Completely agree with @HurstLlama about the Navy - whatever contingency we need to plan for, a strong and flexible navy is going to be a key component of it. America wants to project power, it sends the navy, Russia wants to deter the west from the Qatar funded removal of Iranian gas supplies through Syria, it sends the navy, China wants to rattle sabres in one China Sea or other, it sends the navy.
For an island nation the navy is the right answer, and has been for centuries. So for all of the budget-led abuse thrown at our new aircraft carriers, they are what we need. Unless they are right for everyone else and not for us suddenly....
Assuming they ever get some planes for them
Its a puzzle isn't it. We had an existing fleet of 72 aircraft with an excellent track record and a planned retirement date that would have covered the launch of the Queen Brenda and the delivery of the Lightning IIs. Anyone know where there went? I do hope that some pillock didn't sell them to make a crass political point about MoD contracts signed by a previous government.
Perhaps if we ask Nicely Obama might sell them back? He'll even let you put aanother selfie on twitter for general abuse and satire. Has there ever been a strategic defence review as inept and in strategic as the Hammond one? Well OK, apart from the Nott one
One thing to note about Crimea is that there are plenty of other groups outside a mother country who will be watching with interest. Parts of southern Slovakia and Romania are majority ethnic Hungarian, and parts of Macedonia are majority Albanian. Both nationalities have those who dream nationalist dreams.
I think such minorities need to just accept they have to push such things through the standard internal political process, by persuading their fellow countrymen its reasonable for them to secede (as the Scots have here). The only basis for other countries forcing independence is if the majority is trying to ethnically persecute them.
I suppose the reality of Defence (word used carefully) at the moment is that we need a strong Navy with a substantial Royal Marine element and an RAF more than we need much of an Army.
If we’re proposing to attack anyone on land, then we need an Army.
I suppose the reality of Defence (word used carefully) at the moment is that we need a strong Navy with a substantial Royal Marine element and an RAF more than we need much of an Army.
If we’re proposing to attack anyone on land, then we need an Army.
The cuts have been particularly damaging to the Navy:
I think Britain needs to realise it really needs to pull its finger out and change something. The way we're going, we're just becoming a bog standard average European country.
The old adage "Lions led by donkeys" still holds true
Except it never did, Mr. G., at least not in the way that the phrase is commonly used. It was a so called quote invented by Alan Clark in the 1960s to popularise one of his books and his own version of military history.
Disappeared in Labour's £38 billion defence budget black hole.
Selling them for £116m - and spending every penny of it on a pointless exercise to look at adding cats and traps to the new carriers - is of course sound Tory economics. Let's not bother having defence to prove the crass political point we're trying to make about Labour because we have no money/money is no object.
The old adage "Lions led by donkeys" still holds true
Except it never did, Mr. G., at least not in the way that the phrase is commonly used. It was a so called quote invented by Alan Clark in the 1960s to popularise one of his books and his own version of military history.
Hurst, 60's seems a fair time ago to me , carefree childhood days spent in the outdoors and not a care in the world. Interesting fact though, we often think things are older than they actually are..
Completely agree with @HurstLlama about the Navy - whatever contingency we need to plan for, a strong and flexible navy is going to be a key component of it. America wants to project power, it sends the navy, Russia wants to deter the west from the Qatar funded removal of Iranian gas supplies through Syria, it sends the navy, China wants to rattle sabres in one China Sea or other, it sends the navy.
For an island nation the navy is the right answer, and has been for centuries. So for all of the budget-led abuse thrown at our new aircraft carriers, they are what we need. Unless they are right for everyone else and not for us suddenly....
Assuming they ever get some planes for them
Its a puzzle isn't it. We had an existing fleet of 72 aircraft with an excellent track record and a planned retirement date that would have covered the launch of the Queen Brenda and the delivery of the Lightning IIs. Anyone know where there went? I do hope that some pillock didn't sell them to make a crass political point about MoD contracts signed by a previous government.
Perhaps if we ask Nicely Obama might sell them back? He'll even let you put aanother selfie on twitter for general abuse and satire. Has there ever been a strategic defence review as inept and in strategic as the Hammond one? Well OK, apart from the Nott one
Mr Pioneers, a bit off target there. The Harriers disposed of by the present government were ground attack aircraft and quite useless for fleet defence as their air to air combat ability was pretty much zero. The Sea Harriers, which did sterling work in the Falklands, were disposed off in 2006 by the last government, who at the time told us that the new carriers would be in service by 2012 - leaving just a 6 year gap in which the RN should properly have been labelled the Royal Coastal Defence Force.
At this point I must tweak a certain poster's tail and ask when was the last time that the RAF actually shot down an enemy aeroplane?
Disappeared in Labour's £38 billion defence budget black hole.
Selling them for £116m - and spending every penny of it on a pointless exercise to look at adding cats and traps to the new carriers - is of course sound Tory economics. Let's not bother having defence to prove the crass political point we're trying to make about Labour because we have no money/money is no object.
Unlike the previous Laboùr government who scrapped the recently refitted and more powerful Hartier gr9s.
The old adage "Lions led by donkeys" still holds true
Except it never did, Mr. G., at least not in the way that the phrase is commonly used. It was a so called quote invented by Alan Clark in the 1960s to popularise one of his books and his own version of military history.
No it wasn't. The origins of the quote are ancient and, topically, it was used during the Crimean war in the 1850s, during the Franco Prussian war and during the Boxer rebellion. It was also used as the title of an earlier book on WW1 published in 1927.
And Clarke's 'version' of military history was one held by most commentators and historians in the decades following WW1. It is only recently that we have seen the revisionist movement try to change the way in which the conflict is viewed.
Completely agree with @HurstLlama about the Navy - whatever contingency we need to plan for, a strong and flexible navy is going to be a key component of it. America wants to project power, it sends the navy, Russia wants to deter the west from the Qatar funded removal of Iranian gas supplies through Syria, it sends the navy, China wants to rattle sabres in one China Sea or other, it sends the navy.
For an island nation the navy is the right answer, and has been for centuries. So for all of the budget-led abuse thrown at our new aircraft carriers, they are what we need. Unless they are right for everyone else and not for us suddenly....
Assuming they ever get some planes for them
Its a puzzle isn't it. We had an existing fleet of 72 aircraft with an excellent track record and a planned retirement date that would have covered the launch of the Queen Brenda and the delivery of the Lightning IIs. Anyone know where there went? I do hope that some pillock didn't sell them to make a crass political point about MoD contracts signed by a previous government.
Perhaps if we ask Nicely Obama might sell them back? He'll even let you put aanother selfie on twitter for general abuse and satire. Has there ever been a strategic defence review as inept and in strategic as the Hammond one? Well OK, apart from the Nott one
No. The 'existing fleet' could not be used for carrier operations since the previous government had already got rid of the aircraft with that capability. The remaining harriers were only ever usable from traditional ground bases.
The old adage "Lions led by donkeys" still holds true
Except it never did, Mr. G., at least not in the way that the phrase is commonly used. It was a so called quote invented by Alan Clark in the 1960s to popularise one of his books and his own version of military history.
No it wasn't. The origins of the quote are ancient and, topically, it was used during the Crimean war in the 1850s, during the Franco Prussian war and during the Boxer rebellion. It was also used as the title of an earlier book on WW1 published in 1927.
And Clarke's 'version' of military history was one held by most commentators and historians in the decades following WW1. It is only recently that we have seen the revisionist movement try to change the way in which the conflict is viewed.
Oh, Mr. Tyndall, the revisionist movement started in the 1930s. The realists held sway until then and their view is now coming back into fashion as modern historians lift their eyes from the propaganda and start to look at the facts in a more dispassionate light.
The old adage "Lions led by donkeys" still holds true
Except it never did, Mr. G., at least not in the way that the phrase is commonly used. It was a so called quote invented by Alan Clark in the 1960s to popularise one of his books and his own version of military history.
No it wasn't. The origins of the quote are ancient and, topically, it was used during the Crimean war in the 1850s, during the Franco Prussian war and during the Boxer rebellion. It was also used as the title of an earlier book on WW1 published in 1927.
And Clarke's 'version' of military history was one held by most commentators and historians in the decades following WW1. It is only recently that we have seen the revisionist movement try to change the way in which the conflict is viewed.
Oh, Mr. Tyndall, the revisionist movement started in the 1930s. The realists held sway until then and their view is now coming back into fashion as modern historians lift their eyes from the propaganda and start to look at the facts in a more dispassionate light.
I am unclear from that comment as to who you view as revisionists and who you view as realists.
The old adage "Lions led by donkeys" still holds true
Except it never did, Mr. G., at least not in the way that the phrase is commonly used. It was a so called quote invented by Alan Clark in the 1960s to popularise one of his books and his own version of military history.
No it wasn't. The origins of the quote are ancient and, topically, it was used during the Crimean war in the 1850s, during the Franco Prussian war and during the Boxer rebellion. It was also used as the title of an earlier book on WW1 published in 1927.
And Clarke's 'version' of military history was one held by most commentators and historians in the decades following WW1. It is only recently that we have seen the revisionist movement try to change the way in which the conflict is viewed.
Oh, Mr. Tyndall, the revisionist movement started in the 1930s. The realists held sway until then and their view is now coming back into fashion as modern historians lift their eyes from the propaganda and start to look at the facts in a more dispassionate light.
I am unclear from that comment as to who you view as revisionists and who you view as realists.
I apologise if I didn't make myself clear. In your previous post you said, "... Recently that we have seen the revisionist movement try to change the way in which the conflict is viewed". I don't accept that label of revisionist as applicable to some of the modern historians who are challenging the history written by people like Clark. The implication in your statement being, as I read it, that Clark et al had it correct.
Haig died in 1929 the streets of London were packed out for his funeral, mainly with his old soldiers. I suppose you could argue that they turned up to make sure the old butcher was actually dead, but I don't think that would hold much water. Maybe they turned up to pay their last respects to the man they knew had led them, through ghastly trials and tribulations to victory. Subsequently we get the start of what I would call the revisionist movement, the lions led by donkeys, the generals were unfeeling, incompetents and all the rest we know so well.
What you seem to be calling the revisionists I would see as historians who, whilst not shying away from the awfulness of WWI, are not sucked in by propaganda and are prepared to look at what happened and why.
I think you are half right. Western military hegemony is finished. However western cultural hegemony is as strong as ever and will continue to dominate the 21st century. There really isn't an alternative to liberal democracy and western capitalism.
Douglas Alexander 3/1 Andrew Mitchell 8/1 George Osborne 8/1 Michael Gove 9/1 Danny Alexander 11/1 Theresa May 13/1 Nick Clegg 15/1 Liam Fox 15/1 Philip Hammond 15/1 Andrew Lansley 17/1 Yvette Cooper 21/1 Owen Paterson 21/1 Chris Grayling 26/1 Jim Murphy 26/1 Sadiq Khan 34/1 Eric Pickles 34/1 Theresa Villiers 34/1
I apologise if I didn't make myself clear. In your previous post you said, "... Recently that we have seen the revisionist movement try to change the way in which the conflict is viewed". I don't accept that label of revisionist as applicable to some of the modern historians who are challenging the history written by people like Clark. The implication in your statement being, as I read it, that Clark et al had it correct.
Haig died in 1929 the streets of London were packed out for his funeral, mainly with his old soldiers. I suppose you could argue that they turned up to make sure the old butcher was actually dead, but I don't think that would hold much water. Maybe they turned up to pay their last respects to the man they knew had led them, through ghastly trials and tribulations to victory. Subsequently we get the start of what I would call the revisionist movement, the lions led by donkeys, the generals were unfeeling, incompetents and all the rest we know so well.
What you seem to be calling the revisionists I would see as historians who, whilst not shying away from the awfulness of WWI, are not sucked in by propaganda and are prepared to look at what happened and why.
In that case you and I would have to disagree. The idea that extreme criticism of the conduct of the war only started after Haig died is simply not founded in fact. It started whilst the war was still going on and as I pointed out earlier the 'Lions led by Donkeys' quote was used as the title of a critical book written in 1927 - 2 years before Haig died.
Some criticisms of Haig are clearly unfounded, not least his treatment of men condemned to be shot for cowardice, the overwhelming majority of whom he commuted or pardoned. But when it comes to the overall conduct of the war the critics - led by such notaries as Liddle Hart and others who actually learnt from the conflict and helped to introduce a radically different way of fighting wars - were absolutely correct.
The revisionists are those with no direct knowledge of the conflict who are now trying to rewrite history.
I think you are half right. Western military hegemony is finished. However western cultural hegemony is as strong as ever and will continue to dominate the 21st century. There really isn't an alternative to liberal democracy and western capitalism.
There are different forms of capitalism and oligarchic capitalism is incompatible with democracy.
Douglas Alexander 3/1 Andrew Mitchell 8/1 George Osborne 8/1 Michael Gove 9/1 Danny Alexander 11/1 Theresa May 13/1 Nick Clegg 15/1 Liam Fox 15/1 Philip Hammond 15/1 Andrew Lansley 17/1 Yvette Cooper 21/1 Owen Paterson 21/1 Chris Grayling 26/1 Jim Murphy 26/1 Sadiq Khan 34/1 Eric Pickles 34/1 Theresa Villiers 34/1
Douglas Alexander is already in to 2/1 and remains outstanding value at that price.
'Let's not bother having defence to prove the crass political point we're trying to make about Labour'
Not just defence,but almost every other government department was left on skid row by Labour,quite a record.
They will be OK next time now they have cloned themselves to be genetically the same as Tories. Be seamless switches of government in future, Tory or faux Tory. Only in RUMP UK of course.
Douglas Alexander 3/1 Andrew Mitchell 8/1 George Osborne 8/1 Michael Gove 9/1 Danny Alexander 11/1 Theresa May 13/1 Nick Clegg 15/1 Liam Fox 15/1 Philip Hammond 15/1 Andrew Lansley 17/1 Yvette Cooper 21/1 Owen Paterson 21/1 Chris Grayling 26/1 Jim Murphy 26/1 Sadiq Khan 34/1 Eric Pickles 34/1 Theresa Villiers 34/1
Douglas Alexander is already in to 2/1 and remains outstanding value at that price.
God help us I thought it was impossible to get anyone worse than Hague.
'They will be OK next time now they have cloned themselves to be genetically the same as Tories.'
One always lives in hopes,but for a Labour supporter to make a fuss about a £116 million sale when their record was a £38 billion black hole is laughable.
Disappeared in Labour's £38 billion defence budget black hole.
Selling them for £116m - and spending every penny of it on a pointless exercise to look at adding cats and traps to the new carriers - is of course sound Tory economics. Let's not bother having defence to prove the crass political point we're trying to make about Labour because we have no money/money is no object.
Unlike the previous Laboùr government who scrapped the recently refitted and more powerful Hartier gr9s.
Is that what is known as selective amnesia ?
Both the RAF and RN operated the Harrier II as a ground attack platform; the Harrier II was also capable of being operated from the Invincible class aircraft carriers. The Harrier II flew combat missions in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In December 2010, budgetary pressures led to the early retirement of all Harrier IIs from service. The decision to retire was controversial as there was no immediate fixed-wing replacement in its role; in the long term the Harrier II is to be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.
David Herdson, in attributing the blame for Putin's actions in Crimea on Ed Miliband, has asserted and cemented his leadership of the PB Hodges.
I salute you, Sir!
A few observations on the posts to date.
1. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC aka Putin) has invited any and all international election observers to the Crimea for the upcoming 'secession' referendum. They international bodies are now faced with the dilemma of attending and giving unofficial recognition to the referendum or boycotting the process in protest at the process. I expect most will boycott. But a refused invitation to attend will undermine any subsequent criticism of the referendum's fairness.
2. Russia maintains that the removal of Janukovych as President of the Ukraine and the subsequent appointment of an interim government were illegal actions which did not comply with Ukraine's constitution. Russian has asked the European Commission for Democracy through Law (known as the 'Venice Commission') to advise on their claims. The Venice Commission is made up mainly of constitution lawyers from its 47 Council of Europe and 11 additional Members which include the US. The US to date has been very quiet about this referral. However, it should be stressed The Venice Commission only has powers to advise.
3. Ben Judah, the journalist who wrote the NYT article on London, is a British author of a 2013 book attacking Putin's Russia (“Fragile Empire: How Russia Fell In and Out of Love With Vladimir Putin.”). He is an Owen Jones wannabe who has popped up on Sky as an 'expert' commentator on the Ukraine crisis. His face has the taught elasticity of a drawn crossbow about to fire a rant upon his viewers. However, his attack is neither sharp nor penetrating, a delivery more resembling projectile vomit than lethal bolt. Pennies will buy his much discounted book on Amazon. His only previous publication recounts his search for the elusive Yeti in Tajikistan.
Douglas Alexander 3/1 Andrew Mitchell 8/1 George Osborne 8/1 Michael Gove 9/1 Danny Alexander 11/1 Theresa May 13/1 Nick Clegg 15/1 Liam Fox 15/1 Philip Hammond 15/1 Andrew Lansley 17/1 Yvette Cooper 21/1 Owen Paterson 21/1 Chris Grayling 26/1 Jim Murphy 26/1 Sadiq Khan 34/1 Eric Pickles 34/1 Theresa Villiers 34/1
Douglas Alexander is already in to 2/1 and remains outstanding value at that price.
God help us I thought it was impossible to get anyone worse than Hague.
'They will be OK next time now they have cloned themselves to be genetically the same as Tories.'
One always lives in hopes,but for a Labour supporter to make a fuss about a £116 million sale when their record was a £38 billion black hole is laughable.
Brown is forecasting a bigger black hole in Scotland when we do not have access to the NI fully funded pension pot. He is still doolally and costing us a fortune, if ever there was a waste of space he would be it.
Douglas Alexander 3/1 Andrew Mitchell 8/1 George Osborne 8/1 Michael Gove 9/1 Danny Alexander 11/1 Theresa May 13/1 Nick Clegg 15/1 Liam Fox 15/1 Philip Hammond 15/1 Andrew Lansley 17/1 Yvette Cooper 21/1 Owen Paterson 21/1 Chris Grayling 26/1 Jim Murphy 26/1 Sadiq Khan 34/1 Eric Pickles 34/1 Theresa Villiers 34/1
Douglas Alexander is already in to 2/1 and remains outstanding value at that price.
God help us I thought it was impossible to get anyone worse than Hague.
It's not all that far away from a 2/1 bet on Labour being the largest party after the next election. There's no reason to assume that William Hague will go before then.
Of course, Ed Miliband might choose someone else for the role if he becomes Prime Minister, but there's no particular reason to think that he would.
“The profitability of the finance industry has been excessive. For a while 35pc of all corporate profits in the United Kingdom and the United States came from the financial sector. That’s absurd.”
Disappeared in Labour's £38 billion defence budget black hole.
Selling them for £116m - and spending every penny of it on a pointless exercise to look at adding cats and traps to the new carriers - is of course sound Tory economics. Let's not bother having defence to prove the crass political point we're trying to make about Labour because we have no money/money is no object.
Unlike the previous Laboùr government who scrapped the recently refitted and more powerful Hartier gr9s.
Is that what is known as selective amnesia ?
Both the RAF and RN operated the Harrier II as a ground attack platform; the Harrier II was also capable of being operated from the Invincible class aircraft carriers. The Harrier II flew combat missions in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In December 2010, budgetary pressures led to the early retirement of all Harrier IIs from service. The decision to retire was controversial as there was no immediate fixed-wing replacement in its role; in the long term the Harrier II is to be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.
Yes, 1997-2010 truly were the Golden Years of British Defence; shiny new tanks, ships and aircraft as far as the eye could see.
Iraq and Afghanistan never happened, nor the ill advised carrier replacement. Neither did the government continue to hose £billions on the ill fated Nimrod project. (Actually the latter is the poster boy for the cack handed way that procurement has been handled for decades by administrations of all colours). AirTanker is another one for fans to follow.
Douglas Alexander 3/1 Andrew Mitchell 8/1 George Osborne 8/1 Michael Gove 9/1 Danny Alexander 11/1 Theresa May 13/1 Nick Clegg 15/1 Liam Fox 15/1 Philip Hammond 15/1 Andrew Lansley 17/1 Yvette Cooper 21/1 Owen Paterson 21/1 Chris Grayling 26/1 Jim Murphy 26/1 Sadiq Khan 34/1 Eric Pickles 34/1 Theresa Villiers 34/1
Douglas Alexander is already in to 2/1 and remains outstanding value at that price.
God help us I thought it was impossible to get anyone worse than Hague.
It's not all that far away from a 2/1 bet on Labour being the largest party after the next election. There's no reason to assume that William Hague will go before then.
Of course, Ed Miliband might choose someone else for the role if he becomes Prime Minister, but there's no particular reason to think that he would.
If, and I realise its a gigantic if, there's a LD & someone coalition after the election, if, and again it's a big one the LD';s are large enough to make demands, I hope they pick on of the great offices, not the non-job of DPM.
Clegg as Foreign Secretary would, of course have caused an explosion among the Tory eurosceptics.
On topic, I don't get the Syria angle. Without that Putin would have expected Obama to go to war with Russia on the Russian border in a Russian-speaking area full of Russian military bases? After the West sponsored a rebel movement to bring down the elected Russian-friendly president? Regardless of whether we think Obama _should_ have done this, WTF?
On topic, I don't get the Syria angle. Without that Putin would have expected Obama to go to war with Russia on the Russian border in a Russian-speaking area full of Russian military bases? After the West sponsored a rebel movement to bring down the elected Russian-friendly president? Regardless of whether we think Obama _should_ have done this, WTF?
Quiet please, Edmondo.
I suspect Herdson connecting Syria to the Ukraine is no more than a tongue-in-cheek provocation of lefties designed to incite over-reaction.
On the domestic angle, where does this leave the British stance on EU expansion? Originally they were all up for expanding eastwards, partly for geopolitical reasons and partly because they had a rather over-optimistic theory about a broader EU being "shallower". Then when the latter turned out to be bollocks and the former started to seem less important they started to shift and started talking like they wanted to either stop enlargement or roll back what it meant, for example by restricting freedom of movement.
Now that the geopolitics are back, are they going to revert to the Thatcher position, or will it all blow over in a couple of months so the British can resume their pre-crisis Local Shops For Local People thing?
Disappeared in Labour's £38 billion defence budget black hole.
Selling them for £116m - and spending every penny of it on a pointless exercise to look at adding cats and traps to the new carriers - is of course sound Tory economics. Let's not bother having defence to prove the crass political point we're trying to make about Labour because we have no money/money is no object.
Unlike the previous Laboùr government who scrapped the recently refitted and more powerful Hartier gr9s.
Is that what is known as selective amnesia ?
Both the RAF and RN operated the Harrier II as a ground attack platform; the Harrier II was also capable of being operated from the Invincible class aircraft carriers. The Harrier II flew combat missions in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In December 2010, budgetary pressures led to the early retirement of all Harrier IIs from service. The decision to retire was controversial as there was no immediate fixed-wing replacement in its role; in the long term the Harrier II is to be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.
So I was right about the Harrier II - retirement age behind the launch date of both the carrier and the F35B, better than the old Sea Harrier it replaced, perfectly capable of being used on the new carrier.
So why did we sell them to rot in Arizona? Not for defence reasons, not for military reasons, so that just leaves the inept defence review driven by the political need to show off all the things we can't afford (Labour's fault) and to rubbish the carrier project (Labour's fault). But it's OK to do all this because money is no object.
Putin has run rings round the western duffers. They meddle in Ukraine and when it blows up in their face they whinge like big jessies that Putin is a bully. He must have a laugh when up against big toughies like Cameron and Obama.
When you say "runs rings around", do you mean he's really pleased that he's lost rUkraine as a Russian satellite state?
Or do you mean he's overjoyed that the Russian banking system may go bust under the weight of unpaid loans from Ukranian corporates?
Robert , more likely the money being poured in from the west will end up in Russia. Ukraine don't pay their bills they will not be able to borrow in the international markets, it will put a premium on the charges and they will be international lepers. They will not be able to pay pensions and all their major companies will looking to register new offices in Russia. They are better together.
Oh the irony of this from Malcolmg - rofllmfaowmtita!
Obama seems absolutely disinterested in any foreign intervention. He had to be pushed into Libya by us and the frogs. One suspects he doesn't want to add a foreign misadventure to his legacy.
I've long said we should spend more on Defence.
Which areas would you spend it on? Manpower and small kit, logistics, or the big-ticket items that can swallow up billions?
A significant problem is trying to define the threat our military is supposed to deal with. Up to 1989 it was the Soviets; in the 1990s there was a little focus on large powers in the Gulf; from 2001 onwards it was insurgencies and c/t.
Each of these requires different sorts of kit and, to a certain extent, training.
Personally, Mr. Jessup, I spend serious sums on the RN because in terms of national defence that is the area we are vulnerable to an external threat and where we have run down our capabilities too far. We have good ships and boats but not enough of either to sustain the current tempo of operations let alone an increased threat. Get the Navy back up to about 60,000 strong with 25-30 escorts, 12 submarines, both carriers (take the F35's away from the RAF and make the FAA a sensible sized coherent force).
The army at 80,000 is probably at about the right size if not a little too big (forget the nonsense plan for 30k reserves), but probably needs rebalancing - lose some more cap badges and put back the engineering and logistics enablers that have been cut recently. Any land operations we are likely to get involved in will be optional wars.
Rebuilding the RN is a ten year plus project but one capability that was cut that urgently needs to be rebuilt is maritime patrol aircraft, whether operated by the Crabs or the RN, I don't care but for an island nation dependent on sea trade not to have an MPA capability is asking for trouble. The P8 production line is in full swing so we would be able to buy off the shelf from the Yanks.
None of the above need necessarily cost too much more than we are already spending on defence. The Japanese have a defence budget or the same sort of scale as ours but get much more out of it, we should look closely to see how.
Good post, more or less agree with that.
I dunno, we get a good military-based thread and Mrs J drags me off shopping ...
Disappeared in Labour's £38 billion defence budget black hole.
Selling them for £116m - and spending every penny of it on a pointless exercise to look at adding cats and traps to the new carriers - is of course sound Tory economics. Let's not bother having defence to prove the crass political point we're trying to make about Labour because we have no money/money is no object.
Unlike the previous Laboùr government who scrapped the recently refitted and more powerful Hartier gr9s.
Is that what is known as selective amnesia ?
Both the RAF and RN operated the Harrier II as a ground attack platform; the Harrier II was also capable of being operated from the Invincible class aircraft carriers. The Harrier II flew combat missions in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In December 2010, budgetary pressures led to the early retirement of all Harrier IIs from service. The decision to retire was controversial as there was no immediate fixed-wing replacement in its role; in the long term the Harrier II is to be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.
So I was right about the Harrier II - retirement age behind the launch date of both the carrier and the F35B, better than the old Sea Harrier it replaced, perfectly capable of being used on the new carrier.
So why did we sell them to rot in Arizona? Not for defence reasons, not for military reasons, so that just leaves the inept defence review driven by the political need to show off all the things we can't afford (Labour's fault) and to rubbish the carrier project (Labour's fault). But it's OK to do all this because money is no object.
There's even a photo of one operating off a carrier, despite accusations that they aren't able to do so....
'Better than the old Sea Harrier'
That depends on what you wanted to use them for. The Harrier II's were great for ground attack, as mentioned below. They were terrible for fleet defence as they had no on-board radars. You know, the sort of things that's useful in air-to-air combat.
But don't let details like that get in your way.
I suggest you read up on Hoon's execrable Joint Force Harrier, and the way it meant the Harriers were scarcely ever on the carriers as the RAF had nicked them for use in Afghanistan.
Disappeared in Labour's £38 billion defence budget black hole.
Selling them for £116m - and spending every penny of it on a pointless exercise to look at adding cats and traps to the new carriers - is of course sound Tory economics. Let's not bother having defence to prove the crass political point we're trying to make about Labour because we have no money/money is no object.
Unlike the previous Laboùr government who scrapped the recently refitted and more powerful Hartier gr9s.
Is that what is known as selective amnesia ?
Both the RAF and RN operated the Harrier II as a ground attack platform; the Harrier II was also capable of being operated from the Invincible class aircraft carriers. The Harrier II flew combat missions in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In December 2010, budgetary pressures led to the early retirement of all Harrier IIs from service. The decision to retire was controversial as there was no immediate fixed-wing replacement in its role; in the long term the Harrier II is to be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.
So I was right about the Harrier II - retirement age behind the launch date of both the carrier and the F35B, better than the old Sea Harrier it replaced, perfectly capable of being used on the new carrier.
So why did we sell them to rot in Arizona? Not for defence reasons, not for military reasons, so that just leaves the inept defence review driven by the political need to show off all the things we can't afford (Labour's fault) and to rubbish the carrier project (Labour's fault). But it's OK to do all this because money is no object.
There's even a photo of one operating off a carrier, despite accusations that they aren't able to do so....
No unfortunately you were not. The lack of air to air combat capability meant that they were no better than using helicopters. As a carrier based aircraft they were completely useless.
And they certainly weren't better than the Sea Harriers.
Putin has run rings round the western duffers. They meddle in Ukraine and when it blows up in their face they whinge like big jessies that Putin is a bully. He must have a laugh when up against big toughies like Cameron and Obama.
When you say "runs rings around", do you mean he's really pleased that he's lost rUkraine as a Russian satellite state?
Or do you mean he's overjoyed that the Russian banking system may go bust under the weight of unpaid loans from Ukranian corporates?
