The future of warfare is changing very rapidly. Many current large capital defence projects are probably a complete waste of resources.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/ukraine-war-negotiated-peace/680100/?gift=T260c9uXoejScUYPeV8ISl3z6BdfMxZQkDyCInw4wA4&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social ...I visited another basement, where another team of Ukrainians was working to change the course of the war—and, again, maybe the course of all subsequent wars as well. (I was allowed to tour these operations on the condition that I not identify their locations or the people working at them.) This particular facility had no machines, no engines, and no warheads, just a room lined with screens. The men and women sitting at the screens were dressed like civilians, but in fact they were soldiers, members of a special army unit created to deploy experimental communications technology in combination with experimental drones. Both are being developed by Ukrainians, for Ukraine.
This particular team, with links to many parts of the front lines, has been part of both offensive and defensive operations, and even medical evacuations. According to one of the commanders, this unit alone has conducted 2,400 combat missions and destroyed more than 1,000 targets, including tanks, armored personnel vehicles, trucks, and electronic-warfare systems since its creation several months ago. Like the sea-drone factory, the team in the basement is operating on a completely different scale from the frontline drone units whose work I also encountered last year, on several trips around Ukraine. In 2023, I met small groups of men building drones in garages, using what looked like sticks and glue. By contrast, this new unit is able to see images of most of the front line all at once, revise tools and tactics as new situations develop, and even design new drones to fit the army’s changing needs.
More important, another commander told me, the team works “at the horizontal level,” meaning that members coordinate directly with other groups on the ground rather than operating via the army’s chain of command: “Three years of experience tells us that, 100 percent, we will be much more efficient when we are doing it on our own—coordinating with other guys that have assets, motivation, understanding of the processes.”..
Apparently they can now build four million drones a year.
In the meantime the UK fighters were not able to assist Iron Dome because although they had the ability to shoot down drones in April (and did) their equipment did not allow them to intercept ballistic missiles. We are so far behind what we would actually need in a war that we might be better starting again. Its genuinely scary how far off the pace we are.
To intercept ballistic missiles requires a very fast missile. Which means a very large missile.
The only missile in the world that is air launched that *might* have some ABM capability is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-174B which is an SM6 missile for launch from Aegis ships with a much reduced booster.
Might, because the reduction in performance probably removes the ability of the AIM-174B to hit a *ballistic* missile.
Its main purpose is ultra long range air-to-air and air-to-ground strike.
So probably *no one* on the planet has an airborne ABM capability.
Worth noting that to use a missile for ABM would require targeting information. Which would need to come from a huge radar somewhere else. For the American ASAT test using an F15, way back, the aircraft was actually flown and the missile fired to tracking data from Cobra Dane - one of the largest radars on Earth.
The radar on a Type 45 has capability in this regard - and that is where the Royal Navy has its ABM capability.
You're taking about ICBMs and hypersonic missiles, though. Strictly speaking, a ballistic missile is any missile which follows a ballistic trajectory, having exhausted its propellant.
And there are slower, short to medium range missiles which might be intercepted by aircraft launch. In theory.
The SM3 was first used in combat back in April - to shoot down one of the missiles from the earlier Iranian attack. And the RN used an Aster missile to take down a short range Houthi ballistic missile around the same time. The longer range version has a maximum speed of around Mach 4.5, I think ? Which is around half that of the SM3.
The variables are range of detection of target, missile and target speeds, manoeuvrability - and the size of the area you're defending.
Can someone tell me why I should give a fig about the Chagos Islands ? Or is all the pearl clutching by some just another excuse to have a moan about Starmer.
There is that - there's definitely that - but also with many on the right of politics (both traditional and populist variety) there is a strong instinctive fondness for the notion of us still having far-flung colonial possessions. Hence much effort is expended to come up with justifications for it. More than you'd have thought it merited.
Doesn't this fall under the category of 'selling the family silver' - which the left are normally fairly critical of? Or is it ok because we're not actually selling it, we're just giving it away to someone who'll give it to the Chinese?
It's not that I particularly like the Chagos Islands. I'd just rather see a good deal for 1) Britain, and 2) the Chagos Islanders than a bad one. This seems to fit neither criterion.
That's Macmillan on privatisation iirc?
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
The Chagos Islanders were treated badly, and with intentional contempt. It did look, for moment, that the wrong might be corrected. But no, they have been given to Mauritius, where they have been confined to camps.
Yes, I know that no-one in UK politics gives a fig, and any concern for these, or any other troubled people, is just dismissed as the reactions of snowflakes. You will mock; I despair.
Plenty on the left are pro-Empire, just so long as it's someone else's Empire.
The UK and the legacy of its Empire is the third great Satan for the left after the USA and Israel
Sad fact, for me at least. With the handover of the British Indian Ocean territory, the sun will indeed set on the British Empire for the first time in several hundred years. The gap between Pitcairn and Cyprus is now not bridged in the Southern Hemisphere winter. A legacy of sorts for Starmer.
Guido can reveal that Starmer’s close friend Philippe Sands KC is Mauritus’ chief legal adviser and a longtime agitator for Mauritian control of the islands. He submitted in evidence to Parliament in January of this year:
“At the outset, I wish to make clear that as a member of the Bar of England and Wales I have acted as counsel to Mauritius since 2010 in relation to the Chagos Archipelago. As such, I have been involved in the proceedings before the Annex VII arbitral tribunal (2010-2015), the International Court of Justice (ICJ, 2017-2019) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS, 2019-2023). I continue to advise the Government of Mauritius.
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
The government should have announced it when the HOC was sitting, and it looks like there will be a lively debate next week with serious questions being asked as to who was involved and what if any influence they had with the new government
I would say I do not have an issue with the deal, especially as the air base is guaranteed a 99 year lease with an option to renew
The future of warfare is changing very rapidly. Many current large capital defence projects are probably a complete waste of resources.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/ukraine-war-negotiated-peace/680100/?gift=T260c9uXoejScUYPeV8ISl3z6BdfMxZQkDyCInw4wA4&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social ...I visited another basement, where another team of Ukrainians was working to change the course of the war—and, again, maybe the course of all subsequent wars as well. (I was allowed to tour these operations on the condition that I not identify their locations or the people working at them.) This particular facility had no machines, no engines, and no warheads, just a room lined with screens. The men and women sitting at the screens were dressed like civilians, but in fact they were soldiers, members of a special army unit created to deploy experimental communications technology in combination with experimental drones. Both are being developed by Ukrainians, for Ukraine.
This particular team, with links to many parts of the front lines, has been part of both offensive and defensive operations, and even medical evacuations. According to one of the commanders, this unit alone has conducted 2,400 combat missions and destroyed more than 1,000 targets, including tanks, armored personnel vehicles, trucks, and electronic-warfare systems since its creation several months ago. Like the sea-drone factory, the team in the basement is operating on a completely different scale from the frontline drone units whose work I also encountered last year, on several trips around Ukraine. In 2023, I met small groups of men building drones in garages, using what looked like sticks and glue. By contrast, this new unit is able to see images of most of the front line all at once, revise tools and tactics as new situations develop, and even design new drones to fit the army’s changing needs.
More important, another commander told me, the team works “at the horizontal level,” meaning that members coordinate directly with other groups on the ground rather than operating via the army’s chain of command: “Three years of experience tells us that, 100 percent, we will be much more efficient when we are doing it on our own—coordinating with other guys that have assets, motivation, understanding of the processes.”..
Apparently they can now build four million drones a year.
In the meantime the UK fighters were not able to assist Iron Dome because although they had the ability to shoot down drones in April (and did) their equipment did not allow them to intercept ballistic missiles. We are so far behind what we would actually need in a war that we might be better starting again. Its genuinely scary how far off the pace we are.
Steady on, do any air forces have the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles?
We have destroyer based systems which are similar to those used by the Israelis from the ground, used successfully by HMS Diamond in April.
Fortunately, I believe our Destroyers are planning on spending most of their time at sea. (During operations, obviously. Before I get any smart alec responses.)
Our Destroyers, at sea!? I think the best they can do is being towed around the Solent to protect the aircraft carriers being towed around the Solent. All of course striving to avoid the UKs Trident fleet that is positioned mostly in the Solent as an incredibly cunning bluff. Still, although it seems such a collection of our great naval assets in a small area might be foolish, I understand that in extremis the car ferry can be revved up, and turned into a killing machine. In tests over 90% of stationary wooden fishing boats suffered serious damage when rammed by it. Top chaps the Navy.
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
While you're indulging in your usual hyperbole (and possibly letting of some missed flight steam ?), we do seem to have made a fairly shit job of the transaction.
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Don't worry. IT'S OK.
SKS has renegotiated the UK 261 regulations for airline passenger compensation.
Now, if you miss a flight, you will get randomly upbraided for your stupidity by a baggage handler, bitchslapped by Avis, and escorted out the terminal by security, BUT you get a book of vouchers for 5p off a bag of KP nuts for the next 3 months, a used copy of Flight Global, *and* you get to pay for your own hotel plus an extra 10% surcharge for the inconvenience you've caused them.
So what's PB's view, should I continue to use Bobby J or use the formal Robert Jenrick in future thread headers?
Assuming you ever need to reference him in future.
Next Tory leader.
I cannot believe I am writing a thread about the odds of Robert Jenrick as our next Prime Minister.
New Opinium research finds Jenrick is the most acceptable candidate amongst the 4 Tory leadership runners of 2019 Conservative voters who gave Boris his majority.
Robert Jenrick has a net acceptability score of +19 (36% acceptable vs 17% unacceptable as leader)
Tom Tugendhat has a net acceptability score of +15 (35% acceptable vs 20% unacceptable as leader)
James Cleverly has a net acceptability score of +14 (38% acceptable vs 24% unacceptable as leader)
Kemi Badenoch has a net acceptability score of +5 (32% acceptable vs 27% unacceptable as leader)
Amongst 2019 Tories who voted Labour and LD in July Tugendhat leads on +23%, then Cleverly on +22%, Jenrick on +14% and Badenoch on +5%.
Sad fact, for me at least. With the handover of the British Indian Ocean territory, the sun will indeed set on the British Empire for the first time in several hundred years. The gap between Pitcairn and Cyprus is now not bridged in the Southern Hemisphere winter. A legacy of sorts for Starmer.
