Territorial-waters are twelve nautical-miles from the mean shore-line: Any warship is allowed passage outwith such area (regardless of what Wee-Fr'Eck might tell you otherwise).
NImord failed Haddon-Cave. This was mentioned at PPRuNe in February 2010.
If SNats wish to troll then they should - at least - learn some facts first. Their argument is as ridiculous as their party-leader....
The Nimrod MR4A project was poorly conceived by the previous Conservative administration, and shamefully continued by Labour years after it was obviously a dead-duck project. It should have been cancelled in the 2003-5 period.
That's the sort of military we had at the time: we lose an aircraft and 14 men, and the bureaucracy starts shredding files ...
Nimrod thought an articulated lorry on the M1 was a low flying soviet fighter plane. This after spending billions. You can blame any government, in any country. you like. They are all the same. I bet you will hear similar stories in Russia and, now, China. In many third world countries the Military controls over a third of the entire GDP. Shops, businesses, cinema halls, you name it.
Only thing the RN is good at now is making Admirals. We could not even protect our own coastline, this is the second time this has happened, what a joke. Only in deluded heads could they be giving out they are a world power and yet the coastline is supported by one ship out of Portsmouth, as said our £4B is well warranted. It is not even up to dad's Army standards.
And the SDF OPV's based out of Faslane would be quicker? Get yourself an atlas Unckie' Malc....
Rosyth to there in a rowing boat would be quicker and we would still have a wedge of the £4B we are currently being charged in our pockets. Can you not just admit it is pathetic.
Only thing the RN is good at now is making Admirals. We could not even protect our own coastline, this is the second time this has happened, what a joke. Only in deluded heads could they be giving out they are a world power and yet the coastline is supported by one ship out of Portsmouth, as said our £4B is well warranted. It is not even up to dad's Army standards.
And the SDF OPV's based out of Faslane would be quicker? Get yourself an atlas Unckie' Malc....
Oh yes, we ken fine where the Moray Firth is; there would be frigates, a command ship and MCMs as well on the starting benchmark (vide White Paper) - OPVs are a minor element; and you're assuming that base and patrol areas are the same, which is not the case (and Rosyth is an option for reinstatement as an operating base).
The Nimrod in its original (falling to bits, going on fire) and derived (MRA4 project) was a disaster by the late 2010s, so yes, it is not so much Nimrod per se but Nimrod-equivalent that we need. That there was, and still is, no replacement is the appalling thing. If an off the shelf plane such as Orion or Atlantic would do, then it should have been acquired in time. If there were genuine reasons for UK exceptionalism, then MRA4 should have delivered that - that it did not is appalling.
That those simple suggestions may seem trolling to you shows to my mind how far the UK has got from the notion of being able to run a competent defence of its own territory and resources.
More about what is in the curriculum than whether history is taught by women or men who are all too young to have served in WW2.
First, history (like many other subjects in what I think of as the Americanisation of education) has been split up into self-contained modules; secondly, there has been an attempt to add the skills and techniques of the professional historian to the GCSE curriculum, but since the average 14-year-old cannot discover and translate original documents buried in German or Russian archives, this tends to reduce to "imagine what it is like to be a mediaeval peasant/WW1 soldier/holocaust victim".
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
A bit of input (possibly not up to date) - I went through what was in an American school system (technically an international school but we were following a US curriculum and examinations). History was primarily taught in sequential geographical chunks: "The glory that was Greece", "the power that was Rome", "the Middle Ages", etc. There was a big chunk on the American Civil War, more about the causes and outcome than the campaign, and WW1 and WW2 were handled similarly - little on D-Day or Stalingrad, more about why it happened, which I think is a sensible approach - I'm very interested in battle detail as a wargamer, but discussion of causes matters more in general education. This was topped up with a fat volume of reading matter on what it was like to live in each period, but that was mainly dealt with as secondary material which it would be nice if we read - there wasn't any substantive use of it in essays or exams, and it was a bit heavy going to read e.g. a 19th century diary without any supporting discussion. There was a bit of rah-rah patriotism about the Revolution, but overall it wasn't as US-dominated as it might have been.
Overall it did a good job of showing the timeline and giving a rough idea of what happened, but it was seen by nearly everyone as pretty dry and boring, though it's stuck in my memory over 40 years later. Some roleplay of the secondary material would have been a really good idea, for boys too in my opinion.
That said, a problem about education is that we're all armchair generals with our own ideas, and we probably underestimate the difficulties and don't listen to the professionals as much as we would in, say, medicine or engineering.
Territorial-waters are twelve nautical-miles from the mean shore-line: Any warship is allowed passage outwith such area (regardless of what Wee-Fr'Eck might tell you otherwise).
NImord failed Haddon-Cave. This was mentioned at PPRuNe in February 2010.
If SNats wish to troll then they should - at least - learn some facts first. Their argument is as ridiculous as their party-leader....
The Nimrod MR4A project was poorly conceived by the previous Conservative administration, and shamefully continued by Labour years after it was obviously a dead-duck project. It should have been cancelled in the 2003-5 period.
That's the sort of military we had at the time: we lose an aircraft and 14 men, and the bureaucracy starts shredding files ...
Two cheeks of the same arse, fortunes spent on vanity projects , MOD buildings , Admirals , etc and despite huge expenditure we could not defend ourselves, a joke.
Teaching on the world wars at both my sons schools was very much on the suffering of troops and civilians and on the home front and the holocaust. The only significant discussion of a military nature was on D day. He was not taught on any other major battle. Not Singapore, not El Alamein, not the battle of the atlantic, and certainly not the arctic convoys, Stalingrad, Kursk or operation Bagration.
I think this emphasis is in part that most primary and history teachers are women, and few if any have any sympathy or experience of military matters. The emphasis on domestic social history is a reason for the underperformance of boys re girls at school. Boys quite like facts, usually more than roleplaying child refugees.
Most of my secondary school teachers, whether science or english or history had served in the forces in the war. They had different perspectives. Often quite anti war, but speaking from experience.
Leaving aside the accuracy of the history and Gove's odd misunderstanding of the "can all schools be better than average schools?" question, what are Gove and Hunt trying to do politically? Gove seems to have been pressing the "we should be more patrtiotic" button, using the WW1 anniversary as a hook: Mail readers may have empathised. Hunt is pressing the "Ministers are meddling and ignorant" button, which Observer readers are likely to identify with.
But Mike is right that Ministers are ill-advised to set up politicians vs teachers or politicians vs doctors fights, unless there is some overwhelming policy reason to do so. The majority of public opinion is in no doubt whatever which side they prefer in those choices.
Both Gove and Hunt know that if you control the past you have a much better chance of controlling the future. It's why politicians should not be allowed anywhere near the history curriculum. Instead, children should be equipped with: (1) a knowledge of what happened when and in what order (facts, dates, figures), and (2) the skills that enable them to work out for themselves why. Both are equally as important. When I was at school we did a great deal of (1) and almost none of (2); now it seems to have swung the other way.
I remember the day my history teacher (Mr Palmer, a wounded and demobbed ex air-crew) taught my class about Operation Bagration, while it was actually happening. It was 1944 and I was 10, and a V1 had fallen not so very far away. The lesson was supposed to be the opening phase of the English Civil War, but Palmer went to the blackboard turned it over to the side where he had drawn a map of the battle area in chalks, and proceeded to explain the capture of Bialystok. That lesson still fascinates me to this day.
Of course that Russian ship would not have been closely monitored and observed by one of those old Submarines MG wants to get rid of.
What sort of sub would that be?
If it was a Trident boat carrying the deterrent then patrolling inshore in often shallow waters close to a bogey is the last thing it wants to do.
The point of ptrolling your waters is to be seen to respond - and you can't do that in a hunter-killer boat unless you want to compromise the technology (by popping up the periscope in sight of the intruder). Nimrod (especially out of the Morayshire bases) was excellent for that - far quicker than the duty frigate from Pompey and highly visible.
it strikes me as plain wrong that for decades now no child in a state school has had to have been given an overall timeline of how we got to where we are today.
It is thoroughly undesirable that history should be studied in order to explain 'how we got to where we are today'. Such an approach is teleological, focused on the needs of the present, and is likely to privilege the investigation of elements which appear to anticipate "modernity", and ignore the remainder. There is a strong argument that no "modern" history should be taught at school level, in order to instil in potential undergraduate students the maxim that the past is a foreign country. Attempts to make academic history "relevant", whether of the Whiggish, Marxian, post-modernist or globalist variety, have all proved to be distortionary. Dusty antiquarianism is what is required.
I see Cameron making a real tit of himself as usual, fake as a three pound note.
PM's right-to-buy poster girl revealed to be estate agent - who sold the flat to herself
PM visited Sharon Ray at her home, bought with Help To Buy, on Thursday Last night it emerged she is sales director at the firm which sold the flat Anonymous blogger also revealed she drives £33,000 BMW convertible Ms Ray defends herself on Twitter saying she's 'done nothing wrong'
it strikes me as plain wrong that for decades now no child in a state school has had to have been given an overall timeline of how we got to where we are today.
It is thoroughly undesirable that history should be studied in order to explain 'how we got to where we are today'. Such an approach is teleological, focused on the needs of the present, and is likely to privilege the investigation of elements which appear to anticipate "modernity", and ignore the remainder. There is a strong argument that no "modern" history should be taught at school level, in order to instil in potential undergraduate students the maxim that the past is a foreign country. Attempts to make academic history "relevant", whether of the Whiggish, Marxian, post-modernist or globalist variety, have all proved to be distortionary. Dusty antiquarianism is what is required.
@Foxinsox- At my grammar school we did neither of the WWs. From the 4th year up to upper 6th we covered UK and European history from George III to 1914. I have no memory of what we did in the first three years. My best teacher was a woman.
At our kids' school they jumped from pillar to post. The Tudors to the Holocaust to a really detailed (and excellent) local history module. The teachers were mostly male.
Teachers teach what they are told to teach. As I said, a mix of what I got and what my kids had would be ideal in terms of approach; but from a content perspective it strikes me as plain wrong that for decades now no child in a state school has had to have been given an overall timeline of how we got to where we are today.
There is a big problem with the timeline approach to history, which is that unlike maths or French, history does not get harder as pupils get older. In other words, you end up with a seven-year-old's understanding of cavemen, a thirteen-year-old's understanding of the Tudors, and so on.
That said, a problem about education is that we're all armchair generals with our own ideas, and we probably underestimate the difficulties and don't listen to the professionals as much as we would in, say, medicine or engineering.
This. Writing in the Daily Mail, the Secretary of State for Transport said, "When I was young we used to have curvy stone bridges. It's time to stand up to these dogmatic engineering unions that insist on making flatter, metal ones."
Two cheeks of the same arse, fortunes spent on vanity projects , MOD buildings , Admirals , etc and despite huge expenditure we could not defend ourselves, a joke.
Prior to May 2010 did you not inquire [to me] why Scotland was [rumoured] to only to have a One-Star (Brigade) flag-officer? The fact that England can accommodate 4-Stars shows some lack of awareness based on not only size but proportion....
@Foxinsox- At my grammar school we did neither of the WWs. From the 4th year up to upper 6th we covered UK and European history from George III to 1914. I have no memory of what we did in the first three years. My best teacher was a woman.
At our kids' school they jumped from pillar to post. The Tudors to the Holocaust to a really detailed (and excellent) local history module. The teachers were mostly male.
Teachers teach what they are told to teach. As I said, a mix of what I got and what my kids had would be ideal in terms of approach; but from a content perspective it strikes me as plain wrong that for decades now no child in a state school has had to have been given an overall timeline of how we got to where we are today.
There is a big problem with the timeline approach to history, which is that unlike maths or French, history does not get harder as pupils get older. In other words, you end up with a seven-year-old's understanding of cavemen, a thirteen-year-old's understanding of the Tudors, and so on.
A very good point that I had not considered. However, there must be a way around it. We should all have a basic knowledge of our history. I would say only a small minority do currently.
Territorial-waters are twelve nautical-miles from the mean shore-line: Any warship is allowed passage outwith such area (regardless of what Wee-Fr'Eck might tell you otherwise).
NImord failed Haddon-Cave. This was mentioned at PPRuNe in February 2010.
If SNats wish to troll then they should - at least - learn some facts first. Their argument is as ridiculous as their party-leader....
The Nimrod MR4A project was poorly conceived by the previous Conservative administration, and shamefully continued by Labour years after it was obviously a dead-duck project. It should have been cancelled in the 2003-5 period.
That's the sort of military we had at the time: we lose an aircraft and 14 men, and the bureaucracy starts shredding files ...
Two cheeks of the same arse, fortunes spent on vanity projects , MOD buildings , Admirals , etc and despite huge expenditure we could not defend ourselves, a joke.
'we could not defend ourselves'
And you're basing this assumption on a sensationalist and inaccurate article in the DM?
Only thing the RN is good at now is making Admirals. We could not even protect our own coastline, this is the second time this has happened, what a joke. Only in deluded heads could they be giving out they are a world power and yet the coastline is supported by one ship out of Portsmouth, as said our £4B is well warranted. It is not even up to dad's Army standards.
And the SDF OPV's based out of Faslane would be quicker? Get yourself an atlas Unckie' Malc....
Oh yes, we ken fine where the Moray Firth is; there would be frigates, a command ship and MCMs as well on the starting benchmark (vide White Paper) - OPVs are a minor element; and you're assuming that base and patrol areas are the same, which is not the case (and Rosyth is an option for reinstatement as an operating base).
The Nimrod in its original (falling to bits, going on fire) and derived (MRA4 project) was a disaster by the late 2010s, so yes, it is not so much Nimrod per se but Nimrod-equivalent that we need. That there was, and still is, no replacement is the appalling thing. If an off the shelf plane such as Orion or Atlantic would do, then it should have been acquired in time. If there were genuine reasons for UK exceptionalism, then MRA4 should have delivered that - that it did not is appalling.
That those simple suggestions may seem trolling to you shows to my mind how far the UK has got from the notion of being able to run a competent defence of its own territory and resources.
AIUI (and this is not an area I know well, and I daresay Fluffy or someone else will correct me): the problem with the maritime reconnaissance role is that it requires a plane that can have long-loiter time at relatively low altitudes, as low as a couple of hundred feet above the waves to drop sensors or for maritime searches.
A modern airliner is designed to fly for many hours at high altitudes. If you take it to lower levels for long periods, then it decreases flying time and increases stress on airframes, effecting fatigue life.
We were fortunate that the Comet-based Nimrod was capable of this sort of mission profile. But in the end we just extended that basic airframe too much - in many ways the MRA4 was a brand new aircraft.
The US has tried going down the opposite track, heavily modifying the recently-designed 737-800 passenger airliner into the P8 Poseidon, including using wings from the 737-900. They apparently had problems making that airframe fit the low-and-long role.
However, for their version they have left on some sensors (MAD?), which reduces the need to go very low.
God knows what we're going to do. ISTR that helicopters are fulfilling the role temporarily, but they can't be as as capable ...
Good afternoon, everyone (historical revisionists, you shall be purged!).
On the timeline/hardness issue, surely the answer is to give a basic overview in primary school and then adding increasing detail and nuance later? Indeed, history has helpfully provided us with periods that are well-documented and those about which we know little, so the periods we have fuzzy knowledge of could be better for younger children, leaving the Later Republican period of Rome, for example, for older pupils.
@Foxinsox- At my grammar school we did neither of the WWs. From the 4th year up to upper 6th we covered UK and European history from George III to 1914. I have no memory of what we did in the first three years. My best teacher was a woman.
At our kids' school they jumped from pillar to post. The Tudors to the Holocaust to a really detailed (and excellent) local history module. The teachers were mostly male.
Teachers teach what they are told to teach. As I said, a mix of what I got and what my kids had would be ideal in terms of approach; but from a content perspective it strikes me as plain wrong that for decades now no child in a state school has had to have been given an overall timeline of how we got to where we are today.
There is a big problem with the timeline approach to history, which is that unlike maths or French, history does not get harder as pupils get older. In other words, you end up with a seven-year-old's understanding of cavemen, a thirteen-year-old's understanding of the Tudors, and so on.
My 10 year old grandson, when six, had to do a project on "The Celts". I sincerely hope he has a relearn at some point!
@Foxinsox- At my grammar school we did neither of the WWs. From the 4th year up to upper 6th we covered UK and European history from George III to 1914. I have no memory of what we did in the first three years. My best teacher was a woman.
At our kids' school they jumped from pillar to post. The Tudors to the Holocaust to a really detailed (and excellent) local history module. The teachers were mostly male.
Teachers teach what they are told to teach. As I said, a mix of what I got and what my kids had would be ideal in terms of approach; but from a content perspective it strikes me as plain wrong that for decades now no child in a state school has had to have been given an overall timeline of how we got to where we are today.
There is a big problem with the timeline approach to history, which is that unlike maths or French, history does not get harder as pupils get older. In other words, you end up with a seven-year-old's understanding of cavemen, a thirteen-year-old's understanding of the Tudors, and so on.
A very good point that I had not considered. However, there must be a way around it. We should all have a basic knowledge of our history. I would say only a small minority do currently.
There is a big problem with the timeline approach to history, which is that unlike maths or French, history does not get harder as pupils get older. In other words, you end up with a seven-year-old's understanding of cavemen, a thirteen-year-old's understanding of the Tudors, and so on.
A very good point that I had not considered. However, there must be a way around it. We should all have a basic knowledge of our history. I would say only a small minority do currently.
Yes, a good example of the need for professional input. Perhaps (armchair generalling again) the need is for a timeline module late in the curriculum which brings together all the different bits that kids have studied.
Arguably, though, it is indeed simpler to study the stone age, because there's simply less evidence about it, and it's less obviously relevant too. It's probably important to modern society to understand recent history, perhaps not so important to understand the spread of understanding of the use of fire or the wheel, especially as we don't really know. (Disclaimer: this is just idle saloon bar debate, I'm not proposing to put forward my views to a Select Committee)
By the way, would something really recent like Afghanistan where the facts are not yet entirely clear and subject to dispute be taught in schools at all? A basic understanding of the pros and cons of intervention seems a useful thing for voters to have.
Incidentally, and on a serious note, I'm glad we're having a sensible discussion about the proper teaching of history. Lack thereof leads to us collectively repeating the mistakes of the past, revisionism and can, in extreme cases, lead certain individuals to believe Caesar was somehow a more capable general than Hannibal.
Classical history is an excellent period to teach (notably the Second Punic War, Later Republican Rome and the decline of the Western Empire). For younger pupils episodes such as the thwarting of Xerxes' ambitions (Thermopylae) and the retreat of the Ten Thousand from the heart of Persia could be ideal.
Yes, a good example of the need for professional input. Perhaps (armchair generalling again) the need is for a timeline module late in the curriculum which brings together all the different bits that kids have studied.
Arguably, though, it is indeed simpler to study the stone age, because there's simply less evidence about it, and it's less obviously relevant too. It's probably important to modern society to understand recent history, perhaps not so important to understand the spread of understanding of the use of fire or the wheel, especially as we don't really know. (Disclaimer: this is just idle saloon bar debate, I'm not proposing to put forward my views to a Select Committee)
By the way, would something really recent like Afghanistan where the facts are not yet entirely clear and subject to dispute be taught in schools at all? A basic understanding of the pros and cons of intervention seems a useful thing for voters to have.
I think you are absolutely right about the timeline idea Nick. It would also help to some extent to square the circle between studying history as a series of events (which undoubtedly do need to be known) and studying it as an analytical technique (which is probably more important but not the whole answer).
I was extremely fortunate in that my 'A' level history course was very cleverly designed to look at the extremes of evidence whilst developing a solid understanding of the periods we were looking at. Running concurrently with two separate teachers we studied the Sub-Roman/Early Medieval period (then known as the Anglo-Saxon period) and the early to mid 19th century - under the heading of 'mid-Victorian prosperity'.
This gave us the two extremes of evidence and taught us how to use them. In one case there is little documentary evidence and what there is is usually not primary source material so that other techniques (archaeology particularly) need to be used to help verify or disprove the documentary evidence. In the other case there is a tidal wave of documentary evidence - novels, journals and diaries, acts of Parliament, newspapers and official reports - all of which have to be interpreted and analysed.
It was a very effective and thorough introduction to the study of history and one I am very grateful for.
By the way, I do think that the wargaming hobby has the potential to play a big part in helping children develop and understanding of the timelines of history. Something that can come under the heading of teaching kids without them realising it.
Why are all the Scotch Nats getting their sporrans in a twist over a Russian boat?
Russia has been penetrating the coastal waters of western countries for decades: either by air, surface ship or submarine.
Remember 'Whisky on the Rocks' in 1981, when the Soviet submarine S-363 ran aground in the fjord leading to Sweden's naval base in Karlsrona? It set off a 14 day stand off with all kinds of military and diplomatic shenanigans.
At least the Swedes identified the sub correctly. The periscope of its sister Whisky class submarine which penetrated Loch Ness is still being mistaken by the Scots for the head of a monster.
Malc, there are clear and present dangers much closer than twelve miles off the Moray Firth.
Arguably, though, it is indeed simpler to study the stone age, because there's simply less evidence about it, and it's less obviously relevant too. It's probably important to modern society to understand recent history, perhaps not so important to understand the spread of understanding of the use of fire or the wheel, especially as we don't really know...
By the way, would something really recent like Afghanistan where the facts are not yet entirely clear and subject to dispute be taught in schools at all? A basic understanding of the pros and cons of intervention seems a useful thing for voters to have.
Areas where there is limited evidence are the most difficult to study and to teach, and fragmentary and dubious evidence often ensures that the field is the preserve of specialists. The purpose of history is not to educate potential voters about which political positions to support. It is to study primary evidence, and the relevant secondary debates, in order to arrive at a reasonable account of what went on in the past. Should voters choose to appropriate, and in all probability misuse history to inform contemporary political debate, that is their business, but it must be kept out of the academy.
Incidentally, and on a serious note, I'm glad we're having a sensible discussion about the proper teaching of history. Lack thereof leads to us collectively repeating the mistakes of the past, revisionism and can, in extreme cases, lead certain individuals to believe Caesar was somehow a more capable general than Hannibal.
With all the indictments of historical "revisionism" being preferred on here today, it is beginning to feel like Hoxhaist Alabania.
Incidentally, and on a serious note, I'm glad we're having a sensible discussion about the proper teaching of history.
Are we having a sensible discussion about the proper teaching of history? My impression reading the thread is that nobody here knows anything about it, and we're all just pulling stuff out of our arses.
The fact that they were individual aircraft (and not a common design) meant that the wing-roots were spannahed. It is not the MRA4 that is missed - AIUI - but the Helix system: AirSeeker looks good-for-the-money though....
AIUI (and this is not an area I know well, and I daresay Fluffy or someone else will correct me): the problem with the maritime reconnaissance role is that it requires a plane that can have long-loiter time at relatively low altitudes, as low as a couple of hundred feet above the waves to drop sensors or for maritime searches.
A modern airliner is designed to fly for many hours at high altitudes. If you take it to lower levels for long periods, then it decreases flying time and increases stress on airframes, effecting fatigue life.
We were fortunate that the Comet-based Nimrod was capable of this sort of mission profile. But in the end we just extended that basic airframe too much - in many ways the MRA4 was a brand new aircraft.
The US has tried going down the opposite track, heavily modifying the recently-designed 737-800 passenger airliner into the P8 Poseidon, including using wings from the 737-900. They apparently had problems making that airframe fit the low-and-long role.
However, for their version they have left on some sensors (MAD?), which reduces the need to go very low.
God knows what we're going to do. ISTR that helicopters are fulfilling the role temporarily, but they can't be as as capable ...
Thank you - constructive comments. I do indeed recall that Nimrod was announced, on its appearance in the 60s, as being able to fly fast and high to the patrol area and then drop down and fly slow and low. One would imagine that the Orion or Atlantic/Atlantique would also be designed for this, though I don't know. Even so they are better than nothing and I'm still surprised the Uk didn't buy some as interim a/c.
Two cheeks of the same arse, fortunes spent on vanity projects , MOD buildings , Admirals , etc and despite huge expenditure we could not defend ourselves, a joke.
Prior to May 2010 did you not inquire [to me] why Scotland was [rumoured] to only to have a One-Star (Brigade) flag-officer? The fact that England can accommodate 4-Stars shows some lack of awareness based on not only size but proportion....
Ha,Ha <Ha you are really struggling now, justifying old fogey's sitting in the mess with stars and medals talking about what big shots they are , meanwhile we cannot beat a few toerags and need two days to intercept a ship 30 miles off our coast. Yes money is being spent wisely
Why are all the Scotch Nats getting their sporrans in a twist over a Russian boat?
Russia has been penetrating the coastal waters of western countries for decades: either by air, surface ship or submarine.
Remember 'Whisky on the Rocks' in 1981, when the Soviet submarine S-363 ran aground in the fjord leading to Sweden's naval base in Karlsrona? It set off a 14 day stand off with all kinds of military and diplomatic shenanigans.
At least the Swedes identified the sub correctly. The periscope of its sister Whisky class submarine which penetrated Loch Ness is still being mistaken by the Scots for the head of a monster.
Malc, there are clear and present dangers much closer than twelve miles off the Moray Firth.
Avery, the danger of the mess running out of gin or lemon slices perhaps
I recall doing a doco on Pilots Survival Suits and was dropped into the sea off the coast of Scotland. by chopper.The suit had the very latest rescue bleeper fitted, problem was it didn't work. Many hours later and very seasick I watched the sun begin to set on the horizon and a Nimrod, with several helicopters , search the sea about ten miles away.I was spotted by a civilain chopper going over from Ireland.Twenty mins later I was plucked from the water.
Only thing the RN is good at now is making Admirals. We could not even protect our own coastline, this is the second time this has happened, what a joke. Only in deluded heads could they be giving out they are a world power and yet the coastline is supported by one ship out of Portsmouth, as said our £4B is well warranted. It is not even up to dad's Army standards.
And the SDF OPV's based out of Faslane would be quicker? Get yourself an atlas Unckie' Malc....
Oh yes, we ken fine where the Moray Firth is; there would be frigates, a command ship and MCMs as well on the starting benchmark (vide White Paper) - OPVs are a minor element; and you're assuming that base and patrol areas are the same, which is not the case (and Rosyth is an option for reinstatement as an operating base).
That those simple suggestions may seem trolling to you shows to my mind how far the UK has got from the notion of being able to run a competent defence of its own territory and resources.
AIUI (and this is not an area I know well, and I daresay Fluffy or someone else will correct me): the problem with the maritime reconnaissance role is that it requires a plane that can have long-loiter time at relatively low altitudes, as low as a couple of hundred feet above the waves to drop sensors or for maritime searches.
A modern airliner is designed to fly for many hours at high altitudes. If you take it to lower levels for long periods, then it decreases flying time and increases stress on airframes, effecting fatigue life.
We were fortunate that the Comet-based Nimrod was capable of this sort of mission profile. But in the end we just extended that basic airframe too much - in many ways the MRA4 was a brand new aircraft.
The US has tried going down the opposite track, heavily modifying the recently-designed 737-800 passenger airliner into the P8 Poseidon, including using wings from the 737-900. They apparently had problems making that airframe fit the low-and-long role.
However, for their version they have left on some sensors (MAD?), which reduces the need to go very low.
God knows what we're going to do. ISTR that helicopters are fulfilling the role temporarily, but they can't be as as capable ...
We will no doubt use our aircraftless carriers and send them up to scare people off or at least make the helicopter journeys shorter
Thank you - constructive comments. I do indeed recall that Nimrod was announced, on its appearance in the 60s, as being able to fly fast and high to the patrol area and then drop down and fly slow and low. One would imagine that the Orion or Atlantic/Atlantique would also be designed for this, though I don't know. Even so they are better than nothing and I'm still surprised the Uk didn't buy some as interim a/c.
You mean like Merlin, Hercules and AWACS? Sentinel has been proffered as a future solution. Sadly all the spare monies were w@nked on the A400M Euro-Turkey....
P.S. As an aside; I am happy to see you weeping over the privatisation of SAR. Despite Scotland having it's own, nowhere to be seen, Fishery-Protection fleet you will soon - being devolved - also have to accept that your taxes should be expended on your waters for said services!
The fact that they were individual aircraft (and not a common design) meant that the wing-roots were spannahed. It is not the MRA4 that is missed - AIUI - but the Helix system: AirSeeker looks good-for-the-money though....
Is it true that BAE got given an MR2, and they designed and built the wing-root extensions for all the planes based on that plane? Then when they got the first one in for modification, they realised that plane's wings dimensions were different. And the same for the next, and the next. Meaning all the existing work had to be scrapped, and each wing extension individually designed and built?
At least, that's what someone down the pub told me a while back. ;-)
The differences were because the original planes were hand-built, in a time when small differences of half an inch or so did not matter. But they do matter when you're extending the wings ...
The MRA4 was surely such a big change from the original plane that it was essentially new: only the fuselage remained the same, and even that was renovated to last another two or three decades.
Territorial-waters are twelve nautical-miles from the mean shore-line: Any warship is allowed passage outwith such area (regardless of what Wee-Fr'Eck might tell you otherwise).
NImord failed Haddon-Cave. This was mentioned at PPRuNe in February 2010.
If SNats wish to troll then they should - at least - learn some facts first. Their argument is as ridiculous as their party-leader....
The Nimrod MR4A project was poorly conceived by the previous Conservative administration, and shamefully continued by Labour years after it was obviously a dead-duck project. It should have been cancelled in the 2003-5 period.
That's the sort of military we had at the time: we lose an aircraft and 14 men, and the bureaucracy starts shredding files ...
Two cheeks of the same arse, fortunes spent on vanity projects , MOD buildings , Admirals , etc and despite huge expenditure we could not defend ourselves, a joke.
'we could not defend ourselves'
And you're basing this assumption on a sensationalist and inaccurate article in the DM?
Bit early to be knocking back the Bucky, Malky.
Always know when you are beaten when you roll out your old canard. LOL not even Dad's Army standard but gold standard costs, only Westminster could give that value for money. Still their chums are getting ever fatter and happier on the proceeds.
Why are all the Scotch Nats getting their sporrans in a twist over a Russian boat?
Russia has been penetrating the coastal waters of western countries for decades: either by air, surface ship or submarine.
Remember 'Whisky on the Rocks' in 1981, when the Soviet submarine S-363 ran aground in the fjord leading to Sweden's naval base in Karlsrona? It set off a 14 day stand off with all kinds of military and diplomatic shenanigans.
At least the Swedes identified the sub correctly. The periscope of its sister Whisky class submarine which penetrated Loch Ness is still being mistaken by the Scots for the head of a monster.
Malc, there are clear and present dangers much closer than twelve miles off the Moray Firth.
Perhaps because the Unionists keep going on about how important defence is, and how it can't possibly be left to the Scots themselves? And yet even the most basic SDF Phase A proposal in the White Paper is a considerable improvement from what we have been getting in the last few years. As the No Campaign won't tell us what we get if we vote no, that leaves us (dishonestly on their part, I suspect) to infer we get the status quo. Which is ...
I'm actually far more concerned at the moment about rescue and disaster cover and economic protection but to be worried also about military threats would be no more than being in line with Unionist sayings - if not doings.
And many thanks to those discussing history teaching. Most interesting.
Thank you - constructive comments. I do indeed recall that Nimrod was announced, on its appearance in the 60s, as being able to fly fast and high to the patrol area and then drop down and fly slow and low. One would imagine that the Orion or Atlantic/Atlantique would also be designed for this, though I don't know. Even so they are better than nothing and I'm still surprised the Uk didn't buy some as interim a/c.
You mean like Merlin, Hercules and AWACS? Sentinel has been proffered as a future solution. Sadly all the spare monies were w@nked on the A400M Euro-Turkey....
P.S. As an aside; I am happy to see you weeping over the privatisation of SAR. Despite Scotland having it's own, nowhere to be seen, Fishery-Protection fleet you will soon - being devolved - also have to accept that your taxes should be expended on your waters for said services!
:twunt:
Fluffy you twunts will be laughing on the other side of your faces when our £4B per annum is being spent in Scotland and not pissed up a wall by Westminster.
Incidentally, and on a serious note, I'm glad we're having a sensible discussion about the proper teaching of history.
Are we having a sensible discussion about the proper teaching of history? My impression reading the thread is that nobody here knows anything about it, and we're all just pulling stuff out of our arses.
Does anyone *know* anything about teaching history? Surely we can only have opinions - some better informed than others? I may be talking out of my arse, but I do so as someone who studied history in one way or another from the age of five through to 21 (primary school through to the end of university), and who has put three children through the state school system, one of whom is now studying history at university.
Areas where there is limited evidence are the most difficult to study and to teach, and fragmentary and dubious evidence often ensures that the field is the preserve of specialists. The purpose of history is not to educate potential voters about which political positions to support. It is to study primary evidence, and the relevant secondary debates, in order to arrive at a reasonable account of what went on in the past. Should voters choose to appropriate, and in all probability misuse history to inform contemporary political debate, that is their business, but it must be kept out of the academy.
I always like reading your uncompromsing comments - not many people work from a general view as consistently as you. However, I'm not sure that the purpose of studying history has been as universally agreed as you suppose. You see it as something akin to pure mathematics (which is what I studied), which deliberately avoids discussion of relevance in favour of undiluted analysis of facts. The drawback about that for history (and indeed for mathematics) is that it makes the subject seem both dry and irrelevant to most pupils.
Clearly we do not want pupils indoctrinated by any particular view. But understanding the range of opinion about, say, whether Britain should intervene in other countries would be useful and informed by an understanding of what has happened up to now.
It was a very effective and thorough introduction to the study of history and one I am very grateful for.
By the way, I do think that the wargaming hobby has the potential to play a big part in helping children develop and understanding of the timelines of history. Something that can come under the heading of teaching kids without them realising it.
Your experience sounds great. On wargaming, it's certainly given me a vastly increased interest in both history and geography, neither of which engaged me at school. Role-playing wargames where a number of people take different roles in e.g. Middle East simulation are particularly interesting, though I imagine would be very hard to handle without controversy.
Thank you - constructive comments. I do indeed recall that Nimrod was announced, on its appearance in the 60s, as being able to fly fast and high to the patrol area and then drop down and fly slow and low. One would imagine that the Orion or Atlantic/Atlantique would also be designed for this, though I don't know. Even so they are better than nothing and I'm still surprised the Uk didn't buy some as interim a/c.
You mean like Merlin, Hercules and AWACS? Sentinel has been proffered as a future solution. Sadly all the spare monies were w@nked on the A400M Euro-Turkey....
P.S. As an aside; I am happy to see you weeping over the privatisation of SAR. Despite Scotland having it's own, nowhere to be seen, Fishery-Protection fleet you will soon - being devolved - also have to accept that your taxes should be expended on your waters for said services!
:twunt:
Not knowing what a twunt is, I am at a disadgantage. But I would be only too happy to see my taxes spent on services we badly need here in Scotland - and at the moment the only plausible way for that is ...?
Thank you - constructive comments. I do indeed recall that Nimrod was announced, on its appearance in the 60s, as being able to fly fast and high to the patrol area and then drop down and fly slow and low. One would imagine that the Orion or Atlantic/Atlantique would also be designed for this, though I don't know. Even so they are better than nothing and I'm still surprised the Uk didn't buy some as interim a/c.
You mean like Merlin, Hercules and AWACS? Sentinel has been proffered as a future solution. Sadly all the spare monies were w@nked on the A400M Euro-Turkey....
P.S. As an aside; I am happy to see you weeping over the privatisation of SAR. Despite Scotland having it's own, nowhere to be seen, Fishery-Protection fleet you will soon - being devolved - also have to accept that your taxes should be expended on your waters for said services!
:twunt:
Fluffy you twunts will be laughing on the other side of your faces when our £4B per annum is being spent in Scotland and not pissed up a wall by Westminster.
Wee Eck will blow it all on golfing trousers, and expensive foreign 'fact finding' missions.
Fluffy you twunts will be laughing on the other side of your faces when our £4B per annum is being spent in Scotland and not pissed up a wall by Westminster.
Unckie' Malc:
Get yourself an atlas: Look at your coastline* and EEZ. Then - and breathe - think about the size of your economy and population. At this point give-up.
Norway spends 50% more on defence - per-capita, nominal - than either England or France. Now factor how they need conscription to maintain this model; will off-shore their "Dave" support to England; and that the SDF will have ~Euro 3billion (Sterling being refused) to fund what you claim is £4-billion (12% of MoD expenditure) on bennies for Buckfast....
Incidentally, and on a serious note, I'm glad we're having a sensible discussion about the proper teaching of history.
Are we having a sensible discussion about the proper teaching of history? My impression reading the thread is that nobody here knows anything about it, and we're all just pulling stuff out of our arses.
Does anyone *know* anything about teaching history? Surely we can only have opinions - some better informed than others? I may be talking out of my arse, but I do so as someone who studied history in one way or another from the age of five through to 21 (primary school through to the end of university), and who has put three children through the state school system, one of whom is now studying history at university.
History teachers hopefully know quite a lot about teaching history, and there's a whole field of people who research teaching methods and learning outcomes.
Thank you - constructive comments. I do indeed recall that Nimrod was announced, on its appearance in the 60s, as being able to fly fast and high to the patrol area and then drop down and fly slow and low. One would imagine that the Orion or Atlantic/Atlantique would also be designed for this, though I don't know. Even so they are better than nothing and I'm still surprised the Uk didn't buy some as interim a/c.
You mean like Merlin, Hercules and AWACS? Sentinel has been proffered as a future solution. Sadly all the spare monies were w@nked on the A400M Euro-Turkey....
P.S. As an aside; I am happy to see you weeping over the privatisation of SAR. Despite Scotland having it's own, nowhere to be seen, Fishery-Protection fleet you will soon - being devolved - also have to accept that your taxes should be expended on your waters for said services!
:twunt:
Fluffy you twunts will be laughing on the other side of your faces when our £4B per annum is being spent in Scotland and not pissed up a wall by Westminster.
Wee Eck will blow it all on golfing trousers, and expensive foreign 'fact finding' missions.
Very adult addition to the topic, not just beaten I see but shattered. UK armed forces would struggle to break out of a wet paper poke. Only thing they are good at is senior officers sitting in mess enjoying drinking and eating their weights in our cash. What will they do without our £4B , dear dear.
Incidentally, and on a serious note, I'm glad we're having a sensible discussion about the proper teaching of history.
Are we having a sensible discussion about the proper teaching of history? My impression reading the thread is that nobody here knows anything about it, and we're all just pulling stuff out of our arses.
Does anyone *know* anything about teaching history? Surely we can only have opinions - some better informed than others? I may be talking out of my arse, but I do so as someone who studied history in one way or another from the age of five through to 21 (primary school through to the end of university), and who has put three children through the state school system, one of whom is now studying history at university.
I wrote an essay on "What is History" for a degree course three years ago... Will try and dig it out and see what I said! It got a 2.1, but was probably a load of rubbish
Fluffy you twunts will be laughing on the other side of your faces when our £4B per annum is being spent in Scotland and not pissed up a wall by Westminster.
Unckie' Malc:
Get yourself an atlas: Look at your coastline* and EEZ. Then - and breathe - think about the size of your economy and population. At this point give-up.
Norway spends 50% more on defence - per-capita, nominal - than either England or France. Now factor how they need conscription to maintain this model; will off-shore their "Dave" support to England; and that the SDF will have ~Euro 3billion (Sterling being refused) to fund what you claim is £4-billion (12% of MoD expenditure) on bennies for Buckfast....
I think I have made my point....
* Or your waistline. Both are proxies...! :P
Fluffy , for our £4B I think we will manage to have some kind of ship berthed nearer than 600-700 miles away as our fast response. A couple of rowing boats will be a better defence than what we have now and they would not come close to £4B a year. Why not just admit our defence spending is wasted and we do not get value for money.
You either agree to international norms: Provide SAR for your EEZ or you give-up sovereignty. Seeing the eScoti, Ulster-Scots and other Oirish having a handbag over Rockall EEZ/SAR could be meaninglessly fun....
Is Scotland planning to build its own planes, ships and tanks? Or is it planning to import them?
I am sure the Russkis would have been petrified by the appearance of an armed trawler. Perhaps the Captain could board them and behead the Russkis with his claymore!
Surely an overflight by a couple of Tornados was all that was required, sending a frigate seems a bit unnessecary.
Thank you - constructive comments. I do indeed recall that Nimrod was announced, on its appearance in the 60s, as being able to fly fast and high to the patrol area and then drop down and fly slow and low. One would imagine that the Orion or Atlantic/Atlantique would also be designed for this, though I don't know. Even so they are better than nothing and I'm still surprised the Uk didn't buy some as interim a/c.
You mean like Merlin, Hercules and AWACS? Sentinel has been proffered as a future solution. Sadly all the spare monies were w@nked on the A400M Euro-Turkey....
P.S. As an aside; I am happy to see you weeping over the privatisation of SAR. Despite Scotland having it's own, nowhere to be seen, Fishery-Protection fleet you will soon - being devolved - also have to accept that your taxes should be expended on your waters for said services!
:twunt:
Fluffy you twunts will be laughing on the other side of your faces when our £4B per annum is being spent in Scotland and not pissed up a wall by Westminster.
Thank you - constructive comments. I do indeed recall that Nimrod was announced, on its appearance in the 60s, as being able to fly fast and high to the patrol area and then drop down and fly slow and low. One would imagine that the Orion or Atlantic/Atlantique would also be designed for this, though I don't know. Even so they are better than nothing and I'm still surprised the Uk didn't buy some as interim a/c.
You mean like Merlin, Hercules and AWACS? Sentinel has been proffered as a future solution. Sadly all the spare monies were w@nked on the A400M Euro-Turkey....
P.S. As an aside; I am happy to see you weeping over the privatisation of SAR. Despite Scotland having it's own, nowhere to be seen, Fishery-Protection fleet you will soon - being devolved - also have to accept that your taxes should be expended on your waters for said services!
:twunt:
Fluffy you twunts will be laughing on the other side of your faces when our £4B per annum is being spent in Scotland and not pissed up a wall by Westminster.
Wee Eck will blow it all on golfing trousers, and expensive foreign 'fact finding' missions.
Very adult addition to the topic, not just beaten I see but shattered. UK armed forces would struggle to break out of a wet paper poke. Only thing they are good at is senior officers sitting in mess enjoying drinking and eating their weights in our cash. What will they do without our £4B , dear dear.
Malcolm, you've spent the day trolling on the basis of a wildly inaccurate and sensationalist DM article.
Your suggestion that Senior Officers spend all day eating and drinking their way through the Defence budget adds what 'sensibility' to the discussion?
Thank you - constructive comments. I do indeed recall that Nimrod was announced, on its appearance in the 60s, as being able to fly fast and high to the patrol area and then drop down and fly slow and low. One would imagine that the Orion or Atlantic/Atlantique would also be designed for this, though I don't know. Even so they are better than nothing and I'm still surprised the Uk didn't buy some as interim a/c.
You mean like Merlin, Hercules and AWACS? Sentinel has been proffered as a future solution. Sadly all the spare monies were w@nked on the A400M Euro-Turkey....
P.S. As an aside; I am happy to see you weeping over the privatisation of SAR. Despite Scotland having it's own, nowhere to be seen, Fishery-Protection fleet you will soon - being devolved - also have to accept that your taxes should be expended on your waters for said services!
:twunt:
Not knowing what a twunt is, I am at a disadgantage. But I would be only too happy to see my taxes spent on services we badly need here in Scotland - and at the moment the only plausible way for that is ...?
carnyx, you change the initial 2 letters with a C and you get the meaning. Gist is you have touched a sore point and rubbished their pathetic claims that UK has world class forces and that our £4B is well spent having a "fast response" ship in Portsmouth is our union benefit and the fact that you are not genuflecting and praising them for this means you should be pilloried.
I always like reading your uncompromsing comments - not many people work from a general view as consistently as you. However, I'm not sure that the purpose of studying history has been as universally agreed as you suppose. You see it as something akin to pure mathematics (which is what I studied), which deliberately avoids discussion of relevance in favour of undiluted analysis of facts. The drawback about that for history (and indeed for mathematics) is that it makes the subject seem both dry and irrelevant to most pupils.
Clearly we do not want pupils indoctrinated by any particular view. But understanding the range of opinion about, say, whether Britain should intervene in other countries would be useful and informed by an understanding of what has happened up to now.
History is an art, not a science. It aims at providing spatially and temporally particular explanations of continuity and change, rather than universal atemporal truths. I accept that the drawback of an intellectually rigorous approach to evidence is that it may not excite the interest of pupils. Better that than have undergraduates turn up at university with false expectations about the subject. Let them worship false idols at the Politics, Sociology and "Cultural Studies" Faculties instead... I accept that my interpretation of what academic history should be is contentious. Then again, I think it intellectually and logically superior to the others. Is there really anyone who would seriously argue, for example, that historical materialism or Lacanian psychoanalysis are viable alternatives?
Thank you - constructive comments. I do indeed recall that Nimrod was announced, on its appearance in the 60s, as being able to fly fast and high to the patrol area and then drop down and fly slow and low. One would imagine that the Orion or Atlantic/Atlantique would also be designed for this, though I don't know. Even so they are better than nothing and I'm still surprised the Uk didn't buy some as interim a/c.
You mean like Merlin, Hercules and AWACS? Sentinel has been proffered as a future solution. Sadly all the spare monies were w@nked on the A400M Euro-Turkey....
P.S. As an aside; I am happy to see you weeping over the privatisation of SAR. Despite Scotland having it's own, nowhere to be seen, Fishery-Protection fleet you will soon - being devolved - also have to accept that your taxes should be expended on your waters for said services!
:twunt:
Fluffy you twunts will be laughing on the other side of your faces when our £4B per annum is being spent in Scotland and not pissed up a wall by Westminster.
Wee Eck will blow it all on golfing trousers, and expensive foreign 'fact finding' missions.
Very adult addition to the topic, not just beaten I see but shattered. UK armed forces would struggle to break out of a wet paper poke. Only thing they are good at is senior officers sitting in mess enjoying drinking and eating their weights in our cash. What will they do without our £4B , dear dear.
Not like you to be so provocative, Mr g. Just like you to be so wrong, mind.
Fluffy , for our £4B I think we will manage to have some kind of ship berthed nearer than 600-700 miles away as our fast response. A couple of rowing boats will be a better defence than what we have now and they would not come close to £4B a year. Why not just admit our defence spending is wasted and we do not get value for money.
:Fund-Raising[sic]-Request:
Can patrons please support Unckie' Malc's attempt to start the Scottish version of the "Natural-Law" Party. Apparently he can levitate 2K-tonnes vessels from Faslane to the Moray-Firth...!
The Observer front page is also the first one featured......must be because of the Observer's impressive reach and circulation.....no doubt......
And of the five papers shown, three support the Conservative Party -- the Mail, Telegraph and Sunday Times. More proof that the Tory-led BBC is biased to the right.
I think that you are agreeing with Gove! Surely what he was arguing was for the Great War to be discussed from a variety of perspectives, which should include both a patriotic approach and a critique of imperialism and jingoism.
I too learned a lot at the school of Avalon Hill and SPI. I woild add forward planning and understanding probability to history and geography.
Areas where there is limited evidence are the most difficult to study and to teach, and fragmentary and dubious evidence often ensures that the field is the preserve of specialists. The purpose of history is not to educate potential voters about which political positions to support. It is to study primary evidence, and the relevant secondary debates, in order to arrive at a reasonable account of what went on in the past. Should voters choose to appropriate, and in all probability misuse history to inform contemporary political debate, that is their business, but it must be kept out of the academy.
I always like reading your uncompromsing comments - not many people work from a general view as consistently as you. However, I'm not sure that the purpose of studying history has been as universally agreed as you suppose. You see it as something akin to pure mathematics (which is what I studied), which deliberately avoids discussion of relevance in favour of undiluted analysis of facts. The drawback about that for history (and indeed for mathematics) is that it makes the subject seem both dry and irrelevant to most pupils.
Clearly we do not want pupils indoctrinated by any particular view. But understanding the range of opinion about, say, whether Britain should intervene in other countries would be useful and informed by an understanding of what has happened up to now.
It was a very effective and thorough introduction to the study of history and one I am very grateful for.
By the way, I do think that the wargaming hobby has the potential to play a big part in helping children develop and understanding of the timelines of history. Something that can come under the heading of teaching kids without them realising it.
Your experience sounds great. On wargaming, it's certainly given me a vastly increased interest in both history and geography, neither of which engaged me at school. Role-playing wargames where a number of people take different roles in e.g. Middle East simulation are particularly interesting, though I imagine would be very hard to handle without controversy.
Thank you - constructive comments. I do indeed recall that Nimrod was announced, on its appearance in the 60s, as being able to fly fast and high to the patrol area and then drop down and fly slow and low. One would imagine that the Orion or Atlantic/Atlantique would also be designed for this, though I don't know. Even so they are better than nothing and I'm still surprised the Uk didn't buy some as interim a/c.
You mean like Merlin, Hercules and AWACS? Sentinel has been proffered as a future solution. Sadly all the spare monies were w@nked on the A400M Euro-Turkey....
P.S. As an aside; I am happy to see you weeping over the privatisation of SAR. Despite Scotland having it's own, nowhere to be seen, Fishery-Protection fleet you will soon - being devolved - also have to accept that your taxes should be expended on your waters for said services!
:twunt:
Not knowing what a twunt is, I am at a disadgantage. But I would be only too happy to see my taxes spent on services we badly need here in Scotland - and at the moment the only plausible way for that is ...?
carnyx, you change the initial 2 letters with a C and you get the meaning. Gist is you have touched a sore point and rubbished their pathetic claims that UK has world class forces and that our £4B is well spent having a "fast response" ship in Portsmouth is our union benefit and the fact that you are not genuflecting and praising them for this means you should be pilloried.
Thank you. I did wonder about that particular term, but was too kind-hearted to believe it as I assumed that the standard of debate and courtesy here was always rather better than in the Scotsman comments pages, at least for all regular posters! Maybe we need an anatomical equivalent of Godwin's Law - Gray's Law - with a Buckfast Abbot's Regulation corollary?
I am astonished that more people aren't concerned about the issue - there must be enough rightwingers and rescue-oriented lefties on this board. Anyway, it has been instructive in more than one sense (there were some good points made) and I'm off for a walk now. I'm just hoping that the reduction in coverage (until something is done about it) is not going to play a part in the next disaster, of whatever kind, to afflict our shores.
The Observer front page is also the first one featured......must be because of the Observer's impressive reach and circulation.....no doubt......
And of the five papers shown, three support the Conservative Party -- the Mail, Telegraph and Sunday Times. More proof that the Tory-led BBC is biased to the right.
Don't worry, DJL, it is all about to be 'commercialised'.
Now the FCO has offloaded the World Service onto the licence payer, its remit is being reworked.
Out go dull attempts to convert communists into free market economists. In comes adverts and woman friendly fashion comment.
The Independent on Sunday has seen an internal BBC communication which encourages journalists working on the BBC World News global television operation to follow a supposedly more female-friendly news agenda, with more stories on "fashion" and fewer on "politics".
...
Details of the proposed "feminisation" of the World News output follow research carried out by the BBC's "audience team" to mark International Women's Day. In a memo written to staff on 26 November, Zoe Porter, editor of BBC World News, gave a summary of women's feedback on the output.
It called for more coverage of "young presenters, women field reporters and fashion".
The BBC World Service in Berlin already carries advertisements.
The BBC. Popular, audience driven and self-financing? Whatever next.
Incidentally, and on a serious note, I'm glad we're having a sensible discussion about the proper teaching of history.
Are we having a sensible discussion about the proper teaching of history? My impression reading the thread is that nobody here knows anything about it, and we're all just pulling stuff out of our arses.
Does anyone *know* anything about teaching history? Surely we can only have opinions - some better informed than others? I may be talking out of my arse, but I do so as someone who studied history in one way or another from the age of five through to 21 (primary school through to the end of university), and who has put three children through the state school system, one of whom is now studying history at university.
