Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 19 October 2010, 00:10:49
-
Doesn't seem right to me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593
:(
-
I fear that this Government is running before it has learned to walk, worrying times....... :-X
-
It's not right at all >:( >:( >:(
It's totally outrageous, they're actually wasting money imo & scrapping more than just a carrier... it's yet another significant part of our heritage down the pan >:(
All that said, I did vote for Mr C ::)
I served in the senior infantry regiment of the line (can't publish here), when I was a lad & they scrapped that too, under the guise of "amalgamation" during the '90's SDR
money, money, money... heritage/culture? :-/
-
Seems sensible, we have nothing to put on it, cant afford anything to put on it and have 2 new carriers coming (which we cant afford but also cant get out of).
-
at the end of the day we are getting two for the price of one! ;D
Just don't start a second war in the Falklands islands until 2019! Which is a tall order since we just found one of the biggest oil supplies just off its coast. The Argies will want a piece of that, and we have sod all to defend it with :(
-
at the end of the day we are getting two for the price of one! ;D
Just don't start a second war in the Falklands islands until 2019! Which is a tall order since we just found one of the biggest oil supplies just off its coast. The Argies will want a piece of that, and we have sod all to defend it with :(
It's OK. We've got a working Vulcan now. ;D
I suspect we are starting to see the tip of the iceberg vis-a-vis Labour's dishing out blank cheques in their last throes of power.
25 years does seem to be a short lifespan for something as expensive as an aircraft carrier. Then again, without aircraft it's an expensive self-licking lollipop. :(
It's plain to see there is layer upon layer of MOD procurement / ministerial meddlers who are clearly incompetent with the nation's money. I wonder if they'll be scrapped too?
Kevin
-
at the end of the day we are getting two for the price of one! ;D
Just don't start a second war in the Falklands islands until 2019! Which is a tall order since we just found one of the biggest oil supplies just off its coast. The Argies will want a piece of that, and we have sod all to defend it with :(
Quite a bit less than they first thought apparently, which is why Rockhopper shares rocketed to over a fiver and have now dropped back to around £3.50 ;)........maybe still enough for the Argies to think about having a go though. :y
-
at the end of the day we are getting two for the price of one! ;D
Just don't start a second war in the Falklands islands until 2019! Which is a tall order since we just found one of the biggest oil supplies just off its coast. The Argies will want a piece of that, and we have sod all to defend it with :(
Quite a bit less than they first thought apparently, which is why Rockhopper shares rocketed to over a fiver and have now dropped back to around £3.50 ;)........maybe still enough for the Argies to think about having a go though. :y
Thanks for correction on oil :y
But i think they want it back even if there was no oil & we would not be able to mount a similar campaign to '82 if asked to now >:(
I guess one good thing is Trident replacement is delayed so they will stay in service, rather than for the scrapper too
-
Bye, bye, Fleet Air Arm as well, at least for the next 16 years. >:( >:(
The move will mean an “enormous loss of influence and respect” to Britain as the Navy “is one of the few in the world that has carrier strike,” a senior Navy source said.
“This did put us in the top echelon next the US and French but it now means that even Italy and Spain will have a great capability than the Royal Navy.
Tossers. They need to get rid of the stupid pen-pushers at the MoD, not our defensive capabilities. I used to be proud of our Armed Services. Soon, there will be nothing left of which to be proud.
>:( >:(
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8071295/Navy-aircraft-carriers-not-operational-for-26-years.html
-
sad passing, but maybe we should be looking at a United European armed force and share the costs.
Just don't let the Germans take the reigns.......obviously :y
and I can't believe the Harrier's getting pulled - the Yanks love 'em :o
-
sad passing, but maybe we should be looking at a United European armed force and share the costs.
Just don't let the Germans take the reigns.......obviously :y
Ugh!
>:( >:(
-
at the end of the day we are getting two for the price of one! ;D
Just don't start a second war in the Falklands islands until 2019! Which is a tall order since we just found one of the biggest oil supplies just off its coast. The Argies will want a piece of that, and we have sod all to defend it with :(
It's OK. We've got a working Vulcan now. ;D
I suspect we are starting to see the tip of the iceberg vis-a-vis Labour's dishing out blank cheques in their last throes of power.
25 years does seem to be a short lifespan for something as expensive as an aircraft carrier. Then again, without aircraft it's an expensive self-licking lollipop. :(
It's plain to see there is layer upon layer of MOD procurement / ministerial meddlers who are clearly incompetent with the nation's money. I wonder if they'll be scrapped too?
Kevin
It's plain to see there is layer upon layer of MOD procurement / ministerial meddlers who are clearly incompetent with the nation's money. I wonder if they'll be scrapped too?