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
While you're indulging in your usual hyperbole (and possibly letting of some missed flight steam ?), we do seem to have made a fairly shit job of the transaction.
Well, yes
Apparently we have agreed to pay Mauritius for the entire 99 year lease - we will be paying for our own humiliation for a century
I think this could damage Labour badly. Not because many people care about Diego Garcia (tho actually I do for reasons cited) but because it’s so obviously a terrible deal - and anyone can see that. Adds to the notion of Labour as bungling fools with a hint of treachery
The future of warfare is changing very rapidly. Many current large capital defence projects are probably a complete waste of resources.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/ukraine-war-negotiated-peace/680100/?gift=T260c9uXoejScUYPeV8ISl3z6BdfMxZQkDyCInw4wA4&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social ...I visited another basement, where another team of Ukrainians was working to change the course of the war—and, again, maybe the course of all subsequent wars as well. (I was allowed to tour these operations on the condition that I not identify their locations or the people working at them.) This particular facility had no machines, no engines, and no warheads, just a room lined with screens. The men and women sitting at the screens were dressed like civilians, but in fact they were soldiers, members of a special army unit created to deploy experimental communications technology in combination with experimental drones. Both are being developed by Ukrainians, for Ukraine.
This particular team, with links to many parts of the front lines, has been part of both offensive and defensive operations, and even medical evacuations. According to one of the commanders, this unit alone has conducted 2,400 combat missions and destroyed more than 1,000 targets, including tanks, armored personnel vehicles, trucks, and electronic-warfare systems since its creation several months ago. Like the sea-drone factory, the team in the basement is operating on a completely different scale from the frontline drone units whose work I also encountered last year, on several trips around Ukraine. In 2023, I met small groups of men building drones in garages, using what looked like sticks and glue. By contrast, this new unit is able to see images of most of the front line all at once, revise tools and tactics as new situations develop, and even design new drones to fit the army’s changing needs.
More important, another commander told me, the team works “at the horizontal level,” meaning that members coordinate directly with other groups on the ground rather than operating via the army’s chain of command: “Three years of experience tells us that, 100 percent, we will be much more efficient when we are doing it on our own—coordinating with other guys that have assets, motivation, understanding of the processes.”..
Apparently they can now build four million drones a year.
In the meantime the UK fighters were not able to assist Iron Dome because although they had the ability to shoot down drones in April (and did) their equipment did not allow them to intercept ballistic missiles. We are so far behind what we would actually need in a war that we might be better starting again. Its genuinely scary how far off the pace we are.
Steady on, do any air forces have the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles?
We have destroyer based systems which are similar to those used by the Israelis from the ground, used successfully by HMS Diamond in April.
Fortunately, I believe our Destroyers are planning on spending most of their time at sea. (During operations, obviously. Before I get any smart alec responses.)
Our Destroyers, at sea!? I think the best they can do is being towed around the Solent to protect the aircraft carriers being towed around the Solent. All of course striving to avoid the UKs Trident fleet that is positioned mostly in the Solent as an incredibly cunning bluff. Still, although it seems such a collection of our great naval assets in a small area might be foolish, I understand that in extremis the car ferry can be revved up, and turned into a killing machine. In tests over 90% of stationary wooden fishing boats suffered serious damage when rammed by it. Top chaps the Navy.
I think the two carriers are both deployed at present on active missions.
So what's PB's view, should I continue to use Bobby J or use the formal Robert Jenrick in future thread headers?
Assuming you ever need to reference him in future.
Next Tory leader.
I cannot believe I am writing a thread about the odds of Robert Jenrick as our next Prime Minister.
New Opinium research finds Jenrick is the most acceptable candidate amongst the 4 Tory leadership runners of 2019 Conservative voters who gave Boris his majority.
Robert Jenrick has a net acceptability score of +19 (36% acceptable vs 17% unacceptable as leader)
Tom Tugendhat has a net acceptability score of +15 (35% acceptable vs 20% unacceptable as leader)
James Cleverly has a net acceptability score of +14 (38% acceptable vs 24% unacceptable as leader)
Kemi Badenoch has a net acceptability score of +5 (32% acceptable vs 27% unacceptable as leader)
Amongst 2019 Tories who voted Labour and LD in July Tugendhat leads on +23%, then Cleverly on +22%, Jenrick on +14% and Badenoch on +5%.
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
The government should have announced it when the HOC was sitting, and it looks like there will be a lively debate next week with serious questions being asked as to who was involved and what if any influence they had with the new government
I would say I do not have an issue with the deal, especially as the air base is guaranteed a 99 year lease with an option to renew
And if in 2123 a future Mauritian government tells the Americans to leave they will just dig their heals in and cancel the danegeld. Nothing has changed.
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Don't worry. IT'S OK.
SKS has renegotiated the UK 261 regulations for airline passenger compensation.
Now, if you miss a flight, you will get randomly upbraided for your stupidity by a baggage handler, bitchslapped by Avis, and escorted out the terminal by security, BUT you get a book of vouchers for 5p off a bag of KP nuts for the next 3 months, a used copy of Flight Global, *and* you get to pay for your own hotel plus an extra 10% surcharge for the inconvenience you've caused them.
Cracking deal.
At least Sir Dickhead's latest foreign policy debacle has resulted in a top draw CR rant.
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
While you're indulging in your usual hyperbole (and possibly letting of some missed flight steam ?), we do seem to have made a fairly shit job of the transaction.
Well, yes
Apparently we have agreed to pay Mauritius for the entire 99 year lease - we will be paying for our own humiliation for a century
I think this could damage Labour badly. Not because many people care about Diego Garcia (tho actually I do for reasons cited) but because it’s so obviously a terrible deal - and anyone can see that. Adds to the notion of Labour as bungling fools with a hint of treachery
Yes, it's pretty poor. Any idea how much we're paying - and if we get reimbursed by the US ?
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
While you're indulging in your usual hyperbole (and possibly letting of some missed flight steam ?), we do seem to have made a fairly shit job of the transaction.
Well, yes
Apparently we have agreed to pay Mauritius for the entire 99 year lease - we will be paying for our own humiliation for a century
I think this could damage Labour badly. Not because many people care about Diego Garcia (tho actually I do for reasons cited) but because it’s so obviously a terrible deal - and anyone can see that. Adds to the notion of Labour as bungling fools with a hint of treachery
Inside their limited minds, they'll view that as social justice and reparations.
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
While you're indulging in your usual hyperbole (and possibly letting of some missed flight steam ?), we do seem to have made a fairly shit job of the transaction.
Well, yes
Apparently we have agreed to pay Mauritius for the entire 99 year lease - we will be paying for our own humiliation for a century
I think this could damage Labour badly. Not because many people care about Diego Garcia (tho actually I do for reasons cited) but because it’s so obviously a terrible deal - and anyone can see that. Adds to the notion of Labour as bungling fools with a hint of treachery
I think SKS has probably actually done this for some twisted notion of 'legacy'. His political career isn't long for this world, so there won't be much more to chalk up.
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
The government should have announced it when the HOC was sitting, and it looks like there will be a lively debate next week with serious questions being asked as to who was involved and what if any influence they had with the new government
I would say I do not have an issue with the deal, especially as the air base is guaranteed a 99 year lease with an option to renew
And if in 2123 a future Mauritian government tells the Americans to leave they will just dig their heals in and cancel the danegeld. Nothing has changed.
Do you not realise that 60,000sq km of glittering Indian Ocean might have one day been of considerable worth to Britain and the British people? If only as diplomatic leverage over events? And who knows what is down there
And we’ve not even given it to the chagossians. We’ve given it to Mauritius, which is 1,300 miles away
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
The government should have announced it when the HOC was sitting, and it looks like there will be a lively debate next week with serious questions being asked as to who was involved and what if any influence they had with the new government
I would say I do not have an issue with the deal, especially as the air base is guaranteed a 99 year lease with an option to renew
I think the deal is a sound one. Mauritius is a friendly Commonwealth country, indeed a delightful democratic one, and the return of the Chagos islands rights a historical wrong.
It was good that the return negotiations under 3 Tory Foreign Secs have been so satisfactorily settled.
The future of warfare is changing very rapidly. Many current large capital defence projects are probably a complete waste of resources.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/ukraine-war-negotiated-peace/680100/?gift=T260c9uXoejScUYPeV8ISl3z6BdfMxZQkDyCInw4wA4&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social ...I visited another basement, where another team of Ukrainians was working to change the course of the war—and, again, maybe the course of all subsequent wars as well. (I was allowed to tour these operations on the condition that I not identify their locations or the people working at them.) This particular facility had no machines, no engines, and no warheads, just a room lined with screens. The men and women sitting at the screens were dressed like civilians, but in fact they were soldiers, members of a special army unit created to deploy experimental communications technology in combination with experimental drones. Both are being developed by Ukrainians, for Ukraine.
This particular team, with links to many parts of the front lines, has been part of both offensive and defensive operations, and even medical evacuations. According to one of the commanders, this unit alone has conducted 2,400 combat missions and destroyed more than 1,000 targets, including tanks, armored personnel vehicles, trucks, and electronic-warfare systems since its creation several months ago. Like the sea-drone factory, the team in the basement is operating on a completely different scale from the frontline drone units whose work I also encountered last year, on several trips around Ukraine. In 2023, I met small groups of men building drones in garages, using what looked like sticks and glue. By contrast, this new unit is able to see images of most of the front line all at once, revise tools and tactics as new situations develop, and even design new drones to fit the army’s changing needs.
More important, another commander told me, the team works “at the horizontal level,” meaning that members coordinate directly with other groups on the ground rather than operating via the army’s chain of command: “Three years of experience tells us that, 100 percent, we will be much more efficient when we are doing it on our own—coordinating with other guys that have assets, motivation, understanding of the processes.”..
Apparently they can now build four million drones a year.
In the meantime the UK fighters were not able to assist Iron Dome because although they had the ability to shoot down drones in April (and did) their equipment did not allow them to intercept ballistic missiles. We are so far behind what we would actually need in a war that we might be better starting again. Its genuinely scary how far off the pace we are.
Steady on, do any air forces have the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles?
We have destroyer based systems which are similar to those used by the Israelis from the ground, used successfully by HMS Diamond in April.
Fortunately, I believe our Destroyers are planning on spending most of their time at sea. (During operations, obviously. Before I get any smart alec responses.)
Our Destroyers, at sea!? I think the best they can do is being towed around the Solent to protect the aircraft carriers being towed around the Solent. All of course striving to avoid the UKs Trident fleet that is positioned mostly in the Solent as an incredibly cunning bluff. Still, although it seems such a collection of our great naval assets in a small area might be foolish, I understand that in extremis the car ferry can be revved up, and turned into a killing machine. In tests over 90% of stationary wooden fishing boats suffered serious damage when rammed by it. Top chaps the Navy.
I think the two carriers are both deployed at present on active missions.
I think 3 of our Type 45s are serviceable at present.
I'm no expert (I think that's clear anyway), but don't you want something like 8 destroyers as pickets around a carrier?
It seems to me that the Royal Navy has become simply a pointless waste of money. My preferred choice would be to fix it, but of not then I'm not sure we need a Navy - it adds nothing at all to our ability to defend our coastline in the modern era.
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
While you're indulging in your usual hyperbole (and possibly letting of some missed flight steam ?), we do seem to have made a fairly shit job of the transaction.
Well, yes
Apparently we have agreed to pay Mauritius for the entire 99 year lease - we will be paying for our own humiliation for a century
I think this could damage Labour badly. Not because many people care about Diego Garcia (tho actually I do for reasons cited) but because it’s so obviously a terrible deal - and anyone can see that. Adds to the notion of Labour as bungling fools with a hint of treachery
Yes, it's pretty poor. Any idea how much we're paying - and if we get reimbursed by the US ?
US rent is currently zero. Presumably we had to negotiate away the US paying Mauritius rent. Apparently we're paying, though.
Could I just point out to Mr Jenrick that while Margaret is a perfectly acceptable middle name, albeit slightly out of fashion, Thatcher is an awful middle name.
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Don't worry. IT'S OK.
SKS has renegotiated the UK 261 regulations for airline passenger compensation.
Now, if you miss a flight, you will get randomly upbraided for your stupidity by a baggage handler, bitchslapped by Avis, and escorted out the terminal by security, BUT you get a book of vouchers for 5p off a bag of KP nuts for the next 3 months, a used copy of Flight Global, *and* you get to pay for your own hotel plus an extra 10% surcharge for the inconvenience you've caused them.
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
While you're indulging in your usual hyperbole (and possibly letting of some missed flight steam ?), we do seem to have made a fairly shit job of the transaction.
Well, yes
Apparently we have agreed to pay Mauritius for the entire 99 year lease - we will be paying for our own humiliation for a century
I think this could damage Labour badly. Not because many people care about Diego Garcia (tho actually I do for reasons cited) but because it’s so obviously a terrible deal - and anyone can see that. Adds to the notion of Labour as bungling fools with a hint of treachery
Yes, it's pretty poor. Any idea how much we're paying - and if we get reimbursed by the US ?
US rent is currently zero. Presumably we had to negotiate away the US paying Mauritius rent. Apparently we're paying, though.
Fuck them - we should just not cough up and if they want to send the bailiffs round and evict the US, good luck to them.
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
While you're indulging in your usual hyperbole (and possibly letting of some missed flight steam ?), we do seem to have made a fairly shit job of the transaction.
Well, yes
Apparently we have agreed to pay Mauritius for the entire 99 year lease - we will be paying for our own humiliation for a century
I think this could damage Labour badly. Not because many people care about Diego Garcia (tho actually I do for reasons cited) but because it’s so obviously a terrible deal - and anyone can see that. Adds to the notion of Labour as bungling fools with a hint of treachery
Yes, it's pretty poor. Any idea how much we're paying - and if we get reimbursed by the US ?
US rent is currently zero. Presumably we had to negotiate away the US paying Mauritius rent. Apparently we're paying, though.
Sounds like another fabulous deal for the UK. No wonder we are struggling.
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
While you're indulging in your usual hyperbole (and possibly letting of some missed flight steam ?), we do seem to have made a fairly shit job of the transaction.
Well, yes
Apparently we have agreed to pay Mauritius for the entire 99 year lease - we will be paying for our own humiliation for a century
I think this could damage Labour badly. Not because many people care about Diego Garcia (tho actually I do for reasons cited) but because it’s so obviously a terrible deal - and anyone can see that. Adds to the notion of Labour as bungling fools with a hint of treachery
Yes, it's pretty poor. Any idea how much we're paying - and if we get reimbursed by the US ?
US rent is currently zero. Presumably we had to negotiate away the US paying Mauritius rent. Apparently we're paying, though.
Sounds like another fabulous deal for the UK. No wonder we are struggling.
The future of warfare is changing very rapidly. Many current large capital defence projects are probably a complete waste of resources.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/ukraine-war-negotiated-peace/680100/?gift=T260c9uXoejScUYPeV8ISl3z6BdfMxZQkDyCInw4wA4&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social ...I visited another basement, where another team of Ukrainians was working to change the course of the war—and, again, maybe the course of all subsequent wars as well. (I was allowed to tour these operations on the condition that I not identify their locations or the people working at them.) This particular facility had no machines, no engines, and no warheads, just a room lined with screens. The men and women sitting at the screens were dressed like civilians, but in fact they were soldiers, members of a special army unit created to deploy experimental communications technology in combination with experimental drones. Both are being developed by Ukrainians, for Ukraine.
This particular team, with links to many parts of the front lines, has been part of both offensive and defensive operations, and even medical evacuations. According to one of the commanders, this unit alone has conducted 2,400 combat missions and destroyed more than 1,000 targets, including tanks, armored personnel vehicles, trucks, and electronic-warfare systems since its creation several months ago. Like the sea-drone factory, the team in the basement is operating on a completely different scale from the frontline drone units whose work I also encountered last year, on several trips around Ukraine. In 2023, I met small groups of men building drones in garages, using what looked like sticks and glue. By contrast, this new unit is able to see images of most of the front line all at once, revise tools and tactics as new situations develop, and even design new drones to fit the army’s changing needs.
More important, another commander told me, the team works “at the horizontal level,” meaning that members coordinate directly with other groups on the ground rather than operating via the army’s chain of command: “Three years of experience tells us that, 100 percent, we will be much more efficient when we are doing it on our own—coordinating with other guys that have assets, motivation, understanding of the processes.”..
Apparently they can now build four million drones a year.
In the meantime the UK fighters were not able to assist Iron Dome because although they had the ability to shoot down drones in April (and did) their equipment did not allow them to intercept ballistic missiles. We are so far behind what we would actually need in a war that we might be better starting again. Its genuinely scary how far off the pace we are.
Steady on, do any air forces have the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles?
We have destroyer based systems which are similar to those used by the Israelis from the ground, used successfully by HMS Diamond in April.
Fortunately, I believe our Destroyers are planning on spending most of their time at sea. (During operations, obviously. Before I get any smart alec responses.)
Our Destroyers, at sea!? I think the best they can do is being towed around the Solent to protect the aircraft carriers being towed around the Solent. All of course striving to avoid the UKs Trident fleet that is positioned mostly in the Solent as an incredibly cunning bluff. Still, although it seems such a collection of our great naval assets in a small area might be foolish, I understand that in extremis the car ferry can be revved up, and turned into a killing machine. In tests over 90% of stationary wooden fishing boats suffered serious damage when rammed by it. Top chaps the Navy.
I think the two carriers are both deployed at present on active missions.
I think 3 of our Type 45s are serviceable at present.
I'm no expert (I think that's clear anyway), but don't you want something like 8 destroyers as pickets around a carrier?
It seems to me that the Royal Navy has become simply a pointless waste of money. My preferred choice would be to fix it, but of not then I'm not sure we need a Navy - it adds nothing at all to our ability to defend our coastline in the modern era.
That sounds highly unlikely.
We very probably need a massively different navy than the one we have - for example the carriers are an expensive anachronism, since we're just not wealthy enough to properly pay for or really need such a capability - but we're an essential part of the defence of NATO's European waters (as well as our own).
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
While you're indulging in your usual hyperbole (and possibly letting of some missed flight steam ?), we do seem to have made a fairly shit job of the transaction.
Well, yes
Apparently we have agreed to pay Mauritius for the entire 99 year lease - we will be paying for our own humiliation for a century
I think this could damage Labour badly. Not because many people care about Diego Garcia (tho actually I do for reasons cited) but because it’s so obviously a terrible deal - and anyone can see that. Adds to the notion of Labour as bungling fools with a hint of treachery
Yes, it's pretty poor. Any idea how much we're paying - and if we get reimbursed by the US ?
US rent is currently zero. Presumably we had to negotiate away the US paying Mauritius rent. Apparently we're paying, though.
Sounds like another fabulous deal for the UK. No wonder we are struggling.
It's a deal that only Britain could make.
Someone was asked how he could go to premieres of movies that are dire - then have to meet the actors/director/producers.
He said he had a stock phrase. Smiling, he would say to them "You've done it again!"
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
The government should have announced it when the HOC was sitting, and it looks like there will be a lively debate next week with serious questions being asked as to who was involved and what if any influence they had with the new government
I would say I do not have an issue with the deal, especially as the air base is guaranteed a 99 year lease with an option to renew
And if in 2123 a future Mauritian government tells the Americans to leave they will just dig their heals in and cancel the danegeld. Nothing has changed.
Which is pretty well what happened with the rest of the US Pacific naval bases they acquired at the end of WWII - they didn't even return formal administration of the Ryukyu Islands to Japan until 1972.
Could I just point out to Mr Jenrick that while Margaret is a perfectly acceptable middle name, albeit slightly out of fashion, Thatcher is an awful middle name.
The future of warfare is changing very rapidly. Many current large capital defence projects are probably a complete waste of resources.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/ukraine-war-negotiated-peace/680100/?gift=T260c9uXoejScUYPeV8ISl3z6BdfMxZQkDyCInw4wA4&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social ...I visited another basement, where another team of Ukrainians was working to change the course of the war—and, again, maybe the course of all subsequent wars as well. (I was allowed to tour these operations on the condition that I not identify their locations or the people working at them.) This particular facility had no machines, no engines, and no warheads, just a room lined with screens. The men and women sitting at the screens were dressed like civilians, but in fact they were soldiers, members of a special army unit created to deploy experimental communications technology in combination with experimental drones. Both are being developed by Ukrainians, for Ukraine.
This particular team, with links to many parts of the front lines, has been part of both offensive and defensive operations, and even medical evacuations. According to one of the commanders, this unit alone has conducted 2,400 combat missions and destroyed more than 1,000 targets, including tanks, armored personnel vehicles, trucks, and electronic-warfare systems since its creation several months ago. Like the sea-drone factory, the team in the basement is operating on a completely different scale from the frontline drone units whose work I also encountered last year, on several trips around Ukraine. In 2023, I met small groups of men building drones in garages, using what looked like sticks and glue. By contrast, this new unit is able to see images of most of the front line all at once, revise tools and tactics as new situations develop, and even design new drones to fit the army’s changing needs.
More important, another commander told me, the team works “at the horizontal level,” meaning that members coordinate directly with other groups on the ground rather than operating via the army’s chain of command: “Three years of experience tells us that, 100 percent, we will be much more efficient when we are doing it on our own—coordinating with other guys that have assets, motivation, understanding of the processes.”..
Apparently they can now build four million drones a year.
In the meantime the UK fighters were not able to assist Iron Dome because although they had the ability to shoot down drones in April (and did) their equipment did not allow them to intercept ballistic missiles. We are so far behind what we would actually need in a war that we might be better starting again. Its genuinely scary how far off the pace we are.
Steady on, do any air forces have the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles?
We have destroyer based systems which are similar to those used by the Israelis from the ground, used successfully by HMS Diamond in April.
Fortunately, I believe our Destroyers are planning on spending most of their time at sea. (During operations, obviously. Before I get any smart alec responses.)
Our Destroyers, at sea!? I think the best they can do is being towed around the Solent to protect the aircraft carriers being towed around the Solent. All of course striving to avoid the UKs Trident fleet that is positioned mostly in the Solent as an incredibly cunning bluff. Still, although it seems such a collection of our great naval assets in a small area might be foolish, I understand that in extremis the car ferry can be revved up, and turned into a killing machine. In tests over 90% of stationary wooden fishing boats suffered serious damage when rammed by it. Top chaps the Navy.
I think the two carriers are both deployed at present on active missions.
I think 3 of our Type 45s are serviceable at present.
I'm no expert (I think that's clear anyway), but don't you want something like 8 destroyers as pickets around a carrier?
It seems to me that the Royal Navy has become simply a pointless waste of money. My preferred choice would be to fix it, but of not then I'm not sure we need a Navy - it adds nothing at all to our ability to defend our coastline in the modern era.
I agree, carriers without proper escorts capable of air, missile and submarine defence are highly at risk.
Could I just point out to Mr Jenrick that while Margaret is a perfectly acceptable middle name, albeit slightly out of fashion, Thatcher is an awful middle name.
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
The government should have announced it when the HOC was sitting, and it looks like there will be a lively debate next week with serious questions being asked as to who was involved and what if any influence they had with the new government
I would say I do not have an issue with the deal, especially as the air base is guaranteed a 99 year lease with an option to renew
And if in 2123 a future Mauritian government tells the Americans to leave they will just dig their heals in and cancel the danegeld. Nothing has changed.
Do you not realise that 60,000sq km of glittering Indian Ocean might have one day been of considerable worth to Britain and the British people? If only as diplomatic leverage over events? And who knows what is down there
And we’ve not even given it to the chagossians. We’ve given it to Mauritius, which is 1,300 miles away
Britain is very slightly MORE than 1,300 miles away...
TwiX is suggesting the sums we have promised to Mauritius - in return for them graciously agreeing to take sovereign British territory and make it theirs - are not inconsiderable
How is it even possible to strike a deal this bad??
The future of warfare is changing very rapidly. Many current large capital defence projects are probably a complete waste of resources.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/ukraine-war-negotiated-peace/680100/?gift=T260c9uXoejScUYPeV8ISl3z6BdfMxZQkDyCInw4wA4&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social ...I visited another basement, where another team of Ukrainians was working to change the course of the war—and, again, maybe the course of all subsequent wars as well. (I was allowed to tour these operations on the condition that I not identify their locations or the people working at them.) This particular facility had no machines, no engines, and no warheads, just a room lined with screens. The men and women sitting at the screens were dressed like civilians, but in fact they were soldiers, members of a special army unit created to deploy experimental communications technology in combination with experimental drones. Both are being developed by Ukrainians, for Ukraine.
This particular team, with links to many parts of the front lines, has been part of both offensive and defensive operations, and even medical evacuations. According to one of the commanders, this unit alone has conducted 2,400 combat missions and destroyed more than 1,000 targets, including tanks, armored personnel vehicles, trucks, and electronic-warfare systems since its creation several months ago. Like the sea-drone factory, the team in the basement is operating on a completely different scale from the frontline drone units whose work I also encountered last year, on several trips around Ukraine. In 2023, I met small groups of men building drones in garages, using what looked like sticks and glue. By contrast, this new unit is able to see images of most of the front line all at once, revise tools and tactics as new situations develop, and even design new drones to fit the army’s changing needs.
More important, another commander told me, the team works “at the horizontal level,” meaning that members coordinate directly with other groups on the ground rather than operating via the army’s chain of command: “Three years of experience tells us that, 100 percent, we will be much more efficient when we are doing it on our own—coordinating with other guys that have assets, motivation, understanding of the processes.”..
Apparently they can now build four million drones a year.
In the meantime the UK fighters were not able to assist Iron Dome because although they had the ability to shoot down drones in April (and did) their equipment did not allow them to intercept ballistic missiles. We are so far behind what we would actually need in a war that we might be better starting again. Its genuinely scary how far off the pace we are.
Steady on, do any air forces have the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles?
We have destroyer based systems which are similar to those used by the Israelis from the ground, used successfully by HMS Diamond in April.
Fortunately, I believe our Destroyers are planning on spending most of their time at sea. (During operations, obviously. Before I get any smart alec responses.)
Our Destroyers, at sea!? I think the best they can do is being towed around the Solent to protect the aircraft carriers being towed around the Solent. All of course striving to avoid the UKs Trident fleet that is positioned mostly in the Solent as an incredibly cunning bluff. Still, although it seems such a collection of our great naval assets in a small area might be foolish, I understand that in extremis the car ferry can be revved up, and turned into a killing machine. In tests over 90% of stationary wooden fishing boats suffered serious damage when rammed by it. Top chaps the Navy.
I think the two carriers are both deployed at present on active missions.
I think 3 of our Type 45s are serviceable at present.
I'm no expert (I think that's clear anyway), but don't you want something like 8 destroyers as pickets around a carrier?
It seems to me that the Royal Navy has become simply a pointless waste of money. My preferred choice would be to fix it, but of not then I'm not sure we need a Navy - it adds nothing at all to our ability to defend our coastline in the modern era.
That sounds highly unlikely.
We very probably need a massively different navy than the one we have - for example the carriers are an expensive anachronism, since we're just not wealthy enough to properly pay for or really need such a capability - but we're an essential part of the defence of NATO's European waters (as well as our own).
No, really, I'm no expert
But yes, who knows. Maybe the navy we need to have is a fleet of one-man kiteboards with mini torpedoes and mini drones attached. Great hulks of irrelevance are not it though.
TwiX is suggesting the sums we have promised to Mauritius - in return for them graciously agreeing to take sovereign British territory and make it theirs - are not inconsiderable
How is it even possible to strike a deal this bad??
TwiX is suggesting the sums we have promised to Mauritius - in return for them graciously agreeing to take sovereign British territory and make it theirs - are not inconsiderable
How is it even possible to strike a deal this bad??
This is going to be politically disastrous for him.
This Sri Lanka Pakistan game in the Women's T20 WC is like going back a decade or more. Batters who have no strength, take the pace off with spin and there are no boundaries. Poor scoring rates, extremely ordinary fielding. In this country the women's game has changed out of all recognition. What this game, and the earlier game involving Scotland, shows is that this progress is distinctly patchy and, if anything, the gaps are widening. As a sport it still has some growing to do.
The future of warfare is changing very rapidly. Many current large capital defence projects are probably a complete waste of resources.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/ukraine-war-negotiated-peace/680100/?gift=T260c9uXoejScUYPeV8ISl3z6BdfMxZQkDyCInw4wA4&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social ...I visited another basement, where another team of Ukrainians was working to change the course of the war—and, again, maybe the course of all subsequent wars as well. (I was allowed to tour these operations on the condition that I not identify their locations or the people working at them.) This particular facility had no machines, no engines, and no warheads, just a room lined with screens. The men and women sitting at the screens were dressed like civilians, but in fact they were soldiers, members of a special army unit created to deploy experimental communications technology in combination with experimental drones. Both are being developed by Ukrainians, for Ukraine.
This particular team, with links to many parts of the front lines, has been part of both offensive and defensive operations, and even medical evacuations. According to one of the commanders, this unit alone has conducted 2,400 combat missions and destroyed more than 1,000 targets, including tanks, armored personnel vehicles, trucks, and electronic-warfare systems since its creation several months ago. Like the sea-drone factory, the team in the basement is operating on a completely different scale from the frontline drone units whose work I also encountered last year, on several trips around Ukraine. In 2023, I met small groups of men building drones in garages, using what looked like sticks and glue. By contrast, this new unit is able to see images of most of the front line all at once, revise tools and tactics as new situations develop, and even design new drones to fit the army’s changing needs.
More important, another commander told me, the team works “at the horizontal level,” meaning that members coordinate directly with other groups on the ground rather than operating via the army’s chain of command: “Three years of experience tells us that, 100 percent, we will be much more efficient when we are doing it on our own—coordinating with other guys that have assets, motivation, understanding of the processes.”..
Apparently they can now build four million drones a year.
In the meantime the UK fighters were not able to assist Iron Dome because although they had the ability to shoot down drones in April (and did) their equipment did not allow them to intercept ballistic missiles. We are so far behind what we would actually need in a war that we might be better starting again. Its genuinely scary how far off the pace we are.
Steady on, do any air forces have the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles?
We have destroyer based systems which are similar to those used by the Israelis from the ground, used successfully by HMS Diamond in April.
Fortunately, I believe our Destroyers are planning on spending most of their time at sea. (During operations, obviously. Before I get any smart alec responses.)
Our Destroyers, at sea!? I think the best they can do is being towed around the Solent to protect the aircraft carriers being towed around the Solent. All of course striving to avoid the UKs Trident fleet that is positioned mostly in the Solent as an incredibly cunning bluff. Still, although it seems such a collection of our great naval assets in a small area might be foolish, I understand that in extremis the car ferry can be revved up, and turned into a killing machine. In tests over 90% of stationary wooden fishing boats suffered serious damage when rammed by it. Top chaps the Navy.
I think the two carriers are both deployed at present on active missions.
I think 3 of our Type 45s are serviceable at present.
I'm no expert (I think that's clear anyway), but don't you want something like 8 destroyers as pickets around a carrier?
It seems to me that the Royal Navy has become simply a pointless waste of money. My preferred choice would be to fix it, but of not then I'm not sure we need a Navy - it adds nothing at all to our ability to defend our coastline in the modern era.
That sounds highly unlikely.
We very probably need a massively different navy than the one we have - for example the carriers are an expensive anachronism, since we're just not wealthy enough to properly pay for or really need such a capability - but we're an essential part of the defence of NATO's European waters (as well as our own).
And a P5 UN Security power and a nation still with overseas territories even absent the Chagos Islands.
We also need the Royal Navy to control crossings in the Channel
TwiX is suggesting the sums we have promised to Mauritius - in return for them graciously agreeing to take sovereign British territory and make it theirs - are not inconsiderable
How is it even possible to strike a deal this bad??
He better hope nobody joins the dots - robbing AOPs of their means of surviving the winter freeze - to pay off somebody to take one of our overseas possessions off our hands.
The only way it could be politically worse is if the ultimate purchaser turns out to be Lord Alli...
TwiX is suggesting the sums we have promised to Mauritius - in return for them graciously agreeing to take sovereign British territory and make it theirs - are not inconsiderable
How is it even possible to strike a deal this bad??
This is going to be politically disastrous for him.
Perhaps. He’s united virtually all the chatterati against him. The deal is obviously shit, bad for Britain, bad for the environment, and hasn’t even satisfied the chagossians
BREAKING NEWS: Sir Sheer Wanker agrees to give the Spanish Gibraltar in exchange for their recipe for paella, a prime place at the Tomatina next year, and €5million per annum for the next 73 years.
Typo, we're paying the 5 mil
Well, it's not, because it's we agree to give this, this, and this.
Admittedly the sentence is long, but you can only blame SSW for that.
I think that is in reference to the fact that for some reason the UK is paying Mauritius to take the islands.
It does seem to be a rather bad deal. Mauritius has played a blinder presenting something pretty transactional as something more moral.
Can we get their negotiating team to help us with future deals with others?
And done by clever lefty lawyers in London. The UK evinces quite exceptional levels of self harm
While you're indulging in your usual hyperbole (and possibly letting of some missed flight steam ?), we do seem to have made a fairly shit job of the transaction.
Well, yes
Apparently we have agreed to pay Mauritius for the entire 99 year lease - we will be paying for our own humiliation for a century
I think this could damage Labour badly. Not because many people care about Diego Garcia (tho actually I do for reasons cited) but because it’s so obviously a terrible deal - and anyone can see that. Adds to the notion of Labour as bungling fools with a hint of treachery
Yes, it's pretty poor. Any idea how much we're paying - and if we get reimbursed by the US ?
US rent is currently zero. Presumably we had to negotiate away the US paying Mauritius rent. Apparently we're paying, though.
Sounds like another fabulous deal for the UK. No wonder we are struggling.
Depends on your aims. If you want to secure an island in the middle of the Ocean to do what you, and more importantly your closest ally, want to do with it, while staying within international law, it's probably a good deal.
Which is presumably why James Cleverly was prepping something along these lines, despite his furious denunciation now.
TwiX is suggesting the sums we have promised to Mauritius - in return for them graciously agreeing to take sovereign British territory and make it theirs - are not inconsiderable
How is it even possible to strike a deal this bad??
He better hope nobody joins the dots - robbing AOPs of their means of surviving the winter freeze - to pay off somebody to take one of our overseas possessions off our hands.
The only way it could be politically worse is if the ultimate purchaser turns out to be Lord Alli...
How is "ours" when civilians are banned from even setting foot there?
Do Labour have a sneaky fear of Cleverly as potential Tory leader?
Is that why they have announced this Chagos deal now outside of the Commons? The excuse Lammy gave to the Speaker was that tomorrow there is a GE in Mauritius but surely that is a reason NOT to announce it now. Making the announcement now is bound to have an impact on the election result and so the UK could stand accused of interfering in an election of another state.
But this clearly has the potential to undermine Cleverly's leadership campaign and I wonder if Labour realised that and thought it was a good day to dig up good news (for Labour) rather than bury bad (for Cleverly)
You know, I am starting to enjoy the daily chicken lickenism of PB Tories.
I have not posted much, I have been busy and a fairly low information voter since the election. Conveniently, the hysteria on here, which makes Kemi look the model of restraint, readily allows me to overlook any actual shitness of Labour's first few months in the torrent of daily imagined shitnesses.
So, the Chagos Islands. Secures the base for 99 years, America pleased, potentially 1000 Sri Lankan asylum seekers off our hands and into third party processing for sub-Rwanda prices, a post-colonial wrong righted in law.
What's not to like for the centre-left liberal mindset?
Yet, as Half Man Half Biscuit might say, "all the Kemi Badenochs are running round in misery".
TwiX is suggesting the sums we have promised to Mauritius - in return for them graciously agreeing to take sovereign British territory and make it theirs - are not inconsiderable
How is it even possible to strike a deal this bad??
This is going to be politically disastrous for him.
Perhaps. He’s united virtually all the chatterati against him. The deal is obviously shit, bad for Britain, bad for the environment, and hasn’t even satisfied the chagossians
However Joe Newent might not care or even notice
It's a good job he wasn't Governor-General of the Straits Settlements at the time of Pervical and the Japanese invasion of 1942.
He'd have thrown in Ceylon, Aden, Prince Edward Island and the Isle of Wight as well.
Do Labour have a sneaky fear of Cleverly as potential Tory leader?
Is that why they have announced this Chagos deal now outside of the Commons? The excuse Lammy gave to the Speaker was that tomorrow there is a GE in Mauritius but surely that is a reason NOT to announce it now. Making the announcement now is bound to have an impact on the election result and so the UK could stand accused of interfering in an election of another state.
But this clearly has the potential to undermine Cleverly's leadership campaign and I wonder if Labour realised that and thought it was a good day to dig up good news (for Labour) rather than bury bad (for Cleverly)
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Feel sorry for the guy at the other end who will be aimlessly hanging around an emptying airport forlornly holding a droopy piece of card with "Sean Twat" written on it.
Do Labour have a sneaky fear of Cleverly as potential Tory leader?
Is that why they have announced this Chagos deal now outside of the Commons? The excuse Lammy gave to the Speaker was that tomorrow there is a GE in Mauritius but surely that is a reason NOT to announce it now. Making the announcement now is bound to have an impact on the election result and so the UK could stand accused of interfering in an election of another state.
But this clearly has the potential to undermine Cleverly's leadership campaign and I wonder if Labour realised that and thought it was a good day to dig up good news (for Labour) rather than bury bad (for Cleverly)
Signing away a piece of British territory to score cheap political points? I wouldn't put it past them.
You know, I am starting to enjoy the daily chicken lickenism of PB Tories.
I have not posted much, I have been busy and a fairly low information voter since the election. Conveniently, the hysteria on here, which makes Kemi look the model of restraint, readily allows me to overlook any actual shitness of Labour's first few months in the torrent of daily imagined shitnesses.
So, the Chagos Islands. Secures the base for 99 years, America pleased, potentially 1000 Sri Lankan asylum seekers off our hands and into third party processing for sub-Rwanda prices, a post-colonial wrong righted in law.
What's not to like for the centre-left liberal mindset?
Yet, as Half Man Half Biscuit might say, "all the Kemi Badenochs are running round in misery".
Destruction of one of the most important protected Marine areas on the planet?
I mean, I actually agree with you on most of what you say. Chagos was a very specific instance where we should do the right thing and give it back. But I think from what I have seen we have gone about it the wrong way both with regard to the Chagossians and the future protection of the MPA.
Do Labour have a sneaky fear of Cleverly as potential Tory leader?
Is that why they have announced this Chagos deal now outside of the Commons? The excuse Lammy gave to the Speaker was that tomorrow there is a GE in Mauritius but surely that is a reason NOT to announce it now. Making the announcement now is bound to have an impact on the election result and so the UK could stand accused of interfering in an election of another state.
But this clearly has the potential to undermine Cleverly's leadership campaign and I wonder if Labour realised that and thought it was a good day to dig up good news (for Labour) rather than bury bad (for Cleverly)
Signing away a piece of British territory to score cheap political points? I wouldn't put it past them.
I think the signing away was already pretty much a done deal. It is the timing I find interesting.
TwiX is suggesting the sums we have promised to Mauritius - in return for them graciously agreeing to take sovereign British territory and make it theirs - are not inconsiderable
How is it even possible to strike a deal this bad??
This is going to be politically disastrous for him.
So we've paid Chinese ally Mauritius to take the uninhabited, zero infrastructure part of the Chaos off our hands, paid them for the lease of the part with infrastructure which we're giving to the USA for free for the next 99 years. All advised by SKS mate who has a clear conflict of interest as he acts for Mauritius And noone asked the actual exiled people what they think ???
According to the ex Crawley MP - who seems to have carried a torch for the Chaggosians in the British parliament it seems most wanted the island to remain British.
It'll be worse for Starmer when it gets costed in x000 winter fuel allowances
The future of warfare is changing very rapidly. Many current large capital defence projects are probably a complete waste of resources.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/ukraine-war-negotiated-peace/680100/?gift=T260c9uXoejScUYPeV8ISl3z6BdfMxZQkDyCInw4wA4&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social ...I visited another basement, where another team of Ukrainians was working to change the course of the war—and, again, maybe the course of all subsequent wars as well. (I was allowed to tour these operations on the condition that I not identify their locations or the people working at them.) This particular facility had no machines, no engines, and no warheads, just a room lined with screens. The men and women sitting at the screens were dressed like civilians, but in fact they were soldiers, members of a special army unit created to deploy experimental communications technology in combination with experimental drones. Both are being developed by Ukrainians, for Ukraine.
This particular team, with links to many parts of the front lines, has been part of both offensive and defensive operations, and even medical evacuations. According to one of the commanders, this unit alone has conducted 2,400 combat missions and destroyed more than 1,000 targets, including tanks, armored personnel vehicles, trucks, and electronic-warfare systems since its creation several months ago. Like the sea-drone factory, the team in the basement is operating on a completely different scale from the frontline drone units whose work I also encountered last year, on several trips around Ukraine. In 2023, I met small groups of men building drones in garages, using what looked like sticks and glue. By contrast, this new unit is able to see images of most of the front line all at once, revise tools and tactics as new situations develop, and even design new drones to fit the army’s changing needs.
More important, another commander told me, the team works “at the horizontal level,” meaning that members coordinate directly with other groups on the ground rather than operating via the army’s chain of command: “Three years of experience tells us that, 100 percent, we will be much more efficient when we are doing it on our own—coordinating with other guys that have assets, motivation, understanding of the processes.”..
Apparently they can now build four million drones a year.
In the meantime the UK fighters were not able to assist Iron Dome because although they had the ability to shoot down drones in April (and did) their equipment did not allow them to intercept ballistic missiles. We are so far behind what we would actually need in a war that we might be better starting again. Its genuinely scary how far off the pace we are.
Steady on, do any air forces have the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles?
We have destroyer based systems which are similar to those used by the Israelis from the ground, used successfully by HMS Diamond in April.
Fortunately, I believe our Destroyers are planning on spending most of their time at sea. (During operations, obviously. Before I get any smart alec responses.)
Our Destroyers, at sea!? I think the best they can do is being towed around the Solent to protect the aircraft carriers being towed around the Solent. All of course striving to avoid the UKs Trident fleet that is positioned mostly in the Solent as an incredibly cunning bluff. Still, although it seems such a collection of our great naval assets in a small area might be foolish, I understand that in extremis the car ferry can be revved up, and turned into a killing machine. In tests over 90% of stationary wooden fishing boats suffered serious damage when rammed by it. Top chaps the Navy.
I think the two carriers are both deployed at present on active missions.
I think 3 of our Type 45s are serviceable at present.
I'm no expert (I think that's clear anyway), but don't you want something like 8 destroyers as pickets around a carrier?
It seems to me that the Royal Navy has become simply a pointless waste of money. My preferred choice would be to fix it, but of not then I'm not sure we need a Navy - it adds nothing at all to our ability to defend our coastline in the modern era.
That sounds highly unlikely.
We very probably need a massively different navy than the one we have - for example the carriers are an expensive anachronism, since we're just not wealthy enough to properly pay for or really need such a capability - but we're an essential part of the defence of NATO's European waters (as well as our own).
Oh, we're wealthy enough- we just don't want to.
If extra tax revenue did come it we'd far rather spend it on pensions, the NHS and freebies and subsidies than our Defence.
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Feel sorry for the guy at the other end who will be aimlessly hanging around an emptying airport forlornly holding a droopy piece of card with "Sean Twat" written on it.
On the other hand a good night for airport bartenders mixing pink Gins for our very own Colonel Blimp, albeit one who despises his own country.
Do Labour have a sneaky fear of Cleverly as potential Tory leader?
Is that why they have announced this Chagos deal now outside of the Commons? The excuse Lammy gave to the Speaker was that tomorrow there is a GE in Mauritius but surely that is a reason NOT to announce it now. Making the announcement now is bound to have an impact on the election result and so the UK could stand accused of interfering in an election of another state.
But this clearly has the potential to undermine Cleverly's leadership campaign and I wonder if Labour realised that and thought it was a good day to dig up good news (for Labour) rather than bury bad (for Cleverly)
Signing away a piece of British territory to score cheap political points? I wouldn't put it past them.
I’m howling at all the Rule Britannia types today.
Are they all settling down to watch ‘it ain’t half hot mum’ later ?
At least they would have done except the Bolshevik BBC have cancelled it.
TwiX is suggesting the sums we have promised to Mauritius - in return for them graciously agreeing to take sovereign British territory and make it theirs - are not inconsiderable
How is it even possible to strike a deal this bad??
He better hope nobody joins the dots - robbing AOPs of their means of surviving the winter freeze - to pay off somebody to take one of our overseas possessions off our hands.
The only way it could be politically worse is if the ultimate purchaser turns out to be Lord Alli...
How is "ours" when civilians are banned from even setting foot there?
Gruinard Island was undoubtedly "ours" - but you couldn't set foot on there because we had covered it in anthrax.
God knows what happened on an emptied island a gazillion miles from anywhere,
TwiX is suggesting the sums we have promised to Mauritius - in return for them graciously agreeing to take sovereign British territory and make it theirs - are not inconsiderable
How is it even possible to strike a deal this bad??
Do Labour have a sneaky fear of Cleverly as potential Tory leader?
Is that why they have announced this Chagos deal now outside of the Commons? The excuse Lammy gave to the Speaker was that tomorrow there is a GE in Mauritius but surely that is a reason NOT to announce it now. Making the announcement now is bound to have an impact on the election result and so the UK could stand accused of interfering in an election of another state.
But this clearly has the potential to undermine Cleverly's leadership campaign and I wonder if Labour realised that and thought it was a good day to dig up good news (for Labour) rather than bury bad (for Cleverly)
This had occurred to me too.
If that's true, then we truly have reached the bottom of the toilet for the most facile and bankrupt type of short-sighted and morally bankrupt form of politics there is.
Cutting off the nation's face to spite a very small, fleeting and insignificant nose.
Do Labour have a sneaky fear of Cleverly as potential Tory leader?
Is that why they have announced this Chagos deal now outside of the Commons? The excuse Lammy gave to the Speaker was that tomorrow there is a GE in Mauritius but surely that is a reason NOT to announce it now. Making the announcement now is bound to have an impact on the election result and so the UK could stand accused of interfering in an election of another state.
But this clearly has the potential to undermine Cleverly's leadership campaign and I wonder if Labour realised that and thought it was a good day to dig up good news (for Labour) rather than bury bad (for Cleverly)
Possibly, I think Labour fear Cleverly most, the LDs fear Tugendhat most and Reform fear Jenrick most.
TwiX is suggesting the sums we have promised to Mauritius - in return for them graciously agreeing to take sovereign British territory and make it theirs - are not inconsiderable
How is it even possible to strike a deal this bad??
But what about the 20bn black hole?!
So, about that reason for that 20bn black hole....
TwiX is suggesting the sums we have promised to Mauritius - in return for them graciously agreeing to take sovereign British territory and make it theirs - are not inconsiderable
How is it even possible to strike a deal this bad??
But what about the 20bn black hole?!
They're fucking idiots.
They might go down to a bigger defeat that Sunak in 4 years 9 months.
Do Labour have a sneaky fear of Cleverly as potential Tory leader?
Is that why they have announced this Chagos deal now outside of the Commons? The excuse Lammy gave to the Speaker was that tomorrow there is a GE in Mauritius but surely that is a reason NOT to announce it now. Making the announcement now is bound to have an impact on the election result and so the UK could stand accused of interfering in an election of another state.
But this clearly has the potential to undermine Cleverly's leadership campaign and I wonder if Labour realised that and thought it was a good day to dig up good news (for Labour) rather than bury bad (for Cleverly)
Signing away a piece of British territory to score cheap political points? I wouldn't put it past them.
I’m howling at all the Rule Britannia types today.
Are they all settling down to watch ‘it ain’t half hot mum’ later ?
At least they would have done except the Bolshevik BBC have cancelled it.
That's TV (Freeview 65) showed it a couple of nights ago...
I see the national disaster of the fall of Singapore has now been superceded. Had to happen I suppose.
Singapore couldn't have been a disaster, Labour were not in power. Indian independence however...
Hong Kong negotiated by Maggie.
The inevitable outcome of another 99-year lease.
There was no lease on Hong Kong. That was ours. Very little to be done about it though when the Chinese would have sailed in and taken it anyway. Thatcher's Falkland's success made the Chinese even tetchier and harder to negotiate with apparently.
Do Labour have a sneaky fear of Cleverly as potential Tory leader?
Is that why they have announced this Chagos deal now outside of the Commons? The excuse Lammy gave to the Speaker was that tomorrow there is a GE in Mauritius but surely that is a reason NOT to announce it now. Making the announcement now is bound to have an impact on the election result and so the UK could stand accused of interfering in an election of another state.
But this clearly has the potential to undermine Cleverly's leadership campaign and I wonder if Labour realised that and thought it was a good day to dig up good news (for Labour) rather than bury bad (for Cleverly)
Signing away a piece of British territory to score cheap political points? I wouldn't put it past them.
I’m howling at all the Rule Britannia types today.
Are they all settling down to watch ‘it ain’t half hot mum’ later ?
At least they would have done except the Bolshevik BBC have cancelled it.
You will be pleased to know it's still on Freview on one of the back channels.
Do Labour have a sneaky fear of Cleverly as potential Tory leader?
Is that why they have announced this Chagos deal now outside of the Commons? The excuse Lammy gave to the Speaker was that tomorrow there is a GE in Mauritius but surely that is a reason NOT to announce it now. Making the announcement now is bound to have an impact on the election result and so the UK could stand accused of interfering in an election of another state.
But this clearly has the potential to undermine Cleverly's leadership campaign and I wonder if Labour realised that and thought it was a good day to dig up good news (for Labour) rather than bury bad (for Cleverly)
This had occurred to me too.
If that's true, then we truly have reached the bottom of the toilet for the most facile and bankrupt type of short-sighted and morally bankrupt form of politics there is.
Cutting off the nation's face to spite a very small, fleeting and insignificant nose.
Eveb Labour aren't stupid enough to perceive James Cleverly as a threat.
I see the national disaster of the fall of Singapore has now been superceded. Had to happen I suppose.
Singapore couldn't have been a disaster, Labour were not in power. Indian independence however...
Hong Kong negotiated by Maggie.
The inevitable outcome of another 99-year lease.
There was no lease on Hong Kong. That was ours. Very little to be done about it though when the Chinese would have sailed in and taken it anyway. Thatcher's Falkland's success made the Chinese even tetchier and harder to negotiate with apparently.
Hong Kong Island and the Peninsula were ours in perpetuity, but the New Territories were leased. Without these it was not viable.
Do Labour have a sneaky fear of Cleverly as potential Tory leader?
Is that why they have announced this Chagos deal now outside of the Commons? The excuse Lammy gave to the Speaker was that tomorrow there is a GE in Mauritius but surely that is a reason NOT to announce it now. Making the announcement now is bound to have an impact on the election result and so the UK could stand accused of interfering in an election of another state.
But this clearly has the potential to undermine Cleverly's leadership campaign and I wonder if Labour realised that and thought it was a good day to dig up good news (for Labour) rather than bury bad (for Cleverly)
Signing away a piece of British territory to score cheap political points? I wouldn't put it past them.
I’m howling at all the Rule Britannia types today.
Are they all settling down to watch ‘it ain’t half hot mum’ later ?
At least they would have done except the Bolshevik BBC have cancelled it.
Bless, a Starmerite troll. They've migrated from Conhome.
Do Labour have a sneaky fear of Cleverly as potential Tory leader?
Is that why they have announced this Chagos deal now outside of the Commons? The excuse Lammy gave to the Speaker was that tomorrow there is a GE in Mauritius but surely that is a reason NOT to announce it now. Making the announcement now is bound to have an impact on the election result and so the UK could stand accused of interfering in an election of another state.
But this clearly has the potential to undermine Cleverly's leadership campaign and I wonder if Labour realised that and thought it was a good day to dig up good news (for Labour) rather than bury bad (for Cleverly)
This had occurred to me too.
If that's true, then we truly have reached the bottom of the toilet for the most facile and bankrupt type of short-sighted and morally bankrupt form of politics there is.
Cutting off the nation's face to spite a very small, fleeting and insignificant nose.
Eveb Labour aren't stupid enough to perceive James Cleverly as a threat.
TwiX is suggesting the sums we have promised to Mauritius - in return for them graciously agreeing to take sovereign British territory and make it theirs - are not inconsiderable
How is it even possible to strike a deal this bad??
But what about the 20bn black hole?!
They're fucking idiots.
They might go down to a bigger defeat that Sunak in 4 years 9 months.
That's a very long time in politics, so don't bust a blood vessel.
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Feel sorry for the guy at the other end who will be aimlessly hanging around an emptying airport forlornly holding a droopy piece of card with "Sean Twat" written on it.
On the other hand a good night for airport bartenders mixing pink Gins for our very own Colonel Blimp, albeit one who despises his own country.
Not sure I despise Britain. Too strong
Underneath my normal hyperbole my attitude to Britain is uncannily similar - and increasingly so - to my attitude to my poor demented Mum
I mean, I love her. She’s my mum. Britain is my motherland. But I don’t exactly seek out her company, it’s all a bit depressing and I don’t call that often TBF
Also if someone actually nuked my mum I’d probably say “ah well that’s sad, at least it was swift and she had a good run. Lunch?”
I see the national disaster of the fall of Singapore has now been superceded. Had to happen I suppose.
Singapore couldn't have been a disaster, Labour were not in power. Indian independence however...
Hong Kong negotiated by Maggie.
She tried to get a 50 year lease extension on the New Territories, over and above what the foreign office wanted, and only did the deal when it was clear the alternative was invasion.
The default was expiry and she couldn't do much about it. She even tried to argue the UK should keep Hong Kong and Kowloon, until someone pointed out they would be at the mercy of China for power, water and supplies.
Do Labour have a sneaky fear of Cleverly as potential Tory leader?
Is that why they have announced this Chagos deal now outside of the Commons? The excuse Lammy gave to the Speaker was that tomorrow there is a GE in Mauritius but surely that is a reason NOT to announce it now. Making the announcement now is bound to have an impact on the election result and so the UK could stand accused of interfering in an election of another state.
But this clearly has the potential to undermine Cleverly's leadership campaign and I wonder if Labour realised that and thought it was a good day to dig up good news (for Labour) rather than bury bad (for Cleverly)
This had occurred to me too.
If that's true, then we truly have reached the bottom of the toilet for the most facile and bankrupt type of short-sighted and morally bankrupt form of politics there is.
Cutting off the nation's face to spite a very small, fleeting and insignificant nose.
Eveb Labour aren't stupid enough to perceive James Cleverly as a threat.
None of them are, for the best part of a decade.
You'll be very lucky to get to a full term - and if you do it won't be with Starmer.
The future of warfare is changing very rapidly. Many current large capital defence projects are probably a complete waste of resources.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/ukraine-war-negotiated-peace/680100/?gift=T260c9uXoejScUYPeV8ISl3z6BdfMxZQkDyCInw4wA4&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social ...I visited another basement, where another team of Ukrainians was working to change the course of the war—and, again, maybe the course of all subsequent wars as well. (I was allowed to tour these operations on the condition that I not identify their locations or the people working at them.) This particular facility had no machines, no engines, and no warheads, just a room lined with screens. The men and women sitting at the screens were dressed like civilians, but in fact they were soldiers, members of a special army unit created to deploy experimental communications technology in combination with experimental drones. Both are being developed by Ukrainians, for Ukraine.
This particular team, with links to many parts of the front lines, has been part of both offensive and defensive operations, and even medical evacuations. According to one of the commanders, this unit alone has conducted 2,400 combat missions and destroyed more than 1,000 targets, including tanks, armored personnel vehicles, trucks, and electronic-warfare systems since its creation several months ago. Like the sea-drone factory, the team in the basement is operating on a completely different scale from the frontline drone units whose work I also encountered last year, on several trips around Ukraine. In 2023, I met small groups of men building drones in garages, using what looked like sticks and glue. By contrast, this new unit is able to see images of most of the front line all at once, revise tools and tactics as new situations develop, and even design new drones to fit the army’s changing needs.
More important, another commander told me, the team works “at the horizontal level,” meaning that members coordinate directly with other groups on the ground rather than operating via the army’s chain of command: “Three years of experience tells us that, 100 percent, we will be much more efficient when we are doing it on our own—coordinating with other guys that have assets, motivation, understanding of the processes.”..
Apparently they can now build four million drones a year.
In the meantime the UK fighters were not able to assist Iron Dome because although they had the ability to shoot down drones in April (and did) their equipment did not allow them to intercept ballistic missiles. We are so far behind what we would actually need in a war that we might be better starting again. Its genuinely scary how far off the pace we are.
Steady on, do any air forces have the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles?
We have destroyer based systems which are similar to those used by the Israelis from the ground, used successfully by HMS Diamond in April.
Fortunately, I believe our Destroyers are planning on spending most of their time at sea. (During operations, obviously. Before I get any smart alec responses.)
Our Destroyers, at sea!? I think the best they can do is being towed around the Solent to protect the aircraft carriers being towed around the Solent. All of course striving to avoid the UKs Trident fleet that is positioned mostly in the Solent as an incredibly cunning bluff. Still, although it seems such a collection of our great naval assets in a small area might be foolish, I understand that in extremis the car ferry can be revved up, and turned into a killing machine. In tests over 90% of stationary wooden fishing boats suffered serious damage when rammed by it. Top chaps the Navy.
I think the two carriers are both deployed at present on active missions.
I think 3 of our Type 45s are serviceable at present.
I'm no expert (I think that's clear anyway), but don't you want something like 8 destroyers as pickets around a carrier?
It seems to me that the Royal Navy has become simply a pointless waste of money. My preferred choice would be to fix it, but of not then I'm not sure we need a Navy - it adds nothing at all to our ability to defend our coastline in the modern era.
I agree, carriers without proper escorts capable of air, missile and submarine defence are highly at risk.
What we need is the equivalent of the Iron Dome, a military that has drones that are up to date and keeps up to date, the kind of protection from cyber attack that we, in fairness, seem to have, and some ability to ensure that the food we need to keep ourselves alive can make it here. I'm counting that as 1/4, tops.
TwiX is suggesting the sums we have promised to Mauritius - in return for them graciously agreeing to take sovereign British territory and make it theirs - are not inconsiderable
How is it even possible to strike a deal this bad??
Early days. It'll get worse.
The weird thing is that Mauritius is not even a bloody union/paymaster. And yet....
The future of warfare is changing very rapidly. Many current large capital defence projects are probably a complete waste of resources.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/ukraine-war-negotiated-peace/680100/?gift=T260c9uXoejScUYPeV8ISl3z6BdfMxZQkDyCInw4wA4&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social ...I visited another basement, where another team of Ukrainians was working to change the course of the war—and, again, maybe the course of all subsequent wars as well. (I was allowed to tour these operations on the condition that I not identify their locations or the people working at them.) This particular facility had no machines, no engines, and no warheads, just a room lined with screens. The men and women sitting at the screens were dressed like civilians, but in fact they were soldiers, members of a special army unit created to deploy experimental communications technology in combination with experimental drones. Both are being developed by Ukrainians, for Ukraine.
This particular team, with links to many parts of the front lines, has been part of both offensive and defensive operations, and even medical evacuations. According to one of the commanders, this unit alone has conducted 2,400 combat missions and destroyed more than 1,000 targets, including tanks, armored personnel vehicles, trucks, and electronic-warfare systems since its creation several months ago. Like the sea-drone factory, the team in the basement is operating on a completely different scale from the frontline drone units whose work I also encountered last year, on several trips around Ukraine. In 2023, I met small groups of men building drones in garages, using what looked like sticks and glue. By contrast, this new unit is able to see images of most of the front line all at once, revise tools and tactics as new situations develop, and even design new drones to fit the army’s changing needs.
More important, another commander told me, the team works “at the horizontal level,” meaning that members coordinate directly with other groups on the ground rather than operating via the army’s chain of command: “Three years of experience tells us that, 100 percent, we will be much more efficient when we are doing it on our own—coordinating with other guys that have assets, motivation, understanding of the processes.”..
Apparently they can now build four million drones a year.
In the meantime the UK fighters were not able to assist Iron Dome because although they had the ability to shoot down drones in April (and did) their equipment did not allow them to intercept ballistic missiles. We are so far behind what we would actually need in a war that we might be better starting again. Its genuinely scary how far off the pace we are.
Steady on, do any air forces have the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles?
We have destroyer based systems which are similar to those used by the Israelis from the ground, used successfully by HMS Diamond in April.
Fortunately, I believe our Destroyers are planning on spending most of their time at sea. (During operations, obviously. Before I get any smart alec responses.)
Our Destroyers, at sea!? I think the best they can do is being towed around the Solent to protect the aircraft carriers being towed around the Solent. All of course striving to avoid the UKs Trident fleet that is positioned mostly in the Solent as an incredibly cunning bluff. Still, although it seems such a collection of our great naval assets in a small area might be foolish, I understand that in extremis the car ferry can be revved up, and turned into a killing machine. In tests over 90% of stationary wooden fishing boats suffered serious damage when rammed by it. Top chaps the Navy.
I think the two carriers are both deployed at present on active missions.
I think 3 of our Type 45s are serviceable at present.
I'm no expert (I think that's clear anyway), but don't you want something like 8 destroyers as pickets around a carrier?
It seems to me that the Royal Navy has become simply a pointless waste of money. My preferred choice would be to fix it, but of not then I'm not sure we need a Navy - it adds nothing at all to our ability to defend our coastline in the modern era.
I agree, carriers without proper escorts capable of air, missile and submarine defence are highly at risk.
What we need is the equivalent of the Iron Dome, a military that has drones that are up to date and keeps up to date, the kind of protection from cyber attack that we, in fairness, seem to have, and some ability to ensure that the food we need to keep ourselves alive can make it here. I'm counting that as 1/4, tops.
Aircraft carriers need proper escorts (and all these need to be crewed) and really only needed as expeditionary Blue water fleets, outside the North Atlantic.
I think we have pretentious that we cannot afford with massive opportunity cost to our real defence needs.
To add to the national humiliation I have just missed my fucking flight
Feel sorry for the guy at the other end who will be aimlessly hanging around an emptying airport forlornly holding a droopy piece of card with "Sean Twat" written on it.
On the other hand a good night for airport bartenders mixing pink Gins for our very own Colonel Blimp, albeit one who despises his own country.
Not sure I despise Britain. Too strong
Underneath my normal hyperbole my attitude to Britain is uncannily similar - and increasingly so - to my attitude to my poor demented Mum
I mean, I love her. She’s my mum. Britain is my motherland. But I don’t exactly seek out her company, it’s all a bit depressing and I don’t call that often TBF
Also if someone actually nuked my mum I’d probably say “ah well that’s sad, at least it was swift and she had a good run. Lunch?”
You're good at coining words - there should be a word for this. Putting aside strong emotion, and just getting on with normality. (I've no suggestions)
Comments
Strictly speaking, a ballistic missile is any missile which follows a ballistic trajectory, having exhausted its propellant.
And there are slower, short to medium range missiles which might be intercepted by aircraft launch. In theory.
The SM3 was first used in combat back in April - to shoot down one of the missiles from the earlier Iranian attack.
And the RN used an Aster missile to take down a short range Houthi ballistic missile around the same time. The longer range version has a maximum speed of around Mach 4.5, I think ? Which is around half that of the SM3.
The variables are range of detection of target, missile and target speeds, manoeuvrability - and the size of the area you're defending.
As for this being a 'bad' deal - I have no great opinion on that. I was just commenting on why a certain type of brain chemistry will have a strong (and adverse) opinion on it. It won't be because they've run the rule over the detail. It'll be their attachment to the idea of residual Empire Britannica.
People are forever coming out with their little diagnoses of the leftist mindset. Just returning the favour. I try not to make a habit of it - analysing why people say things rather than what they say - because I know it irritates and it's also a bit of a conversational dead end. But the aroma is particularly strong on this one.
I would say I do not have an issue with the deal, especially as the air base is guaranteed a 99 year lease with an option to renew
SKS has renegotiated the UK 261 regulations for airline passenger compensation.
Now, if you miss a flight, you will get randomly upbraided for your stupidity by a baggage handler, bitchslapped by Avis, and escorted out the terminal by security, BUT you get a book of vouchers for 5p off a bag of KP nuts for the next 3 months, a used copy of Flight Global, *and* you get to pay for your own hotel plus an extra 10% surcharge for the inconvenience you've caused them.
Cracking deal.
Robert Jenrick has a net acceptability score of +19 (36% acceptable vs 17% unacceptable as leader)
Tom Tugendhat has a net acceptability score of +15 (35% acceptable vs 20% unacceptable as leader)
James Cleverly has a net acceptability score of +14 (38% acceptable vs 24% unacceptable as leader)
Kemi Badenoch has a net acceptability score of +5 (32% acceptable vs 27% unacceptable as leader)
Amongst 2019 Tories who voted Labour and LD in July Tugendhat leads on +23%, then Cleverly on +22%, Jenrick on +14% and Badenoch on +5%.
Amongst 2019 Conservatives who voted Reform in July though Jenrick is miles ahead on +10%, followed by Tugendhat on 0, Cleverly on -4% and Badenoch on an abysmal -7%
https://opinium.substack.com/p/conservative-conference-2024-the
I was very puzzled until I realised it referred to four candidates
Bet he'd fucking love that legacy.
Apparently we have agreed to pay Mauritius for the entire 99 year lease - we will be paying for our own humiliation for a century
I think this could damage Labour badly. Not because many people care about Diego Garcia (tho actually I do for reasons cited) but because it’s so obviously a terrible deal - and anyone can see that. Adds to the notion of Labour as bungling fools with a hint of treachery
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-putting-both-aircraft-carriers-to-sea-at-the-same-time/
I think 3 of our Type 45s are serviceable at present.
The conservative party has to ask itself does it want to chase Farage votes or appeal to the wider public
Personally if Cleverly wins I will rejoin the party but only if Cleverly wins
The swine !
Any idea how much we're paying - and if we get reimbursed by the US ?
And we’ve not even given it to the chagossians. We’ve given it to Mauritius, which is 1,300 miles away
It was good that the return negotiations under 3 Tory Foreign Secs have been so satisfactorily settled.
It seems to me that the Royal Navy has become simply a pointless waste of money. My preferred choice would be to fix it, but of not then I'm not sure we need a Navy - it adds nothing at all to our ability to defend our coastline in the modern era.
NB. this clip is NSFW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRvNg4zQ_14&t=5s
They brought the flight forward by 90 minutes and the only warning was a random email late last night
(I blearily saw it and it didn’t register)
We very probably need a massively different navy than the one we have - for example the carriers are an expensive anachronism, since we're just not wealthy enough to properly pay for or really need such a capability - but we're an essential part of the defence of NATO's European waters (as well as our own).
He said he had a stock phrase. Smiling, he would say to them "You've done it again!"
Mauritius - in return for them graciously agreeing to take sovereign British territory and make it theirs - are not inconsiderable
How is it even possible to strike a deal this bad??
Forever.
"You can check in any time you like.
But you can never leave..."
But yes, who knows. Maybe the navy we need to have is a fleet of one-man kiteboards with mini torpedoes and mini drones attached. Great hulks of irrelevance are not it though.
If he can deal with the wildmen of the IRA maybe he can deal with Trump 2.0?
Will Chagos make this more difficult appointment?
Whether it’s Trump or Harris in office, Starmer will need an incredible US ambassador. Here’s my vote
Martin Kettle
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/03/donald-trump-kamala-harris-keir-starmer-us-ambassador
We also need the Royal Navy to control crossings in the Channel
The only way it could be politically worse is if the ultimate purchaser turns out to be Lord Alli...
However Joe Newent might not care or even notice
Which is presumably why James Cleverly was prepping something along these lines, despite his furious denunciation now.
Do Labour have a sneaky fear of Cleverly as potential Tory leader?
Is that why they have announced this Chagos deal now outside of the Commons? The excuse Lammy gave to the Speaker was that tomorrow there is a GE in Mauritius but surely that is a reason NOT to announce it now. Making the announcement now is bound to have an impact on the election result and so the UK could stand accused of interfering in an election of another state.
But this clearly has the potential to undermine Cleverly's leadership campaign and I wonder if Labour realised that and thought it was a good day to dig up good news (for Labour) rather than bury bad (for Cleverly)
I have not posted much, I have been busy and a fairly low information voter since the election. Conveniently, the hysteria on here, which makes Kemi look the model of restraint, readily allows me to overlook any actual shitness of Labour's first few months in the torrent of daily imagined shitnesses.
So, the Chagos Islands. Secures the base for 99 years, America pleased, potentially 1000 Sri Lankan asylum seekers off our hands and into third party processing for sub-Rwanda prices, a post-colonial wrong righted in law.
What's not to like for the centre-left liberal mindset?
Yet, as Half Man Half Biscuit might say, "all the Kemi Badenochs are running round in misery".
He'd have thrown in Ceylon, Aden, Prince Edward Island and the Isle of Wight as well.
I mean, I actually agree with you on most of what you say. Chagos was a very specific instance where we should do the right thing and give it back. But I think from what I have seen we have gone about it the wrong way both with regard to the Chagossians and the future protection of the MPA.
And noone asked the actual exiled people what they think ???
According to the ex Crawley MP - who seems to have carried a torch for the Chaggosians in the British parliament it seems most wanted the island to remain British.
It'll be worse for Starmer when it gets costed in x000 winter fuel allowances
If extra tax revenue did come it we'd far rather spend it on pensions, the NHS and freebies and subsidies than our Defence.
https://x.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1841853204876681272
I pay tribute to Olivier Bancoult and Chagossian communities who have been disgracefully treated for so long.
Following decades of campaigning, this long overdue settlement at last includes the right to return. A milestone for decolonisation.
Are they all settling down to watch ‘it ain’t half hot mum’ later ?
At least they would have done except the Bolshevik BBC have cancelled it.
God knows what happened on an emptied island a gazillion miles from anywhere,
Indian independence was a choice of the Attlee Labour government to give.
Cutting off the nation's face to spite a very small, fleeting and insignificant nose.
None of them fear Kemi though
They might go down to a bigger defeat that Sunak in 4 years 9 months.
Underneath my normal hyperbole my attitude to Britain is uncannily similar - and increasingly so - to my attitude to my poor demented Mum
I mean, I love her. She’s my mum. Britain is my motherland. But I don’t exactly seek out her company, it’s all a bit depressing and I don’t call
that often TBF
Also if someone actually nuked my mum I’d probably say “ah well that’s sad, at least it was swift and she had a good run. Lunch?”
The default was expiry and she couldn't do much about it. She even tried to argue the UK should keep Hong Kong and Kowloon, until someone pointed out they would be at the mercy of China for power, water and supplies.
The west gets fxcked once again because the cancer on humanity needs to stay in power .
I think we have pretentious that we cannot afford with massive opportunity cost to our real defence needs.
A nursery company founded by Jas Athwal has been found to have breached child safety regulations, according to Ofsted.