants seem to be bouncing off Cameron and his chums.
>
> On 09/04/2012 14:44, Bill wrote:
> > In article<jlungh$e58$1...@dont-email.me>, paul....@gmail.com says...
> On 09/04/2012 14:44, Bill wrote:
> > In article<jlungh$e58$1...@dont-email.me>, paul....@gmail.com says...
> >> That was really, unexpectedly good news. Four ships, built in line with
> >> the MARS specifications, and the Koreans have a good reputation for
> >> delivering decent ships on time and cost. Is it a stopped clock being
> >> right twice a day, or a sign of improvement?
> >
> > It has more to do with the lack of Tory constituencies in shipbuilding
> > communities than anything much else.
>
> There used to be Vospers, but for some reason they stopped getting
> orders. (Which was a shame because, ignoring the colour of the
> constituency, they were far ahead of Govan in terms of efficiency and
> effectiveness for the size of ships they could build).
Ah, Vospers belonged to the Waldegrave family in those days.
> >> the MARS specifications, and the Koreans have a good reputation for
> >> delivering decent ships on time and cost. Is it a stopped clock being
> >> right twice a day, or a sign of improvement?
> >
> > It has more to do with the lack of Tory constituencies in shipbuilding
> > communities than anything much else.
>
> There used to be Vospers, but for some reason they stopped getting
> orders. (Which was a shame because, ignoring the colour of the
> constituency, they were far ahead of Govan in terms of efficiency and
> effectiveness for the size of ships they could build).
After BAE took them over they built 'super yachts' for billionaires for
a decade.
I understand that BAE have sold them on and the old Vospers yards and
expertise is now the property of Babcocks and involved with building the
new carriers.
> > It's being used as a stick to hit the craft unions (the few that are
> > left that have some members and influence) with.
>
> To be honest, having had some peripheral involvement in shipbuilding
> through what used to be "Batch 2 Trafalgar", Type 45 and CVF, many UK
> shipyards seemed intent on self-destruction. Bad management and unions
> out of a "Carry On" movie...
Union leaders appointed because they once threatened to strike and
personnel and HR staff appointed because 'They're ex army/navy/airforce
and good with 'the chaps'...'
Mainstream management appointments based on who went to school with whom
and who was in the 1st 15...
British industry has been a disaster area since the end of WWI.
> > They've been ordered and built for political reasons.
>
> That can be true, and yet the ships remain a good solution to the
> problem posed by our elected rules. Lots of proposals from converted
> container ships to "OCEANalikes" to repeat CVS to CVF-minus have been
> pawed over in excruciating detail, often several times, and yet the
> bones keep landing in about the same pattern.
level of party discipline is that the politicians in power try not to
over-reach the capacity of the armed forces because there's always going
to be another election to fight.
Labour went a touch odd at the end of their term and tried to do far too
much, and then had to pay the price when the generals more or less
rebelled unless they got all the toys for Afghanistan they demanded.
The current bunch of retired brass hats singing in harmony about what
the military wants seem to be bouncing off Cameron and his chums.
Andrew Swallow
Apr 9, 2012, 8:59:29 PM4/9/12
to
On 09/04/2012 23:59, Bill wrote:
{snip}
Something the Liberal Democrats have not realised yet, now that 5 year
fixed term parliaments have been introduced the Tories can dump them.
Andrew Swallow
{snip}
> The current bunch of retired brass hats singing in harmony about what
> the military wants seem to be bouncing off Cameron and his chums.
It will change when they have to report losing a war they started.
> the military wants seem to be bouncing off Cameron and his chums.
Something the Liberal Democrats have not realised yet, now that 5 year
fixed term parliaments have been introduced the Tories can dump them.
Andrew Swallow
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages