Is it just me or are shocked at it basically been a load of pensioners. It is akin to the Expendables. Interested to know how the abseiling went, and kinda of busts the myth plenty of myths that were put out in the press about likely profiles for the robbers.
Off topics, the slicing back of orders for the Type 26s is a bit of a disappointment and the RAF still looks to me like it's 2-3 squadrons short but, otherwise, this defence review seems to me to be as good as anything that could have been expected:
Two squadrons of Typhoons are being added and we are committing to the F35. As I understand it we are going for a smaller alternative rather than extra T26s. The latest tranche of Typhoons is turning out to be a good multi role plane. A
Please do dig behind the headlines. Some of these announcements are reversals of the 2010 review, some are announcing stuff that has already been announced, some appear on first reading to be disguised cuts (e.g. two new infantry brigades to be created but it would seem at the expense of three armoured infantry brigades disbanded). As for the promise to spend £178bn over ten years, that really ought to be ringing alarm bells.
Spin, spin, glorious spin (to paraphrase Flanders and Swann).
The point about the 'strike' brigades is that thanks to the new equipment being invested in them they can actually get to where they are needed and can be sustained there.
@ScottyNational: Troops :As Cameron states 10,000 troops can be deployed, SNP insists any troops deployed in Scotland must be able to read Gaelic signs
@ScottyNational: Troops :As Cameron states 10,000 troops can be deployed, SNP insists any troops deployed in Scotland must be able to read Gaelic signs
norman smith @BBCNormanS 1m1 minute ago Jeremy Corbyn calls for a human rights adviser in every embassy
Embassies already have access to such people. They are known as lawyers. And the FCO have plenty of them.
Not just any human rights adviser - a jeremy corbyn huma rights adviser
I wonder if he might be talking about a 'human rights adviser' from charities, not government. How about a CAGE adviser in every embassy? A Stop the War walllah in every consulate?
Sounds good to me, Mr. Jessop we could set up a charity, call it "Human Rights Experts" and provide the people to be stationed in every embassy. Of course, as with a lot of trendy lefty charities most of our money would come from HMG, so we would avoid all that nasty fund raising business.
However, I am prepared to take the Australian gig for a couple of years on an expenses only basis (providing I don't actually have to get in an aeroplane). I'd do Oman for free too and I wouldn't say no to Iran (again no travel by air would have to be written in to the contract).
norman smith @BBCNormanS 1m1 minute ago Jeremy Corbyn calls for a human rights adviser in every embassy
Embassies already have access to such people. They are known as lawyers. And the FCO have plenty of them.
Not just any human rights adviser - a jeremy corbyn huma rights adviser
I wonder if he might be talking about a 'human rights adviser' from charities, not government. How about a CAGE adviser in every embassy? A Stop the War walllah in every consulate?
Sounds good to me, Mr. Jessop we could set up a charity, call it "Human Rights Experts" and provide the people to be stationed in every embassy. Of course, as with a lot of trendy lefty charities most of our money would come from HMG, so we would avoid all that nasty fund raising business.
However, I am prepared to take the Australian gig for a couple of years on an expenses only basis (providing I don't actually have to get in an aeroplane). I'd do Oman for free too and I wouldn't say no to Iran (again no travel by air would have to be written in to the contract).
A great idea, but it'd be dangerous. With my communication skills and (kn/l)ack of diplomacy, we'd be at war with whichever country I was posted to within five minutes of arrival .
@ScottyNational: Troops :As Cameron states 10,000 troops can be deployed, SNP insists any troops deployed in Scotland must be able to read Gaelic signs
Cameron really has thrown his credibility out the window with the SDSR, committing to running both carriers while slashing the number of frigates (especially given that the RN has no Cruisers and limited Destroyer capability) will leave the RN almost incapable of doing anything other than run around the world with useless, impractical, expensive Carrier Groups which offer no practical defence to the UK.
To give an example, a US Carrier Group sees each Supercarrier accompanied by at least 1 Cruiser, at least 2 Destroyers plus at least 1 of either a second Cruiser or third Destroyer, at least one Frigate and at least 2 Attack Subs. That's 5 Capital Ships minimum and 2 Subs. And an Oiler but let's just ignore that.
The RN is projecting to have 6 Destroyers, 8 Frigates and 6 completely undefined and undesigned "light Frigates" which are likely to be little more than bulked up River 2s and 6 Attack Subs (or possibly 4).
Any idiot can see that almost the entire Royal Navy capital and attack submarine fleet will be unavailable for any other mission task, including the Defense of the home islands (which is of course, currently neglected completely much to our detriment and other country's mirth).
A realistic deployment of 3 Type 45s, 2 Type 26s and two Astute Class subs for each Carrier group will mean that the Royal Navy has 4 Frigates, 2 Subs and some bulked up Offshore Patrol to fulfil it's entire non-Carrier related duties.
Which of the following statements is closest to your view? I have a lot of sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria I have some sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria I have no sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria Don't know
norman smith @BBCNormanS 1m1 minute ago Jeremy Corbyn calls for a human rights adviser in every embassy
Embassies already have access to such people. They are known as lawyers. And the FCO have plenty of them.
Not just any human rights adviser - a jeremy corbyn huma rights adviser
I wonder if he might be talking about a 'human rights adviser' from charities, not government. How about a CAGE adviser in every embassy? A Stop the War walllah in every consulate?
Sounds good to me, Mr. Jessop we could set up a charity, call it "Human Rights Experts" and provide the people to be stationed in every embassy. Of course, as with a lot of trendy lefty charities most of our money would come from HMG, so we would avoid all that nasty fund raising business.
However, I am prepared to take the Australian gig for a couple of years on an expenses only basis (providing I don't actually have to get in an aeroplane). I'd do Oman for free too and I wouldn't say no to Iran (again no travel by air would have to be written in to the contract).
A great idea, but it'd be dangerous. With my communication skills and (kn/l)ack of diplomacy, we'd be at war with whichever country I was posted to within five minutes of arrival .
Best find you a place that is very anglophile as well as having some spiffing walks then.
*Thinks*
Got it, the USA, home to some of the best long distance trails in the world as well as superb scenery. Additionally, as the Septics don't have that much of a problem with 'Uman Rites (save a nasty habit of killing people) you won't have much to do so can spend lots of time walking with your son in the rucksack.
Which of the following statements is closest to your view? I have a lot of sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria I have some sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria I have no sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria Don't know
No one has mentioned it, but relevant to both this and the question asked in the header is "middle option bias".
Labour MPs have had plenty of opportunities over the past few weeks to look miserable. But today the party looked its most miserable ever as Jeremy Corbyn responded to David Cameron’s statement on the Strategic Defence and Security Review. Even the frontbenchers, particularly Tom Watson, looked unhappy. Andy Burnham looked even more doleful than usual. On the backbenches, MPs such as Dan Jarvis and Caroline Flint wore masks of agony. Chris Leslie had his arms crossed defensively, looking miserable. Diane Abbott appeared to be a little snoozy. Helen Goodman was slumped in her seat in what appeared to be despair. Labourites afterwards described the response as ‘poor’.
The one consolation might be ... today might not be the most miserable day of this week for Labour.
Cameron really has thrown his credibility out the window with the SDSR, committing to running both carriers while slashing the number of frigates (especially given that the RN has no Cruisers and limited Destroyer capability) will leave the RN almost incapable of doing anything other than run around the world with useless, impractical, expensive Carrier Groups which offer no practical defence to the UK.
To give an example, a US Carrier Group sees each Supercarrier accompanied by at least 1 Cruiser, at least 2 Destroyers plus at least 1 of either a second Cruiser or third Destroyer, at least one Frigate and at least 2 Attack Subs. That's 5 Capital Ships minimum and 2 Subs. And an Oiler but let's just ignore that.
The RN is projecting to have 6 Destroyers, 8 Frigates and 6 completely undefined and undesigned "light Frigates" which are likely to be little more than bulked up River 2s and 6 Attack Subs (or possibly 4).
Any idiot can see that almost the entire Royal Navy capital and attack submarine fleet will be unavailable for any other mission task, including the Defense of the home islands (which is of course, currently neglected completely much to our detriment and other country's mirth).
A realistic deployment of 3 Type 45s, 2 Type 26s and two Astute Class subs for each Carrier group will mean that the Royal Navy has 4 Frigates, 2 Subs and some bulked up Offshore Patrol to fulfil it's entire non-Carrier related duties.
This does not seem enough.
You are correct, Mr Dair, but for goodness sake don't talk sense about defence on here. You'll have FlightPath round your ears in no time at all and it really isn't the place for grown up discussion about such matters.
In case anyone missed it. The good people of Belgium responded to a request by their authorities not to tweet about police operations by ... having a mass tweeting of cat pictures and videos.
The Belgians may have many problems but they did invent the idea of mayonnaise with chips, they brew good beer and they have a massive sense of humour.
Cameron really has thrown his credibility out the window with the SDSR, committing to running both carriers while slashing the number of frigates (especially given that the RN has no Cruisers and limited Destroyer capability) will leave the RN almost incapable of doing anything other than run around the world with useless, impractical, expensive Carrier Groups which offer no practical defence to the UK.
To give an example, a US Carrier Group sees each Supercarrier accompanied by at least 1 Cruiser, at least 2 Destroyers plus at least 1 of either a second Cruiser or third Destroyer, at least one Frigate and at least 2 Attack Subs. That's 5 Capital Ships minimum and 2 Subs. And an Oiler but let's just ignore that.
The RN is projecting to have 6 Destroyers, 8 Frigates and 6 completely undefined and undesigned "light Frigates" which are likely to be little more than bulked up River 2s and 6 Attack Subs (or possibly 4).
Any idiot can see that almost the entire Royal Navy capital and attack submarine fleet will be unavailable for any other mission task, including the Defense of the home islands (which is of course, currently neglected completely much to our detriment and other country's mirth).
A realistic deployment of 3 Type 45s, 2 Type 26s and two Astute Class subs for each Carrier group will mean that the Royal Navy has 4 Frigates, 2 Subs and some bulked up Offshore Patrol to fulfil it's entire non-Carrier related duties.
This does not seem enough.
Sadly, Cameron can only play with the cards the MoD and Brown dealt him. And the RN Top Brass were stupid enough to play along, assuming they'd get additional ships to support the carriers.
Imagine the whining from Scotland if they'd binned the CVF contracts.
Mr. H, not in electoral terms. Not my personal views, but I think the electorate broadly saw Brown as solid but flat, and Miliband as nice but weird.
Corbyn's responded to a massive terrorist attack in France by being against shoot to kill then u-turning, and it's only months ago that he dreamed of disbanding the armed forces and his Shadow Chancellor wanted MI5 to be disbanded and the police to be disarmed.
Cameron really has thrown his credibility out the window with the SDSR, committing to running both carriers while slashing the number of frigates (especially given that the RN has no Cruisers and limited Destroyer capability) will leave the RN almost incapable of doing anything other than run around the world with useless, impractical, expensive Carrier Groups which offer no practical defence to the UK.
To give an example, a US Carrier Group sees each Supercarrier accompanied by at least 1 Cruiser, at least 2 Destroyers plus at least 1 of either a second Cruiser or third Destroyer, at least one Frigate and at least 2 Attack Subs. That's 5 Capital Ships minimum and 2 Subs. And an Oiler but let's just ignore that.
The RN is projecting to have 6 Destroyers, 8 Frigates and 6 completely undefined and undesigned "light Frigates" which are likely to be little more than bulked up River 2s and 6 Attack Subs (or possibly 4).
Any idiot can see that almost the entire Royal Navy capital and attack submarine fleet will be unavailable for any other mission task, including the Defense of the home islands (which is of course, currently neglected completely much to our detriment and other country's mirth).
A realistic deployment of 3 Type 45s, 2 Type 26s and two Astute Class subs for each Carrier group will mean that the Royal Navy has 4 Frigates, 2 Subs and some bulked up Offshore Patrol to fulfil it's entire non-Carrier related duties.
This does not seem enough.
Really? How many ships are escorting the Charles de Gaulle at this very moment (please do not count the British ones)
If Corbyn goes before Cameron, then Cameron will (likely) have faced five proper Labour leaders (Blair, Brown, Miliband, Corbyn, and Not Andy Burnham).
Would that be a record?
I know Gladstone was around for ages, but wasn't Disraeli there for quite a bit of that?
Sadly, Cameron can only play with the cards the MoD and Brown dealt him. And the RN Top Brass were stupid enough to play along, assuming they'd get additional ships to support the carriers.
Imagine the whining from Scotland if they'd binned the CVF contracts.
Certainly his hands were tied to a great extent.
But the previous plan of running the Queen Elizabeth as a Charles De Gaulle style, undefended mobile aistrip that only goes to safe waters while mothballing the Prince of Wales WAS sensible and sound given the cards which were on the table.
Even selling the PoW for £1bn to India or France at a huge loss would havee been more sensible than this new plan.
Committing to full scale Carrier Groups is not sensible and not practical for a navy our size. Almost the entire Capital fleet of the RN tied up with Carrier Groups is LUDICROUS.
A great idea, but it'd be dangerous. With my communication skills and (kn/l)ack of diplomacy, we'd be at war with whichever country I was posted to within five minutes of arrival .
Best find you a place that is very anglophile as well as having some spiffing walks then.
*Thinks*
Got it, the USA, home to some of the best long distance trails in the world as well as superb scenery. Additionally, as the Septics don't have that much of a problem with 'Uman Rites (save a nasty habit of killing people) you won't have much to do so can spend lots of time walking with your son in the rucksack.
Hmmm. Very tempting. I'll have to invent a cradle for the little 'un that'll lift up into the trees to keep him clear from bears.
I've always wondered if I'd be tough enough to do the Appalachian Way. A few years back I met a young woman who'd just come back from doing the Appalachian Way one year and the Pacific Crest trail the next, starting a few months after finishing the AW. I'd done my coastal walk the year before, but I doubted I'd ever be as fit as she was.
She had a look in her eyes that told me that she'd be off on another trail soon.
There's an explorer's look; a facial expression that says they're not settled in one place. The worst case was on Sarah Outen, who I met a few weeks after she finished her Indian Ocean row. I asked what she'd be doing next, and she quietly answered something like 'going home'. Yet her gaze drifted out over Southampton Water, and I told her she'd be off on another adventure soon.
Cameron really has thrown his credibility out the window with the SDSR, committing to running both carriers while slashing the number of frigates (especially given that the RN has no Cruisers and limited Destroyer capability) will leave the RN almost incapable of doing anything other than run around the world with useless, impractical, expensive Carrier Groups which offer no practical defence to the UK.
To give an example, a US Carrier Group sees each Supercarrier accompanied by at least 1 Cruiser, at least 2 Destroyers plus at least 1 of either a second Cruiser or third Destroyer, at least one Frigate and at least 2 Attack Subs. That's 5 Capital Ships minimum and 2 Subs. And an Oiler but let's just ignore that.
The RN is projecting to have 6 Destroyers, 8 Frigates and 6 completely undefined and undesigned "light Frigates" which are likely to be little more than bulked up River 2s and 6 Attack Subs (or possibly 4).
Any idiot can see that almost the entire Royal Navy capital and attack submarine fleet will be unavailable for any other mission task, including the Defense of the home islands (which is of course, currently neglected completely much to our detriment and other country's mirth).
A realistic deployment of 3 Type 45s, 2 Type 26s and two Astute Class subs for each Carrier group will mean that the Royal Navy has 4 Frigates, 2 Subs and some bulked up Offshore Patrol to fulfil it's entire non-Carrier related duties.
This does not seem enough.
Really? How many ships are escorting the Charles de Gaulle at this very moment (please do not count the British ones)
By the way .... Have you never heard of NATO?
Charles De Gaulle is not a Supercarrier. It is not an effective warship. It is not used as a warship. It's only role is as a mobile landing strip which has virtually no defensive capability and could not be used in a conflict with even a mid-strength power like Iran.
Sadly, Cameron can only play with the cards the MoD and Brown dealt him. And the RN Top Brass were stupid enough to play along, assuming they'd get additional ships to support the carriers.
Imagine the whining from Scotland if they'd binned the CVF contracts.
Certainly his hands were tied to a great extent.
But the previous plan of running the Queen Elizabeth as a Charles De Gaulle style, undefended mobile aistrip that only goes to safe waters while mothballing the Prince of Wales WAS sensible and sound given the cards which were on the table.
Even selling the PoW for £1bn to India or France at a huge loss would havee been more sensible than this new plan.
Committing to full scale Carrier Groups is not sensible and not practical for a navy our size. Almost the entire Capital fleet of the RN tied up with Carrier Groups is LUDICROUS.
Cameron really has thrown his credibility out the window with the SDSR, committing to running both carriers while slashing the number of frigates (especially given that the RN has no Cruisers and limited Destroyer capability) will leave the RN almost incapable of doing anything other than run around the world with useless, impractical, expensive Carrier Groups which offer no practical defence to the UK.
To give an example, a US Carrier Group sees each Supercarrier accompanied by at least 1 Cruiser, at least 2 Destroyers plus at least 1 of either a second Cruiser or third Destroyer, at least one Frigate and at least 2 Attack Subs. That's 5 Capital Ships minimum and 2 Subs. And an Oiler but let's just ignore that.
The RN is projecting to have 6 Destroyers, 8 Frigates and 6 completely undefined and undesigned "light Frigates" which are likely to be little more than bulked up River 2s and 6 Attack Subs (or possibly 4).
Any idiot can see that almost the entire Royal Navy capital and attack submarine fleet will be unavailable for any other mission task, including the Defense of the home islands (which is of course, currently neglected completely much to our detriment and other country's mirth).
A realistic deployment of 3 Type 45s, 2 Type 26s and two Astute Class subs for each Carrier group will mean that the Royal Navy has 4 Frigates, 2 Subs and some bulked up Offshore Patrol to fulfil it's entire non-Carrier related duties.
This does not seem enough.
Really? How many ships are escorting the Charles de Gaulle at this very moment (please do not count the British ones)
By the way .... Have you never heard of NATO?
Charles De Gaulle is not a Supercarrier. It is not an effective warship. It is not used as a warship. It's only role is as a mobile landing strip which has virtually no defensive capability and could not be used in a conflict with even a mid-strength power like Iran.
So the air wings couldn't do carrier protection duties like every other single carrier ever built ?
Sadly, Cameron can only play with the cards the MoD and Brown dealt him. And the RN Top Brass were stupid enough to play along, assuming they'd get additional ships to support the carriers.
Imagine the whining from Scotland if they'd binned the CVF contracts.
Certainly his hands were tied to a great extent.
But the previous plan of running the Queen Elizabeth as a Charles De Gaulle style, undefended mobile aistrip that only goes to safe waters while mothballing the Prince of Wales WAS sensible and sound given the cards which were on the table.
Even selling the PoW for £1bn to India or France at a huge loss would havee been more sensible than this new plan.
Committing to full scale Carrier Groups is not sensible and not practical for a navy our size. Almost the entire Capital fleet of the RN tied up with Carrier Groups is LUDICROUS.
Run many navies, have you ?
Okay, everybody now...
When Dair was a lad he served a term as office boy to an attorney's firm....
Cameron really has thrown his credibility out the window with the SDSR, committing to running both carriers while slashing the number of frigates (especially given that the RN has no Cruisers and limited Destroyer capability) will leave the RN almost incapable of doing anything other than run around the world with useless, impractical, expensive Carrier Groups which offer no practical defence to the UK.
To give an example, a US Carrier Group sees each Supercarrier accompanied by at least 1 Cruiser, at least 2 Destroyers plus at least 1 of either a second Cruiser or third Destroyer, at least one Frigate and at least 2 Attack Subs. That's 5 Capital Ships minimum and 2 Subs. And an Oiler but let's just ignore that.
The RN is projecting to have 6 Destroyers, 8 Frigates and 6 completely undefined and undesigned "light Frigates" which are likely to be little more than bulked up River 2s and 6 Attack Subs (or possibly 4).
Any idiot can see that almost the entire Royal Navy capital and attack submarine fleet will be unavailable for any other mission task, including the Defense of the home islands (which is of course, currently neglected completely much to our detriment and other country's mirth).
A realistic deployment of 3 Type 45s, 2 Type 26s and two Astute Class subs for each Carrier group will mean that the Royal Navy has 4 Frigates, 2 Subs and some bulked up Offshore Patrol to fulfil it's entire non-Carrier related duties.
This does not seem enough.
Really? How many ships are escorting the Charles de Gaulle at this very moment (please do not count the British ones)
By the way .... Have you never heard of NATO?
Charles De Gaulle is not a Supercarrier. It is not an effective warship. It is not used as a warship. It's only role is as a mobile landing strip which has virtually no defensive capability and could not be used in a conflict with even a mid-strength power like Iran.
Your eyes must be swivelling. I didn't realise we were planning a war with Iran.
@ScottyNational: Business:Indy supporting groups to start fundraising rival to kickstarter. Kickbackstater will initially only accept cash.In brown envelopes
Thought police...wonder what interesting ideas would emerge if they got into power?
Do these thought police have the power to shoot to kill?
No wonder Corbyn feels so at home with Hizbollah and Hamas - he wants a fatwa on all Labour apostates. Perhaps that is his true objection to 'shoot to kill' - he thinks the enemies of the state should be stoned to death.
Sadly, Cameron can only play with the cards the MoD and Brown dealt him. And the RN Top Brass were stupid enough to play along, assuming they'd get additional ships to support the carriers.
Imagine the whining from Scotland if they'd binned the CVF contracts.
Certainly his hands were tied to a great extent.
But the previous plan of running the Queen Elizabeth as a Charles De Gaulle style, undefended mobile aistrip that only goes to safe waters while mothballing the Prince of Wales WAS sensible and sound given the cards which were on the table.
Even selling the PoW for £1bn to India or France at a huge loss would havee been more sensible than this new plan.
Committing to full scale Carrier Groups is not sensible and not practical for a navy our size. Almost the entire Capital fleet of the RN tied up with Carrier Groups is LUDICROUS.
Run many navies, have you ?
You don't have to run a navy to have a basic understanding of how utterly bad Supercarriers are in most military roles. They require huge assistance to be able to even remotely defend themselves (and even then do not have any defence to ballistic missiles).
There is a reason why China only has one second-hand Supercarrier and very limited plans for future carriers.
Sadly, Cameron can only play with the cards the MoD and Brown dealt him. And the RN Top Brass were stupid enough to play along, assuming they'd get additional ships to support the carriers.
Imagine the whining from Scotland if they'd binned the CVF contracts.
Certainly his hands were tied to a great extent.
But the previous plan of running the Queen Elizabeth as a Charles De Gaulle style, undefended mobile aistrip that only goes to safe waters while mothballing the Prince of Wales WAS sensible and sound given the cards which were on the table.
Even selling the PoW for £1bn to India or France at a huge loss would havee been more sensible than this new plan.
Committing to full scale Carrier Groups is not sensible and not practical for a navy our size. Almost the entire Capital fleet of the RN tied up with Carrier Groups is LUDICROUS.
It'll help keep you lot under the British jackboot.
@ScottyNational: Troops :As Cameron states 10,000 troops can be deployed, SNP insists any troops deployed in Scotland must be able to read Gaelic signs
Can all the SNP MPs read Gaelic signs?
Are you as stupid as Scott or as I suspect just having a laugh at his stupidity.
Sadly, Cameron can only play with the cards the MoD and Brown dealt him. And the RN Top Brass were stupid enough to play along, assuming they'd get additional ships to support the carriers.
Imagine the whining from Scotland if they'd binned the CVF contracts.
Certainly his hands were tied to a great extent.
But the previous plan of running the Queen Elizabeth as a Charles De Gaulle style, undefended mobile aistrip that only goes to safe waters while mothballing the Prince of Wales WAS sensible and sound given the cards which were on the table.
Even selling the PoW for £1bn to India or France at a huge loss would havee been more sensible than this new plan.
Committing to full scale Carrier Groups is not sensible and not practical for a navy our size. Almost the entire Capital fleet of the RN tied up with Carrier Groups is LUDICROUS.
Run many navies, have you ?
Okay, everybody now...
When Dair was a lad he served a term as office boy to an attorney's firm....
Cameron really has thrown his credibility out the window with the SDSR, committing to running both carriers while slashing the number of frigates (especially given that the RN has no Cruisers and limited Destroyer capability) will leave the RN almost incapable of doing anything other than run around the world with useless, impractical, expensive Carrier Groups which offer no practical defence to the UK.
To give an example, a US Carrier Group sees each Supercarrier accompanied by at least 1 Cruiser, at least 2 Destroyers plus at least 1 of either a second Cruiser or third Destroyer, at least one Frigate and at least 2 Attack Subs. That's 5 Capital Ships minimum and 2 Subs. And an Oiler but let's just ignore that.
The RN is projecting to have 6 Destroyers, 8 Frigates and 6 completely undefined and undesigned "light Frigates" which are likely to be little more than bulked up River 2s and 6 Attack Subs (or possibly 4).
Any idiot can see that almost the entire Royal Navy capital and attack submarine fleet will be unavailable for any other mission task, including the Defense of the home islands (which is of course, currently neglected completely much to our detriment and other country's mirth).
A realistic deployment of 3 Type 45s, 2 Type 26s and two Astute Class subs for each Carrier group will mean that the Royal Navy has 4 Frigates, 2 Subs and some bulked up Offshore Patrol to fulfil it's entire non-Carrier related duties.
This does not seem enough.
Really? How many ships are escorting the Charles de Gaulle at this very moment (please do not count the British ones)
By the way .... Have you never heard of NATO?
Charles De Gaulle is not a Supercarrier. It is not an effective warship. It is not used as a warship. It's only role is as a mobile landing strip which has virtually no defensive capability and could not be used in a conflict with even a mid-strength power like Iran.
Your eyes must be swivelling. I didn't realise we were planning a war with Iran.
Don't make me laugh. It's nuclear powered has a catapult and flies off fast conventional jets. Compare that to the ships commissioned by labour. It's currently being escorted by a British destroyer. (Pardon me Watford... Addresed to Dair)
Cameron really has thrown his credibility out the window with the SDSR, committing to running both carriers while slashing the number of frigates (especially given that the RN has no Cruisers and limited Destroyer capability) will leave the RN almost incapable of doing anything other than run around the world with useless, impractical, expensive Carrier Groups which offer no practical defence to the UK.
To give an example, a US Carrier Group sees each Supercarrier accompanied by at least 1 Cruiser, at least 2 Destroyers plus at least 1 of either a second Cruiser or third Destroyer, at least one Frigate and at least 2 Attack Subs. That's 5 Capital Ships minimum and 2 Subs. And an Oiler but let's just ignore that.
The RN is projecting to have 6 Destroyers, 8 Frigates and 6 completely undefined and undesigned "light Frigates" which are likely to be little more than bulked up River 2s and 6 Attack Subs (or possibly 4).
Any idiot can see that almost the entire Royal Navy capital and attack submarine fleet will be unavailable for any other mission task, including the Defense of the home islands (which is of course, currently neglected completely much to our detriment and other country's mirth).
A realistic deployment of 3 Type 45s, 2 Type 26s and two Astute Class subs for each Carrier group will mean that the Royal Navy has 4 Frigates, 2 Subs and some bulked up Offshore Patrol to fulfil it's entire non-Carrier related duties.
This does not seem enough.
Really? How many ships are escorting the Charles de Gaulle at this very moment (please do not count the British ones)
By the way .... Have you never heard of NATO?
Charles De Gaulle is not a Supercarrier. It is not an effective warship. It is not used as a warship. It's only role is as a mobile landing strip which has virtually no defensive capability and could not be used in a conflict with even a mid-strength power like Iran.
So the air wings couldn't do carrier protection duties like every other single carrier ever built ?
It could do carrier defence OR attack missions. It cannot do both.
It doesn't carry enough fast jets to do both.
Fast jets are not effective defence against torpedos, guided missiles or ballistic missiles and only have limited capacity in air defence.
That's why you need one or two Cruisers, two or three Destroyers, a Frigate and two subs to defend a Supercarrier. They are sitting ducks.
London unionist rag, equivalent of the Scottish rag. Neither have any objectivity or are known for telling the truth regarding SNP or Scotland in general.
It was poor: Corbyn managed to spend the opening section responding to a different statement on policing, not the one the Commons had just heard. He criticised the government’s plans to cut the police before complaining about what had been left out of the review: inequality, poverty, disease, human rights abuses, climate change and water and food security, or indeed the flow of arms and illicit funds. Tory MPs were chuckling at this point, and Corbyn broke off to scold them, which make have helped him to look a little more authoritative than he was, but the truth was that he’d lost the House.
Sadly, Cameron can only play with the cards the MoD and Brown dealt him. And the RN Top Brass were stupid enough to play along, assuming they'd get additional ships to support the carriers.
Imagine the whining from Scotland if they'd binned the CVF contracts.
Certainly his hands were tied to a great extent.
But the previous plan of running the Queen Elizabeth as a Charles De Gaulle style, undefended mobile aistrip that only goes to safe waters while mothballing the Prince of Wales WAS sensible and sound given the cards which were on the table.
Even selling the PoW for £1bn to India or France at a huge loss would havee been more sensible than this new plan.
Committing to full scale Carrier Groups is not sensible and not practical for a navy our size. Almost the entire Capital fleet of the RN tied up with Carrier Groups is LUDICROUS.
Run many navies, have you ?
You don't have to run a navy to have a basic understanding of how utterly bad Supercarriers are in most military roles. They require huge assistance to be able to even remotely defend themselves (and even then do not have any defence to ballistic missiles).
There is a reason why China only has one second-hand Supercarrier and very limited plans for future carriers.
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ?
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
London unionist rag, equivalent of the Scottish rag. Neither have any objectivity or are known for telling the truth regarding SNP or Scotland in general.
The news sources seem to be multiplying fast on this story. But sadly the National seems to be some way off the pace for some reason.
Pining for the days of Uncle Eck's Scotia fleet; 2 fishing boats and a tug...
Salmond would have commandeered the only helicopter for herself.
The Offshore Patrol (currently River Class)capability of the Royal Navy is entirely based on the development of the class by the Scottish Fishery Protection Agency (now Maritime Scotland) who's FPV Jura (1975) (for a time HMS Jura) was the lead ship for all development in the class.
My father was Second Engineer on its initial sea trials and was Master on its final journey for scrappage on Tyneside.
Cameron really has thrown his credibility out the window with the SDSR, committing to running both carriers while slashing the number of frigates (especially given that the RN has no Cruisers and limited Destroyer capability) will leave the RN almost incapable of doing anything other than run around the world with useless, impractical, expensive Carrier Groups which offer no practical defence to the UK.
To give an example, a US Carrier Group sees each Supercarrier accompanied by at least 1 Cruiser, at least 2 Destroyers plus at least 1 of either a second Cruiser or third Destroyer, at least one Frigate and at least 2 Attack Subs. That's 5 Capital Ships minimum and 2 Subs. And an Oiler but let's just ignore that.
The RN is projecting to have 6 Destroyers, 8 Frigates and 6 completely undefined and undesigned "light Frigates" which are likely to be little more than bulked up River 2s and 6 Attack Subs (or possibly 4).
Any idiot can see that almost the entire Royal Navy capital and attack submarine fleet will be unavailable for any other mission task, including the Defense of the home islands (which is of course, currently neglected completely much to our detriment and other country's mirth).
A realistic deployment of 3 Type 45s, 2 Type 26s and two Astute Class subs for each Carrier group will mean that the Royal Navy has 4 Frigates, 2 Subs and some bulked up Offshore Patrol to fulfil it's entire non-Carrier related duties.
This does not seem enough.
Really? How many ships are escorting the Charles de Gaulle at this very moment (please do not count the British ones)
By the way .... Have you never heard of NATO?
Charles De Gaulle is not a Supercarrier. It is not an effective warship. It is not used as a warship. It's only role is as a mobile landing strip which has virtually no defensive capability and could not be used in a conflict with even a mid-strength power like Iran.
So the air wings couldn't do carrier protection duties like every other single carrier ever built ?
It could do carrier defence OR attack missions. It cannot do both.
It doesn't carry enough fast jets to do both.
Fast jets are not effective defence against torpedos, guided missiles or ballistic missiles and only have limited capacity in air defence.
That's why you need one or two Cruisers, two or three Destroyers, a Frigate and two subs to defend a Supercarrier. They are sitting ducks.
A great idea, but it'd be dangerous. With my communication skills and (kn/l)ack of diplomacy, we'd be at war with whichever country I was posted to within five minutes of arrival .
Best find you a place that is very anglophile as well as having some spiffing walks then.
*Thinks*
Got it, the USA, home to some of the best long distance trails in the world as well as superb scenery. Additionally, as the Septics don't have that much of a problem with 'Uman Rites (save a nasty habit of killing people) you won't have much to do so can spend lots of time walking with your son in the rucksack.
Hmmm. Very tempting. I'll have to invent a cradle for the little 'un that'll lift up into the trees to keep him clear from bears.
I've always wondered if I'd be tough enough to do the Appalachian Way. A few years back I met a young woman who'd just come back from doing the Appalachian Way one year and the Pacific Crest trail the next, starting a few months after finishing the AW. I'd done my coastal walk the year before, but I doubted I'd ever be as fit as she was.
She had a look in her eyes that told me that she'd be off on another trail soon.
There's an explorer's look; a facial expression that says they're not settled in one place. The worst case was on Sarah Outen, who I met a few weeks after she finished her Indian Ocean row. I asked what she'd be doing next, and she quietly answered something like 'going home'. Yet her gaze drifted out over Southampton Water, and I told her she'd be off on another adventure soon.
Not Tough enough to do the Appalachian Trail? Give over Mr. Jessop, Bill Bryant did it (well nearly all of it) and he was a middle-aged, soft, Anglo-Septic, Jessie. He even wrote a book about it and made lots of money as a result.
The idea that you couldn't manage a walk in the woods is fanciful and defeatist.
Cameron really has thrown his credibility out the window with the SDSR, committing to running both carriers while slashing the number of frigates (especially given that the RN has no Cruisers and limited Destroyer capability) will leave the RN almost incapable of doing anything other than run around the world with useless, impractical, expensive Carrier Groups which offer no practical defence to the UK.
To give an example, a US Carrier Group sees each Supercarrier accompanied by at least 1 Cruiser, at least 2 Destroyers plus at least 1 of either a second Cruiser or third Destroyer, at least one Frigate and at least 2 Attack Subs. That's 5 Capital Ships minimum and 2 Subs. And an Oiler but let's just ignore that.
The RN is projecting to have 6 Destroyers, 8 Frigates and 6 completely undefined and undesigned "light Frigates" which are likely to be little more than bulked up River 2s and 6 Attack Subs (or possibly 4).
Any idiot can see that almost the entire Royal Navy capital and attack submarine fleet will be unavailable for any other mission task, including the Defense of the home islands (which is of course, currently neglected completely much to our detriment and other country's mirth).
A realistic deployment of 3 Type 45s, 2 Type 26s and two Astute Class subs for each Carrier group will mean that the Royal Navy has 4 Frigates, 2 Subs and some bulked up Offshore Patrol to fulfil it's entire non-Carrier related duties.
This does not seem enough.
Really? How many ships are escorting the Charles de Gaulle at this very moment (please do not count the British ones)
By the way .... Have you never heard of NATO?
Charles De Gaulle is not a Supercarrier. It is not an effective warship. It is not used as a warship. It's only role is as a mobile landing strip which has virtually no defensive capability and could not be used in a conflict with even a mid-strength power like Iran.
So the air wings couldn't do carrier protection duties like every other single carrier ever built ?
Just out of interest, Mr.Brooke, what anti-ship weapons do you think the RAF/FAA actually have?
@ScottyNational: Business:Indy supporting groups to start fundraising rival to kickstarter. Kickbackstater will initially only accept cash.In brown envelopes
LOL and Tories can come out with that drivel giving the convictions they have for it.
Sadly, Cameron can only play with the cards the MoD and Brown dealt him. And the RN Top Brass were stupid enough to play along, assuming they'd get additional ships to support the carriers.
Imagine the whining from Scotland if they'd binned the CVF contracts.
Certainly his hands were tied to a great extent.
But the previous plan of running the Queen Elizabeth as a Charles De Gaulle style, undefended mobile aistrip that only goes to safe waters while mothballing the Prince of Wales WAS sensible and sound given the cards which were on the table.
Even selling the PoW for £1bn to India or France at a huge loss would havee been more sensible than this new plan.
Committing to full scale Carrier Groups is not sensible and not practical for a navy our size. Almost the entire Capital fleet of the RN tied up with Carrier Groups is LUDICROUS.
It could do carrier defence OR attack missions. It cannot do both.
It doesn't carry enough fast jets to do both.
Fast jets are not effective defence against torpedos, guided missiles or ballistic missiles and only have limited capacity in air defence.
That's why you need one or two Cruisers, two or three Destroyers, a Frigate and two subs to defend a Supercarrier. They are sitting ducks.
I fear you are stretching the point past breaking point. In most scenarios where they will be used in a dangerous environment, we will be fighting with others. In the same way we're providing some defence for the CdG (and anyone thinking the QE ships have been poorly managed should look at the CdG and think again).
There are few scenarios where the carriers will be fighting Britain's interests alone. Another Falklands-style conflict is one, and in such a case we'll throw everything down south.
A better argument against the carriers is that they're primarily force-projection vessels, and do we really want to be projecting force?
A really helpful blog by Keiran. Bu I do have to say that the figure of 5.3% showing strong support for Jihadis from this Country means an awful lot of Moslems strongly sympathetic who live here. I find that rather scary. A bit like the IRA where the great majority of the Catholic population did not agree with their murderous campaign but there were enough of them who did to enable the Provos to have safe houses etc etc.
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ?
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
A great idea, but it'd be dangerous. With my communication skills and (kn/l)ack of diplomacy, we'd be at war with whichever country I was posted to within five minutes of arrival .
Best find you a place that is very anglophile as well as having some spiffing walks then.
*Thinks*
Got it, the USA, home to some of the best long distance trails in the world as well as superb scenery. Additionally, as the Septics don't have that much of a problem with 'Uman Rites (save a nasty habit of killing people) you won't have much to do so can spend lots of time walking with your son in the rucksack.