Robert , more likely the money being poured in from the west will end up in Russia. Ukraine don't pay their bills they will not be able to borrow in the international markets, it will put a premium on the charges and they will be international lepers. They will not be able to pay pensions and all their major companies will looking to register new offices in Russia. They are better together.
Oh the irony of this from Malcolmg - rofllmfaowmtita!
Amazing the number of ****wits in the world who don't recognise irony even when it's biting their @rse. Roflcopters etc.
Disappeared in Labour's £38 billion defence budget black hole.
Selling them for £116m - and spending every penny of it on a pointless exercise to look at adding cats and traps to the new carriers - is of course sound Tory economics. Let's not bother having defence to prove the crass political point we're trying to make about Labour because we have no money/money is no object.
Unlike the previous Laboùr government who scrapped the recently refitted and more powerful Hartier gr9s.
Is that what is known as selective amnesia ?
Both the RAF and RN operated the Harrier II as a ground attack platform; the Harrier II was also capable of being operated from the Invincible class aircraft carriers. The Harrier II flew combat missions in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In December 2010, budgetary pressures led to the early retirement of all Harrier IIs from service. The decision to retire was controversial as there was no immediate fixed-wing replacement in its role; in the long term the Harrier II is to be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.
So I was right about the Harrier II - retirement age behind the launch date of both the carrier and the F35B, better than the old Sea Harrier it replaced, perfectly capable of being used on the new carrier.
So why did we sell them to rot in Arizona? Not for defence reasons, not for military reasons, so that just leaves the inept defence review driven by the political need to show off all the things we can't afford (Labour's fault) and to rubbish the carrier project (Labour's fault). But it's OK to do all this because money is no object.
There's even a photo of one operating off a carrier, despite accusations that they aren't able to do so....
And another point: who has claimed that they could not be operated off carriers? I mean, if you are going to start making stuff up ...
And you'll probably find more pictures of the USMC and Spanish Harrier-II's operating off our carriers post-2006 than our own. Again, look at Hoon's Joint Force Harrier, and try to work out why it was such a hideously ludicrous idea.
Putin has run rings round the western duffers. They meddle in Ukraine and when it blows up in their face they whinge like big jessies that Putin is a bully. He must have a laugh when up against big toughies like Cameron and Obama.
When you say "runs rings around", do you mean he's really pleased that he's lost rUkraine as a Russian satellite state?
Or do you mean he's overjoyed that the Russian banking system may go bust under the weight of unpaid loans from Ukranian corporates?
Robert , more likely the money being poured in from the west will end up in Russia. Ukraine don't pay their bills they will not be able to borrow in the international markets, it will put a premium on the charges and they will be international lepers. They will not be able to pay pensions and all their major companies will looking to register new offices in Russia. They are better together.
Oh the irony of this from Malcolmg - rofllmfaowmtita!
Amazing the number of ****wits in the world who don't recognise irony even when it's biting their @rse. Roflcopters etc.
Even better, imagine the irony of a betting site like this with an infamous right-wing bet welcher making a fool of himself every day on it.
Comments
Perhaps if we ask Nicely Obama might sell them back? He'll even let you put aanother selfie on twitter for general abuse and satire. Has there ever been a strategic defence review as inept and in strategic as the Hammond one? Well OK, apart from the Nott one
If we’re proposing to attack anyone on land, then we need an Army.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25754870
I think Britain needs to realise it really needs to pull its finger out and change something. The way we're going, we're just becoming a bog standard average European country.
'Anyone know where there went? '
Disappeared in Labour's £38 billion defence budget black hole.
At this point I must tweak a certain poster's tail and ask when was the last time that the RAF actually shot down an enemy aeroplane?
And Clarke's 'version' of military history was one held by most commentators and historians in the decades following WW1. It is only recently that we have seen the revisionist movement try to change the way in which the conflict is viewed.
Haig died in 1929 the streets of London were packed out for his funeral, mainly with his old soldiers. I suppose you could argue that they turned up to make sure the old butcher was actually dead, but I don't think that would hold much water. Maybe they turned up to pay their last respects to the man they knew had led them, through ghastly trials and tribulations to victory. Subsequently we get the start of what I would call the revisionist movement, the lions led by donkeys, the generals were unfeeling, incompetents and all the rest we know so well.
What you seem to be calling the revisionists I would see as historians who, whilst not shying away from the awfulness of WWI, are not sucked in by propaganda and are prepared to look at what happened and why.
I think you are half right. Western military hegemony is finished. However western cultural hegemony is as strong as ever and will continue to dominate the 21st century. There really isn't an alternative to liberal democracy and western capitalism.
Douglas Alexander 3/1
Andrew Mitchell 8/1
George Osborne 8/1
Michael Gove 9/1
Danny Alexander 11/1
Theresa May 13/1
Nick Clegg 15/1
Liam Fox 15/1
Philip Hammond 15/1
Andrew Lansley 17/1
Yvette Cooper 21/1
Owen Paterson 21/1
Chris Grayling 26/1
Jim Murphy 26/1
Sadiq Khan 34/1
Eric Pickles 34/1
Theresa Villiers 34/1
Some criticisms of Haig are clearly unfounded, not least his treatment of men condemned to be shot for cowardice, the overwhelming majority of whom he commuted or pardoned. But when it comes to the overall conduct of the war the critics - led by such notaries as Liddle Hart and others who actually learnt from the conflict and helped to introduce a radically different way of fighting wars - were absolutely correct.