Yep, you've skelped the arse of that one K. 8-) :y :y
Someone was there before you however (excerpt);
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v4qUqxmLS4&feature=related[/media]
-
sad passing, but maybe we should be looking at a United European armed force and share the costs.
Just don't let the Germans take the reigns.......obviously :y
Ugh!
>:( >:(
not a fan of the idea then, Nick? ::) ::) :y
-
I watched the BBc news this morning with a mixture of anger, wonderment and surprise.
I have always been saying that it is high time we got off our high perch of Britain being a superpower. We aren't we are just a little (poorish) country. So we can join in NATO or the EU for our contribution towards a genuine "war" type conflict. The days of us rushing off to war at the drop of a hat are gone.
Where is the redindancy money going to come from for all the armed forces personnel that are thrown out of work and also the associated jobs also lost? Where are those folk going to find work when they are competing with the people who lose their jobs tomorrow?
My anger comes from the unmonitored and un punished profligate waste that the faceless mandarins (not government) have been engaged in in spending our money(billions) on various unsustainable and now unwanted projects. Will any be sacked. Of course not , they never are.
What we should really be concentrating on is terrorism that is the new warfare.
-
I watched the BBc news this morning with a mixture of anger, wonderment and surprise.
I have always been saying that it is high time we got off our high perch of Britain being a superpower. We aren't we are just a little (poorish) country. So we can join in NATO or the EU for our contribution towards a genuine "war" type conflict. The days of us rushing off to war at the drop of a hat are gone.
Where is the redindancy money going to come from for all the armed forces personnel that are thrown out of work and also the associated jobs also lost? Where are those folk going to find work when they are competing with the people who lose their jobs tomorrow?
My anger comes from the unmonitored and un punished profligate waste that the faceless mandarins (not government) have been engaged in in spending our money(billions) on various unsustainable and now unwanted projects. Will any be sacked. Of course not , they never are.
What we should really be concentrating on is terrorism that is the new warfare.
I have always been saying that it is high time we got off our high perch of Britain being a superpower. We aren't we are just a little (poorish) country. So we can join in NATO /........./ for our contribution towards a genuine "war" type conflict. The days of us rushing off to war at the drop of a hat are gone.
I'm afraid that I'm minded to agree with that.
Where is the redindancy money going to come
Where indeed?
What we should really be concentrating on is terrorism
Some regional conflicts/simmering conflicts pose a greater threat at the moment, although terrorism should not be discounted.
-
Redundancy money is no big issue, for most it will be less than a years wages so its a years costs plus a much reduced support charge. Hence its a one off loss and a medium and long term saving.
As for the reality of the situation we are in, the former labour government can point the finger at the bankers all they like but, its THEM speding more than we were earning for 10 years and running up huge deficits thats the real issue.
The money dumped into the banks they will (and are) getting back with the possibilty for profit, the money dumped into the bottomless pit that is the NHS and the debts run up on new schools was just way to much.
ALL sections need to save BIG money and the forces are one of them, if it means no (not greatly useful) aircraft carrier and the now particularly knackered Harrier fleet going then thats better than impacting those in Afghanistan etc
-
One of the most sensible posts I have read in a long time. :y
I do hope that they ensure that the troops on the battlefront have absolutely everything they need. To starve them of resources while at the same time ring fencing the foreign aid budget and the bottomless pit that is the NHS would be unforgivable imo. ;)
-
Yep, you've skelped the arse of that one K. 8-) :y :y
I figured it out the one and only time I've visited said establishment in a business capacity. The meeting was not going too bad apart from the stench of cigar smoke - until 11:00AM, whereby one of our hosts announced that the pubs were open and the rest of the day was spent by them attempting to determine if there was a limit on the "entertainment" budget for the meeting (there wasn't).
So, there's value for money for the public purse. 8 hours paid for (maybe more - perhaps they claimed overtime while sobering up) and 2 hours useful work delivered (assuming they arrived on time and paid any attention to my presentation. Not sure they did, TBH.). >:(
Kevin
-
sad passing, but maybe we should be looking at a United European armed force and share the costs.
Just don't let the Germans take the reigns.......obviously :y
and I can't believe the Harrier's getting pulled - the Yanks love 'em :o
In the immortal words of Ian Paisley - NEVER !! ;) ;D ;D
-
Yep, you've skelped the arse of that one K. 8-) :y :y
I figured it out the one and only time I've visited said establishment in a business capacity. The meeting was not going too bad apart from the stench of cigar smoke - until 11:00AM, whereby one of our hosts announced that the pubs were open and the rest of the day was spent by them attempting to determine if there was a limit on the "entertainment" budget for the meeting (there wasn't).