Hmmm. Very tempting. I'll have to invent a cradle for the little 'un that'll lift up into the trees to keep him clear from bears.
I've always wondered if I'd be tough enough to do the Appalachian Way. A few years back I met a young woman who'd just come back from doing the Appalachian Way one year and the Pacific Crest trail the next, starting a few months after finishing the AW. I'd done my coastal walk the year before, but I doubted I'd ever be as fit as she was.
She had a look in her eyes that told me that she'd be off on another trail soon.
There's an explorer's look; a facial expression that says they're not settled in one place. The worst case was on Sarah Outen, who I met a few weeks after she finished her Indian Ocean row. I asked what she'd be doing next, and she quietly answered something like 'going home'. Yet her gaze drifted out over Southampton Water, and I told her she'd be off on another adventure soon.
Not Tough enough to do the Appalachian Trail? Give over Mr. Jessop, Bill Bryant did it (well nearly all of it) and he was a middle-aged, soft, Anglo-Septic, Jessie. He even wrote a book about it and made lots of money as a result.
The idea that you couldn't manage a walk in the woods is fanciful and defeatist.
He didn't finish it.
You can only say you've 'done' a trail if you do it all end-to-end. The real tough geezers do all the branches as well.
London unionist rag, equivalent of the Scottish rag. Neither have any objectivity or are known for telling the truth regarding SNP or Scotland in general.
The news sources seem to be multiplying fast on this story. But sadly the National seems to be some way off the pace for some reason.
Cameron really has thrown his credibility out the window with the SDSR, committing to running both carriers while slashing the number of frigates (especially given that the RN has no Cruisers and limited Destroyer capability) will leave the RN almost incapable of doing anything other than run around the world with useless, impractical, expensive Carrier Groups which offer no practical defence to the UK.
To give an example, a US Carrier Group sees each Supercarrier accompanied by at least 1 Cruiser, at least 2 Destroyers plus at least 1 of either a second Cruiser or third Destroyer, at least one Frigate and at least 2 Attack Subs. That's 5 Capital Ships minimum and 2 Subs. And an Oiler but let's just ignore that.
The RN is projecting to have 6 Destroyers, 8 Frigates and 6 completely undefined and undesigned "light Frigates" which are likely to be little more than bulked up River 2s and 6 Attack Subs (or possibly 4).
Any idiot can see that almost the entire Royal Navy capital and attack submarine fleet will be unavailable for any other mission task, including the Defense of the home islands (which is of course, currently neglected completely much to our detriment and other country's mirth).
A realistic deployment of 3 Type 45s, 2 Type 26s and two Astute Class subs for each Carrier group will mean that the Royal Navy has 4 Frigates, 2 Subs and some bulked up Offshore Patrol to fulfil it's entire non-Carrier related duties.
This does not seem enough.
Really? How many ships are escorting the Charles de Gaulle at this very moment (please do not count the British ones)
By the way .... Have you never heard of NATO?
Charles De Gaulle is not a Supercarrier. It is not an effective warship. It is not used as a warship. It's only role is as a mobile landing strip which has virtually no defensive capability and could not be used in a conflict with even a mid-strength power like Iran.
So the air wings couldn't do carrier protection duties like every other single carrier ever built ?
Just out of interest, Mr.Brooke, what anti-ship weapons do you think the RAF/FAA actually have?
Standard Nato Harpoon on some ships plus air to surface skuas and torpoedos from helicopters. Plane launched harpoons.
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ?
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
Sadly, Cameron can only play with the cards the MoD and Brown dealt him. And the RN Top Brass were stupid enough to play along, assuming they'd get additional ships to support the carriers.
Imagine the whining from Scotland if they'd binned the CVF contracts.
Certainly his hands were tied to a great extent.
But the previous plan of running the Queen Elizabeth as a Charles De Gaulle style, undefended mobile aistrip that only goes to safe waters while mothballing the Prince of Wales WAS sensible and sound given the cards which were on the table.
Even selling the PoW for £1bn to India or France at a huge loss would havee been more sensible than this new plan.
Committing to full scale Carrier Groups is not sensible and not practical for a navy our size. Almost the entire Capital fleet of the RN tied up with Carrier Groups is LUDICROUS.
Right so navies the world over build them because they're all stupid and lack your Mahonessque grasp of the importance of naval strategy ?
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
Navies around the world DO NOT BUILD Supercarriers.
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
Russia do not have a supercarrier. The Kuznetsov is lighter than the QE2 class, and under half the weight of a Nimitz. It's also technically an aircraft-carrying cruiser, not a carrier.
The Chinese Liaoning has yet to be used on operations (remember the comedy a few weeks ago when some were claiming it was off the coast of Syria?). Personally I doubt it will ever be used in anger: it is very much a learning experience for the Chinese. Their first real carrier will be the first indigenous vessel they build for themselves.
I can see the Chinese building three successors only loosely based on the originally-Russian Liaoning. But in such matters the Chinese are as inscrutable as ever.
And the Indians are building a biggie as well in the Vishal, successor to the Vikrant.
'TheScreamingEagles said: » show previous quotes So John Zims was talking shite when he said 27% of British Muslims sympathised with ISIS terrorists.
Thought as much
One in four (27%) British Muslims say they have some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
As ISIS wasn't mentioned in the question, and the question asked about some sympathy with the motives of the Charlie Hebdo attackers, who were nothing to do with ISIS.
Is sympathising with the Charlie Hebdo attackers any better than sympathising with ISIS '
Comments
Is it just me or are shocked at it basically been a load of pensioners. It is akin to the Expendables. Interested to know how the abseiling went, and kinda of busts the myth plenty of myths that were put out in the press about likely profiles for the robbers.
However, I am prepared to take the Australian gig for a couple of years on an expenses only basis (providing I don't actually have to get in an aeroplane). I'd do Oman for free too and I wouldn't say no to Iran (again no travel by air would have to be written in to the contract).
56 5554 can read GaelicTo give an example, a US Carrier Group sees each Supercarrier accompanied by at least 1 Cruiser, at least 2 Destroyers plus at least 1 of either a second Cruiser or third Destroyer, at least one Frigate and at least 2 Attack Subs. That's 5 Capital Ships minimum and 2 Subs. And an Oiler but let's just ignore that.
The RN is projecting to have 6 Destroyers, 8 Frigates and 6 completely undefined and undesigned "light Frigates" which are likely to be little more than bulked up River 2s and 6 Attack Subs (or possibly 4).
Any idiot can see that almost the entire Royal Navy capital and attack submarine fleet will be unavailable for any other mission task, including the Defense of the home islands (which is of course, currently neglected completely much to our detriment and other country's mirth).
A realistic deployment of 3 Type 45s, 2 Type 26s and two Astute Class subs for each Carrier group will mean that the Royal Navy has 4 Frigates, 2 Subs and some bulked up Offshore Patrol to fulfil it's entire non-Carrier related duties.
This does not seem enough.
He wants to be at a Stop The Defence Review protest.
Is this any better, from YouGov this afternoon
Which of the following statements is closest to your view?
I have a lot of sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria
I have some sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria
I have no sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria
Don't know
*Thinks*
Got it, the USA, home to some of the best long distance trails in the world as well as superb scenery. Additionally, as the Septics don't have that much of a problem with 'Uman Rites (save a nasty habit of killing people) you won't have much to do so can spend lots of time walking with your son in the rucksack.
She had already been booted out the seat twice before IIRC.
Imagine the whining from Scotland if they'd binned the CVF contracts.
Today, Cameron actually DESTROYED the UK's defensive capability, effectively ruling the Royal Navy out from having any effective capability AT ALL.
Corbyn's responded to a massive terrorist attack in France by being against shoot to kill then u-turning, and it's only months ago that he dreamed of disbanding the armed forces and his Shadow Chancellor wanted MI5 to be disbanded and the police to be disarmed.
have removed pic - someone else tweeted it.
Haven't seen detail re defence review, but I can say that I have been unimpressed with Cameron's previous efforts.
By the way .... Have you never heard of NATO?
Would that be a record?
I know Gladstone was around for ages, but wasn't Disraeli there for quite a bit of that?
But the previous plan of running the Queen Elizabeth as a Charles De Gaulle style, undefended mobile aistrip that only goes to safe waters while mothballing the Prince of Wales WAS sensible and sound given the cards which were on the table.
Even selling the PoW for £1bn to India or France at a huge loss would havee been more sensible than this new plan.
Committing to full scale Carrier Groups is not sensible and not practical for a navy our size. Almost the entire Capital fleet of the RN tied up with Carrier Groups is LUDICROUS.
Read: https://t.co/AYNMq1kJ3Y
I've always wondered if I'd be tough enough to do the Appalachian Way. A few years back I met a young woman who'd just come back from doing the Appalachian Way one year and the Pacific Crest trail the next, starting a few months after finishing the AW. I'd done my coastal walk the year before, but I doubted I'd ever be as fit as she was.
She had a look in her eyes that told me that she'd be off on another trail soon.
There's an explorer's look; a facial expression that says they're not settled in one place. The worst case was on Sarah Outen, who I met a few weeks after she finished her Indian Ocean row. I asked what she'd be doing next, and she quietly answered something like 'going home'. Yet her gaze drifted out over Southampton Water, and I told her she'd be off on another adventure soon.
She's just completed a row, canoe and kayak around the world.
http://www.sarahouten.com/
I'm so jealous.
When Dair was a lad he served a term
as office boy to an attorney's firm....
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/23/yoga-classes-cultural-appropriation
"Yoga needs to be wrenched away from the hyper-flexible, white elite few"
Robert Webb ✔ @arobertwebb
Ah screw it. When you're worried about RTing a polemic because you want a quiet life then it's over. https://twitter.com/chrisdeerin/status/668707602881241088 …
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/23/snp-mp-natalie-mcgarry-missing-donations-claim
There is a reason why China only has one second-hand Supercarrier and very limited plans for future carriers.
and never go to sea.
http://www.musicanet.org/robokopp/english/whenilad.htm
It's currently being escorted by a British destroyer.
(Pardon me Watford... Addresed to Dair)
@STVNews: SNP MP Natalie McGarry denies involvement in missing donations https://t.co/ZLLz27eCQC https://t.co/qadNqX15j1
It doesn't carry enough fast jets to do both.
Fast jets are not effective defence against torpedos, guided missiles or ballistic missiles and only have limited capacity in air defence.
That's why you need one or two Cruisers, two or three Destroyers, a Frigate and two subs to defend a Supercarrier. They are sitting ducks.
On the other hand you could take the view that if they've all screwed up on procurement then it's level playing field.
Or that every army and navy starts off with the wrong equipment when fighting a war and has to adapt with what it has got. See just about any conflict you can think of.
The issue then becomes how good are you at using what you've got, something UK forces have proved reasonaly good at especially since as of late we've often been fighting someone we didn't expect to fight.
My father was Second Engineer on its initial sea trials and was Master on its final journey for scrappage on Tyneside.
dont be silly
The idea that you couldn't manage a walk in the woods is fanciful and defeatist.
http://order-order.com/2015/11/23/snp-mp-hides-tweets-amid-police-probe/
There are few scenarios where the carriers will be fighting Britain's interests alone. Another Falklands-style conflict is one, and in such a case we'll throw everything down south.
A better argument against the carriers is that they're primarily force-projection vessels, and do we really want to be projecting force?
The Russians have ONE Supercarrier.
The Chinese have ONE Supercarrier.
Only the Americans have a substantial commitment to Supercarriers.
Britain will be only the fourth nation on earth to have an active Supercarrier. Lots of nations can afford them. But virtually none seem to want them. That should tell you a great deal.
You can only say you've 'done' a trail if you do it all end-to-end. The real tough geezers do all the branches as well.
How many do you think they should have ?
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have found and sourced an owl
for each and every embassy
so basically everyone of the UN security council.
plus India.
The Chinese Liaoning has yet to be used on operations (remember the comedy a few weeks ago when some were claiming it was off the coast of Syria?). Personally I doubt it will ever be used in anger: it is very much a learning experience for the Chinese. Their first real carrier will be the first indigenous vessel they build for themselves.
I can see the Chinese building three successors only loosely based on the originally-Russian Liaoning. But in such matters the Chinese are as inscrutable as ever.
And the Indians are building a biggie as well in the Vishal, successor to the Vikrant.
'TheScreamingEagles said:
» show previous quotes
So John Zims was talking shite when he said 27% of British Muslims sympathised with ISIS terrorists.
Thought as much
One in four (27%) British Muslims say they have some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
As ISIS wasn't mentioned in the question, and the question asked about some sympathy with the motives of the Charlie Hebdo attackers, who were nothing to do with ISIS.
Is sympathising with the Charlie Hebdo attackers any better than sympathising with ISIS '
Gives a whole new meaning to 'split hair'