The revisionists are those with no direct knowledge of the conflict who are now trying to rewrite history.
'Let's not bother having defence to prove the crass political point we're trying to make about Labour'
Not just defence,but almost every other government department was left on skid row by Labour,quite a record.
http://takimag.com/article/the_wisdom_of_a_ukrainian_plumber_theodore_dalrymple/print#axzz2v2JJ0ZJc
'They will be OK next time now they have cloned themselves to be genetically the same as Tories.'
One always lives in hopes,but for a Labour supporter to make a fuss about a £116 million sale when their record was a £38 billion black hole is laughable.
Both the RAF and RN operated the Harrier II as a ground attack platform; the Harrier II was also capable of being operated from the Invincible class aircraft carriers. The Harrier II flew combat missions in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In December 2010, budgetary pressures led to the early retirement of all Harrier IIs from service. The decision to retire was controversial as there was no immediate fixed-wing replacement in its role; in the long term the Harrier II is to be replaced by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_Harrier_II
I salute you, Sir!
A few observations on the posts to date.
1. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC aka Putin) has invited any and all international election observers to the Crimea for the upcoming 'secession' referendum. They international bodies are now faced with the dilemma of attending and giving unofficial recognition to the referendum or boycotting the process in protest at the process. I expect most will boycott. But a refused invitation to attend will undermine any subsequent criticism of the referendum's fairness.
2. Russia maintains that the removal of Janukovych as President of the Ukraine and the subsequent appointment of an interim government were illegal actions which did not comply with Ukraine's constitution. Russian has asked the European Commission for Democracy through Law (known as the 'Venice Commission') to advise on their claims. The Venice Commission is made up mainly of constitution lawyers from its 47 Council of Europe and 11 additional Members which include the US. The US to date has been very quiet about this referral. However, it should be stressed The Venice Commission only has powers to advise.
3. Ben Judah, the journalist who wrote the NYT article on London, is a British author of a 2013 book attacking Putin's Russia (“Fragile Empire: How Russia Fell In and Out of Love With Vladimir Putin.”). He is an Owen Jones wannabe who has popped up on Sky as an 'expert' commentator on the Ukraine crisis. His face has the taught elasticity of a drawn crossbow about to fire a rant upon his viewers. However, his attack is neither sharp nor penetrating, a delivery more resembling projectile vomit than lethal bolt. Pennies will buy his much discounted book on Amazon. His only previous publication recounts his search for the elusive Yeti in Tajikistan.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps/177.aspx
Of course, Ed Miliband might choose someone else for the role if he becomes Prime Minister, but there's no particular reason to think that he would.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/10684896/George-Soros-blasts-parasite-banks.html
Iraq and Afghanistan never happened, nor the ill advised carrier replacement. Neither did the government continue to hose £billions on the ill fated Nimrod project. (Actually the latter is the poster boy for the cack handed way that procurement has been handled for decades by administrations of all colours). AirTanker is another one for fans to follow.
As the article makes clear no laws were broken.
Clegg as Foreign Secretary would, of course have caused an explosion among the Tory eurosceptics.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/europa/marine-le-pen-schritt-fuer-schritt-an-die-macht-12836712.html
I suspect Herdson connecting Syria to the Ukraine is no more than a tongue-in-cheek provocation of lefties designed to incite over-reaction.
Now that the geopolitics are back, are they going to revert to the Thatcher position, or will it all blow over in a couple of months so the British can resume their pre-crisis Local Shops For Local People thing?
So why did we sell them to rot in Arizona? Not for defence reasons, not for military reasons, so that just leaves the inept defence review driven by the political need to show off all the things we can't afford (Labour's fault) and to rubbish the carrier project (Labour's fault). But it's OK to do all this because money is no object.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153741/Languishing-Arizona-mighty-fleet-Harriers--sold-price-just-ONE-US-replacements.html
There's even a photo of one operating off a carrier, despite accusations that they aren't able to do so....
Oh the irony of this from Malcolmg - rofllmfaowmtita!
I dunno, we get a good military-based thread and Mrs J drags me off shopping ...
That depends on what you wanted to use them for. The Harrier II's were great for ground attack, as mentioned below. They were terrible for fleet defence as they had no on-board radars. You know, the sort of things that's useful in air-to-air combat.
But don't let details like that get in your way.
I suggest you read up on Hoon's execrable Joint Force Harrier, and the way it meant the Harriers were scarcely ever on the carriers as the RAF had nicked them for use in Afghanistan.
And they certainly weren't better than the Sea Harriers.
Roflcopters etc.
And you'll probably find more pictures of the USMC and Spanish Harrier-II's operating off our carriers post-2006 than our own. Again, look at Hoon's Joint Force Harrier, and try to work out why it was such a hideously ludicrous idea.
LOL