Mr. Lowlander, the approach towards Defence has been dire as long as I can remember. I agree with you that this is a serious issue, though I have little confidence it'll be treated as such.
Anyway, off to flee the sauna, having got a modicum of work done.
May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.
And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.
Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.
As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.
This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.
How has it gone unnoticed if reported in the national press? *innocent face*
I mean it's been reported but not subject to any further debate or discussion. These issues appear to be quite important but they have (so far) been ignored in terms of in depth discussion in the media.
May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.
And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.
Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.
As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.
This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.
The 2010 defence review was the reason I suspended my (until then) lifelong membership of the Tory party.
Not that we did not know that this could be coming.
Dont worry - the max 2 kids on tax credits, unemployment benefit sanctions if you dont take offered work, self employed people on universal credit being assessed as if they are earning 30h week on minimum wage even if they are not and various other of Osbornes welfare cuts will see a replacement workforce. Hop picker special trains from London to Kent make a comeback.
The amendments to the country’s asylum laws mean that asylum seekers in Sweden are now granted the minimum level of rights the European Union requires of its member states.
One of the biggest changes is the introduction of a new temporary residence permit for those offered protection in Sweden, instead of permanent permits, as the ruled had been previously.
The right to family reunification has also been limited and security requirements tightened. The changes to the family reunification process could impact expats and Swedish citizens who would like their partner to come and live in Sweden with them, as The Local detailed here.
May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.
And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.
Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.
As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.
This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.
How has it gone unnoticed if reported in the national press? *innocent face*
I mean it's been reported but not subject to any further debate or discussion. These issues appear to be quite important but they have (so far) been ignored in terms of in depth discussion in the media.
and why do you view Trident as not being a viable deterrent? Is this the whole idea that the US have to authorise our use of it?
Mr. Lowlander, the approach towards Defence has been dire as long as I can remember. I agree with you that this is a serious issue, though I have little confidence it'll be treated as such.
Anyway, off to flee the sauna, having got a modicum of work done.
Perhaps the Queen should ask for the "Royal" to be removed from the service's name. It hardly reflects any glory on the monarch in its current state.
Not that we did not know that this could be coming.
I live on the Herefordshire border. We've had seasonal workers coming over for the harvest since well before I was born and certainly before the EEC was even a thing.
I suspect now we will just ship the strawberries in from abroad rather than bother with seasonal workers who just bump up the immigration figures.
Short term immigration isn't included in the net migration figures.
You missed reading the Sun, Daily Telegraph and Mail then during the Referendum and their exclusives on the ONS hiding the true migration figures them.
Plus by the time these guys have paid health insurance, I doubt it will be worth their while.
Mr. Lowlander, the approach towards Defence has been dire as long as I can remember. I agree with you that this is a serious issue, though I have little confidence it'll be treated as such.
Anyway, off to flee the sauna, having got a modicum of work done.
Perhaps the Queen should ask for the "Royal" to be removed from the service's name. It hardly reflects any glory on the monarch in its current state.
The HMS Cornwall fiasco wasn't our most glorious moment either.
May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.
And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.
Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.
As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.
This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.
How has it gone unnoticed if reported in the national press? *innocent face*
Are there votes in defence ? I wonder where all the money in the defence budget goes since Britain has no functional navy or an army of size, does the RAF still exist or is it a sticker now on model airplanes ?
I mean it's been reported but not subject to any further debate or discussion. These issues appear to be quite important but they have (so far) been ignored in terms of in depth discussion in the media.
and why do you view Trident as not being a viable deterrent? Is this the whole idea that the US have to authorise our use of it?
Go to nukemap. Detonate a 100kt W76 warhead anywhere you want. Look at the kill zone. Then consider that the UK has at most 70 of these warheads available for use at any one time. Russia has a lot more than 70 military bases. Even if you only targetting civilian population centres by population (and didn't use multiple warheads on the largest) you would not hit a single Russian city with a populaiton under 250,000.
I mean it's been reported but not subject to any further debate or discussion. These issues appear to be quite important but they have (so far) been ignored in terms of in depth discussion in the media.
and why do you view Trident as not being a viable deterrent? Is this the whole idea that the US have to authorise our use of it?
Go to nukemap. Detonate a 100kt W76 warhead anywhere you want. Look at the kill zone. Then consider that the UK has at most 70 of these warheads available for use at any one time. Russia has a lot more than 70 military bases. Even if you only targetting civilian population centres by population (and didn't use multiple warheads on the largest) you would not hit a single Russian city with a populaiton under 250,000.
But you'd hit all Russian cities with a population of over 250,000? Fair enough. And if it was an all-out engagement with the Russians, the Americans would probably also be involved.
Merkel seems keen to stress it will be a UK/EU relationship, not a UK/German relationship. Playing Article 50 by the book, I guess.
Of course she will. Every time May wants something, Merkel will say that, yes she'd love to agree but one of the other countries wouldn't agree. Perfect good cop, bad cop.
Mr. Lowlander, the approach towards Defence has been dire as long as I can remember. I agree with you that this is a serious issue, though I have little confidence it'll be treated as such.
Anyway, off to flee the sauna, having got a modicum of work done.
Perhaps the Queen should ask for the "Royal" to be removed from the service's name. It hardly reflects any glory on the monarch in its current state.
It's hard to sing Rule Britannia with a straight face at the moment.
Not that we did not know that this could be coming.
I live on the Herefordshire border. We've had seasonal workers coming over for the harvest since well before I was born and certainly before the EEC was even a thing.
I suspect now we will just ship the strawberries in from abroad rather than bother with seasonal workers who just bump up the immigration figures.
Short term immigration isn't included in the net migration figures.
You missed reading the Sun, Daily Telegraph and Mail then during the Referendum and their exclusives on the ONS hiding the true migration figures them.
Plus by the time these guys have paid health insurance, I doubt it will be worth their while.
Like most adults, I believe very little of what the newspapers write for clickbait. I have to believe the ONS.
Bottom line, short term visas are already a thing across several classes of worker (charities, creative & sporting, exchanges, religious workers and youth mobility).
However, I'm guessing you voted Remain. So everything is just too hard to solve. There might be actual paperwork or something.
I mean it's been reported but not subject to any further debate or discussion. These issues appear to be quite important but they have (so far) been ignored in terms of in depth discussion in the media.
and why do you view Trident as not being a viable deterrent? Is this the whole idea that the US have to authorise our use of it?
Go to nukemap. Detonate a 100kt W76 warhead anywhere you want. Look at the kill zone. Then consider that the UK has at most 70 of these warheads available for use at any one time. Russia has a lot more than 70 military bases. Even if you only targetting civilian population centres by population (and didn't use multiple warheads on the largest) you would not hit a single Russian city with a populaiton under 250,000.
But you'd hit all Russian cities with a population of other 250,000? Fair enough. And if it was an all-out engagement with the Russians, the Americans would probably also be involved.
To be honest, I doubt any population centre is targetted other than perhaps four warheads to provide double coverage for command and control in Moscow.
But you make a very important point as to why Trident is so pointless.
the Americans would probably also be involved
The UK is covered by the shield of American MAD deterrence. As such it is completely and utterly unnecessary for the UK to maintain an independent deterrent. Which is how most of NATO operates (to be honest its how all of NATO operates as the US weapons hosted in the Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey etc are of rather questionable worth.
I mean it's been reported but not subject to any further debate or discussion. These issues appear to be quite important but they have (so far) been ignored in terms of in depth discussion in the media.
and why do you view Trident as not being a viable deterrent? Is this the whole idea that the US have to authorise our use of it?
Go to nukemap. Detonate a 100kt W76 warhead anywhere you want. Look at the kill zone. Then consider that the UK has at most 70 of these warheads available for use at any one time. Russia has a lot more than 70 military bases. Even if you only targetting civilian population centres by population (and didn't use multiple warheads on the largest) you would not hit a single Russian city with a populaiton under 250,000.
But you'd hit all Russian cities with a population of other 250,000? Fair enough. And if it was an all-out engagement with the Russians, the Americans would probably also be involved.
To be honest, I doubt any population centre is targetted other than perhaps four warheads to provide double coverage for command and control in Moscow.
But you make a very important point as to why Trident is so pointless.
the Americans would probably also be involved
The UK is covered by the shield of American MAD deterrence. As such it is completely and utterly unnecessary for the UK to maintain an independent deterrent. Which is how most of NATO operates (to be honest its how all of NATO operates as the US weapons hosted in the Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey etc are of rather questionable worth.
So we can act independently if and when the situation arises. The Falklands show that the US may not immediately act in our interests.
I mean it's been reported but not subject to any further debate or discussion. These issues appear to be quite important but they have (so far) been ignored in terms of in depth discussion in the media.
and why do you view Trident as not being a viable deterrent? Is this the whole idea that the US have to authorise our use of it?
Go to nukemap. Detonate a 100kt W76 warhead anywhere you want. Look at the kill zone. Then consider that the UK has at most 70 of these warheads available for use at any one time. Russia has a lot more than 70 military bases. Even if you only targetting civilian population centres by population (and didn't use multiple warheads on the largest) you would not hit a single Russian city with a populaiton under 250,000.
But you'd hit all Russian cities with a population of other 250,000? Fair enough. And if it was an all-out engagement with the Russians, the Americans would probably also be involved.
To be honest, I doubt any population centre is targetted other than perhaps four warheads to provide double coverage for command and control in Moscow.
But you make a very important point as to why Trident is so pointless.
the Americans would probably also be involved
The UK is covered by the shield of American MAD deterrence. As such it is completely and utterly unnecessary for the UK to maintain an independent deterrent. Which is how most of NATO operates (to be honest its how all of NATO operates as the US weapons hosted in the Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey etc are of rather questionable worth.
No point in arguing about Trident. The decision has been made. End of.
I mean it's been reported but not subject to any further debate or discussion. These issues appear to be quite important but they have (so far) been ignored in terms of in depth discussion in the media.
and why do you view Trident as not being a viable deterrent? Is this the whole idea that the US have to authorise our use of it?
Go to nukemap. Detonate a 100kt W76 warhead anywhere you want. Look at the kill zone. Then consider that the UK has at most 70 of these warheads available for use at any one time. Russia has a lot more than 70 military bases. Even if you only targetting civilian population centres by population (and didn't use multiple warheads on the largest) you would not hit a single Russian city with a populaiton under 250,000.
But you'd hit all Russian cities with a population of other 250,000? Fair enough. And if it was an all-out engagement with the Russians, the Americans would probably also be involved.
To be honest, I doubt any population centre is targetted other than perhaps four warheads to provide double coverage for command and control in Moscow.
But you make a very important point as to why Trident is so pointless.
the Americans would probably also be involved
The UK is covered by the shield of American MAD deterrence. As such it is completely and utterly unnecessary for the UK to maintain an independent deterrent. Which is how most of NATO operates (to be honest its how all of NATO operates as the US weapons hosted in the Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey etc are of rather questionable worth.
So we can act independently if and when the situation arises. The Falklands show that the US may not immediately act in our interests.
The £31bn just comitted for Vanguard replacement would pay for the UK to build two complete Aircraft Carrier squadrons, with full compliments of Lighning IIs and full escort. From a purely functional point of view, it does seem that this would be a much better use for the money in terms of value to NATO.
I do accept there are some political considerations which mean the United States, at least in public, support the renewal of Trident. But that is clearly not a decision based on the military value of the spend.
I mean it's been reported but not subject to any further debate or discussion. These issues appear to be quite important but they have (so far) been ignored in terms of in depth discussion in the media.
and why do you view Trident as not being a viable deterrent? Is this the whole idea that the US have to authorise our use of it?
Go to nukemap. Detonate a 100kt W76 warhead anywhere you want. Look at the kill zone. Then consider that the UK has at most 70 of these warheads available for use at any one time. Russia has a lot more than 70 military bases. Even if you only targetting civilian population centres by population (and didn't use multiple warheads on the largest) you would not hit a single Russian city with a populaiton under 250,000.
But you'd hit all Russian cities with a population of other 250,000? Fair enough. And if it was an all-out engagement with the Russians, the Americans would probably also be involved.
To be honest, I doubt any population centre is targetted other than perhaps four warheads to provide double coverage for command and control in Moscow.
But you make a very important point as to why Trident is so pointless.
the Americans would probably also be involved
The UK is covered by the shield of American MAD deterrence. As such it is completely and utterly unnecessary for the UK to maintain an independent deterrent. Which is how most of NATO operates (to be honest its how all of NATO operates as the US weapons hosted in the Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey etc are of rather questionable worth.
So we can act independently if and when the situation arises. The Falklands show that the US may not immediately act in our interests.
The £31bn just comitted for Vanguard replacement would pay for the UK to build two complete Aircraft Carrier squadrons, with full compliments of Lighning IIs and full escort. From a purely functional point of view, it does seem that this would be a much better use for the money in terms of value to NATO.
I do accept there are some political considerations which mean the United States, at least in public, support the renewal of Trident. But that is clearly not a decision based on the military value of the spend.
Just because it is expensive doesn't mean it isn't a viable deterrent. Yeah, there may be other things we could spend it on, but perhaps that should be done in addition to not instead of.
May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.
And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.
Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.
As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.
This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.
The 2010 defence review was the reason I suspended my (until then) lifelong membership of the Tory party.
I didn't officially rejoin until last year.
I hope May takes a look at this.
Whilst I accept that he inherited a mess of epic proportions it seemed to me that Hammond did remarkably little as Defence Secretary to sort this out. To take an obvious example having 1 admiral to supervise such a modest little navy might well be thought to be excessive. All bar 1 should have been retired and their staff redeployed.
The £31bn just comitted for Vanguard replacement would pay for the UK to build two complete Aircraft Carrier squadrons, with full compliments of Lighning IIs and full escort. From a purely functional point of view, it does seem that this would be a much better use for the money in terms of value to NATO.
I do accept there are some political considerations which mean the United States, at least in public, support the renewal of Trident. But that is clearly not a decision based on the military value of the spend.
Just because it is expensive doesn't mean it isn't a viable deterrent. Yeah, there may be other things we could spend it on, but perhaps that should be done in addition to not instead of.
May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.
And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.
Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.
As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.
This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.
The 2010 defence review was the reason I suspended my (until then) lifelong membership of the Tory party.
I didn't officially rejoin until last year.
I hope May takes a look at this.
Whilst I accept that he inherited a mess of epic proportions it seemed to me that Hammond did remarkably little as Defence Secretary to sort this out. To take an obvious example having 1 admiral to supervise such a modest little navy might well be thought to be excessive. All bar 1 should have been retired and their staff redeployed.
UK Defence policy these days does seem to be based around the model first used by Adolf Hitler. In his bunker days.
The £31bn just comitted for Vanguard replacement would pay for the UK to build two complete Aircraft Carrier squadrons, with full compliments of Lighning IIs and full escort. From a purely functional point of view, it does seem that this would be a much better use for the money in terms of value to NATO.
I do accept there are some political considerations which mean the United States, at least in public, support the renewal of Trident. But that is clearly not a decision based on the military value of the spend.
Just because it is expensive doesn't mean it isn't a viable deterrent. Yeah, there may be other things we could spend it on, but perhaps that should be done in addition to not instead of.
All funded by the Magic Money Tree, right?
No all funded with just 2% of GDP, so within budget.
I mean it's been reported but not subject to any further debate or discussion. These issues appear to be quite important but they have (so far) been ignored in terms of in depth discussion in the media.
and why do you view Trident as not being a viable deterrent? Is this the whole idea that the US have to authorise our use of it?
Go to nukemap. Detonate a 100kt W76 warhead anywhere you want. Look at the kill zone. Then consider that the UK has at most 70 of these warheads available for use at any one time. Russia has a lot more than 70 military bases. Even if you only targetting civilian population centres by population (and didn't use multiple warheads on the largest) you would not hit a single Russian city with a populaiton under 250,000.
But you'd hit all Russian cities with a population of other 250,000? Fair enough. And if it was an all-out engagement with the Russians, the Americans would probably also be involved.
To be honest, I doubt any population centre is targetted other than perhaps four warheads to provide double coverage for command and control in Moscow.
But you make a very important point as to why Trident is so pointless.
the Americans would probably also be involved
The UK is covered by the shield of American MAD deterrence. As such it is completely and utterly unnecessary for the UK to maintain an independent deterrent. Which is how most of NATO operates (to be honest its how all of NATO operates as the US weapons hosted in the Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey etc are of rather questionable worth.
So we can act independently if and when the situation arises. The Falklands show that the US may not immediately act in our interests.
I suspect it must have lurked in the back of the Junta's mind that there was probably a polaris sub off the coast of Buenos Airies and, certainly after the sinking of the Belgrano, that if facing imminent defeat Thatcher might just have used it.
The £31bn just comitted for Vanguard replacement would pay for the UK to build two complete Aircraft Carrier squadrons, with full compliments of Lighning IIs and full escort. From a purely functional point of view, it does seem that this would be a much better use for the money in terms of value to NATO.
I do accept there are some political considerations which mean the United States, at least in public, support the renewal of Trident. But that is clearly not a decision based on the military value of the spend.
Just because it is expensive doesn't mean it isn't a viable deterrent. Yeah, there may be other things we could spend it on, but perhaps that should be done in addition to not instead of.
All funded by the Magic Money Tree, right?
No all funded with just 2% of GDP, so within budget.
We borrow about a tenth of our public sector spend. So there's a little bit of the magic money tree in there.
May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.
And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.
Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.
As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.
This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.
The 2010 defence review was the reason I suspended my (until then) lifelong membership of the Tory party.
I didn't officially rejoin until last year.
I hope May takes a look at this.
Whilst I accept that he inherited a mess of epic proportions it seemed to me that Hammond did remarkably little as Defence Secretary to sort this out. To take an obvious example having 1 admiral to supervise such a modest little navy might well be thought to be excessive. All bar 1 should have been retired and their staff redeployed.
UK Defence policy these days does seem to be based around the model first used by Adolf Hitler. In his bunker days.
May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.
And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.
Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.
As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.
This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.
The 2010 defence review was the reason I suspended my (until then) lifelong membership of the Tory party.
I didn't officially rejoin until last year.
I hope May takes a look at this.
Whilst I accept that he inherited a mess of epic proportions it seemed to me that Hammond did remarkably little as Defence Secretary to sort this out. To take an obvious example having 1 admiral to supervise such a modest little navy might well be thought to be excessive. All bar 1 should have been retired and their staff redeployed.
UK Defence policy these days does seem to be based around the model first used by Adolf Hitler. In his bunker days.
Fortunately Hitler never managed to make Nuke tipped V2s or V3s (intercontinental version to be fired at the US and Russia) or it could have turned the course of the war as late as March 1945
Mr Bedfordshire - Nonsense, by that stage the war was over. All it would have done is prolonged the agony. Unless you subscribe to History Channel nonsense about aliens and Die Glocke
Not sure that article makes much sense. For example it seems to base its judgement on future capability as much as present and it completely misunderstands future capability.
The Royal Navy will soon receive a quantum leap in capability with the construction of two new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The two carriers, each weighing up to 70,000 tons fully loaded, will be the largest ships ever to sail in the Royal Navy. The carriers will each be capable of embarking up to 36 F-35B fighter-bombers and a number of helicopters.
The RN will not have two aircraft carriers, it will have one with the second immediately being mothballed. The one that is active will also have nowhere near 36 Lightning IIs.
Also the idea that the RN can rank above the Japanese MSDF is comical. Check out their materiel.
Not sure that article makes much sense. For example it seems to base its judgement on future capability as much as present and it completely misunderstands future capability.
The Royal Navy will soon receive a quantum leap in capability with the construction of two new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The two carriers, each weighing up to 70,000 tons fully loaded, will be the largest ships ever to sail in the Royal Navy. The carriers will each be capable of embarking up to 36 F-35B fighter-bombers and a number of helicopters.
The RN will not have two aircraft carriers, it will have one with the second immediately being mothballed. The one that is active will also have nowhere near 36 Lightning IIs.
I thought the position of the second carrier had changed, and it now wouldn't be mothballed?
Just incredible. More than 2 admirals per active warship.
Presumably all the piddling minehunters and even the RN speed boats have an actual captain.
Most of them will be commanders or more likely lieutenant commanders. We have a ridiculously huge bureaucracy involved in delusional war gaming and planning. This is not unusual with peace time forces but it is exaggerated in our case by the ever shrinking operational capacity.
A serious Secretary of State for Defence would be getting rid of 39 of the Admirals, all of the Vice Admirals, all bar one of the rear Admirals, pretty much all of the commodores (keeping 1 for each of the 5 sections perhaps) and at least 230 of the Captains.
Perhaps then we would have some money to spend on actual ships.
May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.
And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.
Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.
As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.
This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.
How has it gone unnoticed if reported in the national press? *innocent face*
Are there votes in defence ? I wonder where all the money in the defence budget goes since Britain has no functional navy or an army of size, does the RAF still exist or is it a sticker now on model airplanes ?
The money goes on very expensive equipment. We will probably end up with one ship, one plane and one tank, by my gods they will be the most expensive single vehicles on the market.
Not sure that article makes much sense. For example it seems to base its judgement on future capability as much as present and it completely misunderstands future capability.
The Royal Navy will soon receive a quantum leap in capability with the construction of two new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The two carriers, each weighing up to 70,000 tons fully loaded, will be the largest ships ever to sail in the Royal Navy. The carriers will each be capable of embarking up to 36 F-35B fighter-bombers and a number of helicopters.
The RN will not have two aircraft carriers, it will have one with the second immediately being mothballed. The one that is active will also have nowhere near 36 Lightning IIs.
Also the idea that the RN can rank above the Japanese MSDF is comical. Check out their materiel.
No SSBNs, no SSNs, no supercarriers - that's what makes the RN a greater navy (Japan's is roled for defence locally v. China... ours is a small but global force).
The thing is that not all the captains are actually captains of ships. In fact many are not they just hold the rank. I once saw in my early navy days a captain medical officer . I was so surprised I almost forgot to salute. Admirals are of course the same but hold a lot of other positions unrelated to direct naval operations and of course political positions unrelated to actually being in command of a fleet at sea.
Just incredible. More than 2 admirals per active warship.
Presumably all the piddling minehunters and even the RN speed boats have an actual captain.
No they are normally commanded by Lieutenants but are addressed as Captain as they hold the position on the vessel. They are still 2 ringers though.
Occasionally it might be a Lt . Commander but only if it he was close to retirement or he had been *cough* naughty *cough* somewhere else in the service
May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.
And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.
Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.
As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.
This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.
How has it gone unnoticed if reported in the national press? *innocent face*
Are there votes in defence ? I wonder where all the money in the defence budget goes since Britain has no functional navy or an army of size, does the RAF still exist or is it a sticker now on model airplanes ?
The money goes on very expensive equipment. We will probably end up with one ship, one plane and one tank, by my gods they will be the most expensive single vehicles on the market.
Towards the end of my civil service career I had to deal with MOD DES. Suffice to say that after two years I jumped at the chance to take early retirement. I would rather stick needles in my eyes than ever have anything to do with them again.
21st March 2013. That's the earliest date when you can see comments on archived PB threads. I'm guessing that's when Vanilla replaced Disqus. Still, it's a pity you can't see comments before then, apart from perhaps on the WaybackMachine site.
May hardly has her problems to seek but it does seem that there is likely to be some serious issues with the state of the Royal Navy. Apparently, during the furor over the Brexit campaign, it seems to have gone unnoticed that our expensive new Type 45 Destroyers don't actually work.
And now it seems that the Type 26 are on an indefinite hold. Let's ignore how this is another broken promise from the Scottish referendum and just consider that it now means at least another 15 to 20 years of Type 23s providing the bulk of the Royal Navy.
Perhaps these considerations should have been more important before £31bn short term was committed to replace the Vanguard Fleet. I think the Astute hunter-killers still have some serious problems but let's assume they are working.
As things stand, in 10 years time, the Royal Navy will consist of one over-sized Aircraft Carrier which can't be deployed in the gulf (because the escort destroyers can't operate there), a destroyer fleet with serious issues, an aging backbone of light frigates of relatively limited functionality, hopefully a functional fleet of HK subs and a couple of old but useful Assault ships.
This does seem to be a somewhat weak fleet for the defence of an island which claims to be a global player.Have the Tories just given up on defence now they've agreed to a new generation of Trident which has no military function whatsoever, it is no use for counter-terrorism, can't be used in a real conflict, and isn't even viable as a deterrent.
How has it gone unnoticed if reported in the national press? *innocent face*
Are there votes in defence ? I wonder where all the money in the defence budget goes since Britain has no functional navy or an army of size, does the RAF still exist or is it a sticker now on model airplanes ?
The money goes on very expensive equipment. We will probably end up with one ship, one plane and one tank, by my gods they will be the most expensive single vehicles on the market.
I read that in an american defence review years ago.
The solution was also found in a computer simulation and in an Arthur C. Clarke novel. It's better to have millions of smaller ones, than one single large one that if it's disabled then it's game over.
21st March 2013. That's the earliest date when you can see comments on archived PB threads. I'm guessing that's when Vanilla replaced Disqus. Still, it's a pity you can't see comments before then, apart from perhaps on the WaybackMachine site.
It was.
It's a pity, the comments section on this site is like a historical archive.
Flag Quote · Off Topic Tony_MTony_M Posts: 55 May 2015 Just bumped into one of my neighbours at the local Morrisons on Sheppey. Matt is an elderly Labour activist. He told me he'd been telling at one of the local polling stations.
I enquired as to activity and he said voting had been brisk (I was told the same at the station I voted in). I enquired as to how it was going for his bloke and he just shrugged and said "ok". He then added they thought they may trail in 3rd behind the Tories and UKIP. Must admit I was surprised to hear that.
As an aside I told him I dreaded the thought of a Miliband led government. His response; "he's just an ordinary, comprehensive schooled bloke, just like us". I clearly looked shocked, as he asked why I'd pulled the face. I explained I didn't think living in a £2M house was particularly ordinary. His respone; "you're talking rubbish, son".
They clearly don't like facts in the Labour party....
Comments
Anyway, off to flee the sauna, having got a modicum of work done.
He was the reason for my username.
I only delurked because I was so fed up with reading his posts and I wanted to vent my frustration at the latest bit of nonsense.
Would be interesting to hear what Ben_M had to say about the current situation. And IOS of course!!
I didn't officially rejoin until last year.
I hope May takes a look at this.
The amendments to the country’s asylum laws mean that asylum seekers in Sweden are now granted the minimum level of rights the European Union requires of its member states.
One of the biggest changes is the introduction of a new temporary residence permit for those offered protection in Sweden, instead of permanent permits, as the ruled had been previously.
The right to family reunification has also been limited and security requirements tightened. The changes to the family reunification process could impact expats and Swedish citizens who would like their partner to come and live in Sweden with them, as The Local detailed here.
Plus by the time these guys have paid health insurance, I doubt it will be worth their while.
I wonder where all the money in the defence budget goes since Britain has no functional navy or an army of size, does the RAF still exist or is it a sticker now on model airplanes ?
Bottom line, short term visas are already a thing across several classes of worker (charities, creative & sporting, exchanges, religious workers and youth mobility).
However, I'm guessing you voted Remain. So everything is just too hard to solve. There might be actual paperwork or something.
But you make a very important point as to why Trident is so pointless.
the Americans would probably also be involved
The UK is covered by the shield of American MAD deterrence. As such it is completely and utterly unnecessary for the UK to maintain an independent deterrent. Which is how most of NATO operates (to be honest its how all of NATO operates as the US weapons hosted in the Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey etc are of rather questionable worth.
I do accept there are some political considerations which mean the United States, at least in public, support the renewal of Trident. But that is clearly not a decision based on the military value of the spend.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-five-most-powerful-navies-the-planet-10610?page=3
Ben M as well but occasionally came out with good posts
As for IOS well he was still shouting about the incredible Labour Ground game as Cameron's tank rolled passed the window at 10pm on election night.
Talk softly and carry a big stick...
Presumably all the piddling minehunters and even the RN speed boats have an actual captain.
The Royal Navy will soon receive a quantum leap in capability with the construction of two new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The two carriers, each weighing up to 70,000 tons fully loaded, will be the largest ships ever to sail in the Royal Navy. The carriers will each be capable of embarking up to 36 F-35B fighter-bombers and a number of helicopters.
The RN will not have two aircraft carriers, it will have one with the second immediately being mothballed. The one that is active will also have nowhere near 36 Lightning IIs.
Also the idea that the RN can rank above the Japanese MSDF is comical. Check out their materiel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Japan_Maritime_Self-Defense_Force_ships
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29075307
A serious Secretary of State for Defence would be getting rid of 39 of the Admirals, all of the Vice Admirals, all bar one of the rear Admirals, pretty much all of the commodores (keeping 1 for each of the 5 sections perhaps) and at least 230 of the Captains.
Perhaps then we would have some money to spend on actual ships.
That review of Ghostbusters is very funny. Thanks for posting.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/18/milo-reviews-ghostbusters/
The thing is that not all the captains are actually captains of ships. In fact many are not they just hold the rank. I once saw in my early navy days a captain medical officer . I was so surprised I almost forgot to salute. Admirals are of course the same but hold a lot of other positions unrelated to direct naval operations and of course political positions unrelated to actually being in command of a fleet at sea.
Occasionally it might be a Lt . Commander but only if it he was close to retirement or he had been *cough* naughty *cough* somewhere else in the service
In my day anyway
There it was.. Gone
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/06/another-3-polls-have-it-neck-and-neck/
The solution was also found in a computer simulation and in an Arthur C. Clarke novel.
It's better to have millions of smaller ones, than one single large one that if it's disabled then it's game over.
It's a pity, the comments section on this site is like a historical archive.
Flag Quote · Off Topic
Tony_MTony_M Posts: 55
May 2015
Just bumped into one of my neighbours at the local Morrisons on Sheppey. Matt is an elderly Labour activist. He told me he'd been telling at one of the local polling stations.
I enquired as to activity and he said voting had been brisk (I was told the same at the station I voted in). I enquired as to how it was going for his bloke and he just shrugged and said "ok". He then added they thought they may trail in 3rd behind the Tories and UKIP. Must admit I was surprised to hear that.
As an aside I told him I dreaded the thought of a Miliband led government. His response; "he's just an ordinary, comprehensive schooled bloke, just like us". I clearly looked shocked, as he asked why I'd pulled the face. I explained I didn't think living in a £2M house was particularly ordinary. His respone; "you're talking rubbish, son".
They clearly don't like facts in the Labour party....
new thread
now