So, there's value for money for the public purse. 8 hours paid for (maybe more - perhaps they claimed overtime while sobering up) and 2 hours useful work delivered (assuming they arrived on time and paid any attention to my presentation. Not sure they did, TBH.). >:(Kevin
What and you thinbk it is different in ANY public enterprise. The higher up you go the less accountability and thus no sackability there is. Different at the coal face. There you can measure how many houses a postman delivers to or how many children to a teacher or how many houses refuse collected from. My blood is still boiling from the huge waste on the necessary RAF replacement tanker planes fiasco. Billions spent, still not delivered and when they are we won't own them and they won't have armour 9till later).
-
Has history taught these people nothing? :-/
For, t`was the same penny-pinching mindset that precipitated the Falkland`s war with the withdrawal of the antarctic supply/patrol fleet.......Like it or not, we live in a dangerous world and whilst not being a fan of gun-boat diplomacy; one must recognise the need for an adequate long-ranging Naval fleet......which surely would be incomplete without a heavy(ish)`carrier. :-?
-
Great plan this, yet again we will have carriers, eventually, but a period with no planes that fit properly.
I seem to remember the last defence review showed that we needed a rapid reaction force ready for worldwide deployment, eg Falklands, surely carriers with jets are the core of that? The point made earlier about Falklands oil fields is a good one.
Cuts- too much, too fast, too soon = economic slowdown. IMHO ofc.
-
Great plan this, yet again we will have carriers, eventually, but a period with no planes that fit properly.
I seem to remember the last defence review showed that we needed a rapid reaction force ready for worldwide deployment, eg Falklands, surely carriers with jets are the core of that? The point made earlier about Falklands oil fields is a good one.
Cuts- too much, too fast, too soon = economic slowdown. IMHO ofc.
Done a little digging on that, apparently they have 1,000 troops on the Island as well as the Typhoon? fighter jets. Although they are all currently grounded with dogey ejector seats.
Plus Argentina is even more broke than we are with about 3 ships and 15 planes.
Luckly we still have the Subs so looks like its unlikey there will be a second war there.
Brilliant as the Harriers are they are old, but no idea how many flight hours they have left? As i believe age is not important its hours of flight / stress to chassis.
No doubt the thinking is to rely on the Americans >:(
-
Redundancy money is no big issue, for most it will be less than a years wages so its a years costs plus a much reduced support charge. Hence its a one off loss and a medium and long term saving.
As for the reality of the situation we are in, the former labour government can point the finger at the bankers all they like but, its THEM speding more than we were earning for 10 years and running up huge deficits thats the real issue.
The money dumped into the banks they will (and are) getting back with the possibilty for profit, the money dumped into the bottomless pit that is the NHS and the debts run up on new schools was just way to much.
ALL sections need to save BIG money and the forces are one of them, if it means no (not greatly useful) aircraft carrier and the now particularly knackered Harrier fleet going then thats better than impacting those in Afghanistan etc
I couldn't have put it better... Sadly financial cuts are required in all places, which, the government are looking inward to save, not just massive tax rises...
It is a shame the "real" country financial accounts are never up for public scrutiny, I think it would make for some very interesting reading...
-
Debs wrote:
Has history taught these people nothing?
For, t`was the same penny-pinching mindset that precipitated the Falkland`s war with the withdrawal of the antarctic supply/patrol fleet.......Like it or not, we live in a dangerous world and whilst not being a fan of gun-boat diplomacy; one must recognise the need for an adequate long-ranging Naval fleet......which surely would be incomplete without a heavy(ish)`carrier. :-?
Thats the most intelligable response I've heard debs :y
It really is that straight forward! sadly many just talk a lot of tripe, to the point where I wonder if they are seeing this like buying new toy's or upgrading a TV set? You can argue to the end of time about new stategies, projects, modern threats... etc. but the Ark Royal is servicable & so are the jump jets. They're proven & revered worldwide. They're not worn out & Argentina will take full advantage of this sort inept decision making. The so called new projects will end up costing twice the projected budget and be at least 2 years longer than proposed, in the making (this is Britain not Germany!). No doubt the manufacture of the new carriers will do nothing for our economy due the lack of industry in this country & the work shy masses that sit around & scratch there ar*ses.
There's only one reason this can be sold to us as defence cuts; Actual known cost of keeping the Ark Royal, Harriers & 3000+ servicemen & women who's jobs depend on it Vs the imaginary figure for these new projects. On paper it reduces the budget deficit thus counting toward the 8% defence cuts needed over the next 5 years. It's a load of b*llocks if you ask me or indeed any service personnel.
Become an MP debs & I'll vote for you :y
-
Seems sensible, we have nothing to put on it, cant afford anything to put on it and have 2 new carriers coming (which we cant afford but also cant get out of).
Yeah but no need to scrap it Mark. Long after we've gone she should be the next HMS Victory etc. I feel she's earned her place in history as do those who served on her. I know we have costs to cut but we have duty to recognize as well.
The Ark Royal should no more be cut up weigh in than your locomotives & my old cars. :)
-
For historical reasons Invincible is more important than Ark Royal or Illustrious.
Withdrawing the Harriers is just completely ridiculous >:( >:( :'( :'(
-
I second that Amigo... these are the very things that define our heritage but sadly no one really cares if it doesn't directly affect them :(
-
Oh, and I see they're scrapping the Nimrod MRA4 programme (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/nimrodmra4.cfm). Having sucked up £3bn of our money, you'd think we'd have SOMETHING to show for it.
I say, keep politicians out of the loop when it comes to defence procurement. They are twa*ts. >:(
-
Aircraft carriers without aircraft are little more use than a pub with no beer.
[Norman Tebbitt on today's announcement:]
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100059722/defence-review-aircraft-carriers-without-aircraft-are-like-a-pub-without-beer/
Too true, Norman. :y
-
Martin Imber wrote:
Withdrawing the Harriers is just completely ridiculous >:( >:( :'( :'(
indeed, the harriers are second to none ;) We will now be seen like any other little european state >:( while trident sits there rusting away & polluting the otherwise beautiful scottish waters... It'd probably fail to deliver anyway. Royal Brittania, Brittania rules the waves... Hmmm maybe not anymore :-/
-
Quote of the day:
""When it comes to military procurement, Israel spends £9 billion a year and administers its purchases with 400 people. Britain spends £10 billion annually on procurement and has a staff of 23,700 to do it."
Peter Snow, Channel 4
http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/a-revolving-door-that-knows-few-bounds/13930
-
Martin Imber wrote: Withdrawing the Harriers is just completely ridiculous >:( >:( :'( :'(
indeed, the harriers are second to none ;) We will now be seen like any other little european state >:( while trident sits there rusting away & polluting the otherwise beautiful scottish waters... It'd probably fail to deliver anyway. Royal Brittania, Brittania rules the waves... Hmmm maybe not anymore :-/
With at least two Vanguard class nuclear powered submarines at sea, each capable of country / continental destruction, eventually 7 Astute class nuclear powered submarines, plus existing surface vessels, including the newest Frigates in the world, with type 45's still to be built, we still do have an amazing capacity to "rule the waves" if we really wanted to.
The old visions of numerous warships, including battlecruisers, battleships, along with lines of cruisers is just a piece of historal information! Each one of the RN submarines, especially the Vanguard Class with its Trident missles, packs more punch than the fire power of all the world's naval fleets in WW2, WW1, and at all times before, added together. Modern warfare, whether we like it or not, is about focusing on limited resource with maximum destruction. The old rules of military expenditure is dead, and we live in a new age of threat.
Gone is the cold war with its need for hardware, like battle tanks galore, and long range strategic nuclear bombers. In is the fight against terrorism and potential rogue states, that the UK and the USA, along with other UN members will be prepared for. That is what the spending review has faced up to, and in fact the carrier question is the main odd factor, but that has been dictated by harsh commercial facts.
The UK has done what the USA has had to do, and countries like France and Italy will shortly have to as NO-ONE has got any spare cash; quite the opposite!
But even with all that has transpired the UK is still the FOURTH largest spender on its military budget in the World!
Yes, the UK CAN still rule the waves, and a lot more besides if, heaven forbid, war was to break out ;) ;)
-
ok lizzie you're points I'm sure would sit happily with those of a cabinet minister...
The old rules of military expenditure is dead, and we live in a new age of threat.
A very astute answer indeed... I can only speak as a decorated veteran who previously served as a frontline combat medic... close (harrier) air support is often deemed more relevent to many servicemen/women than all the ins & outs of our nuclear capability imho. But I think we'll leave it there because everything you have said is quite clear & not disimilar to that which I hear on radio4. p.s. It hasn't changed as much as you think... It's still troops on the ground needing tanks, helicopters, air support & other hardware. We're not heading for any sort of nuclear conflict & never will be, the issues you refer to are all about deterents & politics.
btw lizzie I think you're going a bit off topic, the OP is about the Ark Royal/Harrier fleet not an OOF defence review ::)