History teachers hopefully know quite a lot about teaching history, and there's a whole field of people who research teaching methods and learning outcomes.
And they will all have their opinions on what is taught in our schools - which is what this debate has been about primarily.
I think that you are agreeing with Gove! Surely what he was arguing was for the Great War to be discussed from a variety of perspectives, which should include both a patriotic approach and a critique of imperialism and jingoism.
I too learned a lot at the school of Avalon Hill and SPI. I woild add forward planning and understanding probability to history and geography.
Insofar as that's what he was arguing for, I think it's more or less right. My impression is that there was some 'patriotic' topspin in the way he put it and that he had a political intent in that. But I'm not feeling especially combative today and just chatting in the manner correctly described by EiT (as I've said before, he's always right - it's quite uncanny).
I think that you are agreeing with Gove! Surely what he was arguing was for the Great War to be discussed from a variety of perspectives, which should include both a patriotic approach and a critique of imperialism and jingoism.
I too learned a lot at the school of Avalon Hill and SPI. I woild add forward planning and understanding probability to history and geography.
Insofar as that's what he was arguing for, I think it's more or less right. My impression is that there was some 'patriotic' topspin in the way he put it and that he had a political intent in that. But I'm not feeling especially combative today and just chatting in the manner correctly described by EiT (as I've said before, he's always right - it's quite uncanny).
Time to lay off the Bucky yourself for a bit, methinks!
As kids our parents could not afford it. Not seen it since 1974....
A drink with a high alcoholic content made by Christian monks and sold in large quantities in districts where people bought it a relatively easy way to get drunk. The monks have, I understand, declined either to reduce the alcohol content or limit the same in areas where it's abused.
Is Scotland planning to build its own planes, ships and tanks? Or is it planning to import them?
I am sure the Russkis would have been petrified by the appearance of an armed trawler. Perhaps the Captain could board them and behead the Russkis with his claymore!
Surely an overflight by a couple of Tornados was all that was required, sending a frigate seems a bit unnessecary.
Thank you - constructive comments. I do indeed recall that Nimrod was announced, on its appearance in the 60s, as being able to fly fast and high to the patrol area and then drop down and fly slow and low. One would imagine that the Orion or Atlantic/Atlantique would also be designed for this, though I don't know. Even so they are better than nothing and I'm still surprised the Uk didn't buy some as interim a/c.
You mean like Merlin, Hercules and AWACS? Sentinel has been proffered as a future solution. Sadly all the spare monies were w@nked on the A400M Euro-Turkey....
P.S. As an aside; I am happy to see you weeping over the privatisation of SAR. Despite Scotland having it's own, nowhere to be seen, Fishery-Protection fleet you will soon - being devolved - also have to accept that your taxes should be expended on your waters for said services!
:twunt:
Fluffy you twunts will be laughing on the other side of your faces when our £4B per annum is being spent in Scotland and not pissed up a wall by Westminster.
Well I doubt we will start manufacturing warplanes , however no reason why we cannot build our own ships, planes can be bought in like almost every other country does. We will get good deals on French or Swedish planes which are very capable and of course we will already own 10% of all current UK planes and helicopters as well as ships.
Time to lay off the Bucky yourself for a bit, methinks!
As kids our parents could not afford it. Not seen it since 1974....
A drink with a high alcoholic content made by Christian monks and sold in large quantities in districts where people bought it a relatively easy way to get drunk. The monks have, I understand, declined either to reduce the alcohol content or limit the same in areas where it's abused.
Pick the bones out of that.
I do not believe it is any higher alcoholic content than ordinary sherries etc. The issue is supposed to be the amount of caffeine. Some people seem to like it.
Thank you - constructive comments. I do indeed recall that Nimrod was announced, on its appearance in the 60s, as being able to fly fast and high to the patrol area and then drop down and fly slow and low. One would imagine that the Orion or Atlantic/Atlantique would also be designed for this, though I don't know. Even so they are better than nothing and I'm still surprised the Uk didn't buy some as interim a/c.
You mean like Merlin, Hercules and AWACS? Sentinel has been proffered as a future solution. Sadly all the spare monies were w@nked on the A400M Euro-Turkey....
P.S. As an aside; I am happy to see you weeping over the privatisation of SAR. Despite Scotland having it's own, nowhere to be seen, Fishery-Protection fleet you will soon - being devolved - also have to accept that your taxes should be expended on your waters for said services!
:twunt:
Not knowing what a twunt is, I am at a disadgantage. But I would be only too happy to see my taxes spent on services we badly need here in Scotland - and at the moment the only plausible way for that is ...?
carnyx, you change the initial 2 letters with a C and you get the meaning. Gist is you have touched a sore point and rubbished their pathetic claims that UK has world class forces and that our £4B is well spent having a "fast response" ship in Portsmouth is our union benefit and the fact that you are not genuflecting and praising them for this means you should be pilloried.
Thank you. I did wonder about that particular term, but was too kind-hearted to believe it as I assumed that the standard of debate and courtesy here was always rather better than in the Scotsman comments pages, at least for all regular posters! Maybe we need an anatomical equivalent of Godwin's Law - Gray's Law - with a Buckfast Abbot's Regulation corollary?
I am astonished that more people aren't concerned about the issue - there must be enough rightwingers and rescue-oriented lefties on this board. Anyway, it has been instructive in more than one sense (there were some good points made) and I'm off for a walk now. I'm just hoping that the reduction in coverage (until something is done about it) is not going to play a part in the next disaster, of whatever kind, to afflict our shores.
Carnyx, they are perfectly happy to have our fast response ship in Portsmouth and just ridicule as stupid and spongers whilst spending our money. Reasoned debate on Scotland you will not find on here, plenty of sneering and jibes and pathetic opinions based on the M25 bubble.
I studied historiography as part of my MA in History - if you want to see a democracy with seriously challenged history teaching look no further than the US. Recently watered down - but Texas (because of the number of school text books it buys) still exercises a disproportionate influence on the US:
“The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel,” McLeroy told Washington Monthly. “Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”
It's a view.....and no worse than teaching 1980s Britain via Billy Elliot......interestingly Hunt does not actually engage with Gove's argument - just responds with "the left did their bit too"
Thank you - constructive comments. I do indeed recall that Nimrod was announced, on its appearance in the 60s, as being able to fly fast and high to the patrol area and then drop down and fly slow and low. One would imagine that the Orion or Atlantic/Atlantique would also be designed for this, though I don't know. Even so they are better than nothing and I'm still surprised the Uk didn't buy some as interim a/c.
You mean like Merlin, Hercules and AWACS? Sentinel has been proffered as a future solution. Sadly all the spare monies were w@nked on the A400M Euro-Turkey....
P.S. As an aside; I am happy to see you weeping over the privatisation of SAR. Despite Scotland having it's own, nowhere to be seen, Fishery-Protection fleet you will soon - being devolved - also have to accept that your taxes should be expended on your waters for said services!
:twunt:
Fluffy you twunts will be laughing on the other side of your faces when our £4B per annum is being spent in Scotland and not pissed up a wall by Westminster.
Wee Eck will blow it all on golfing trousers, and expensive foreign 'fact finding' missions.
Very adult addition to the topic, not just beaten I see but shattered. UK armed forces would struggle to break out of a wet paper poke. Only thing they are good at is senior officers sitting in mess enjoying drinking and eating their weights in our cash. What will they do without our £4B , dear dear.
Malcolm, you've spent the day trolling on the basis of a wildly inaccurate and sensationalist DM article.
Your suggestion that Senior Officers spend all day eating and drinking their way through the Defence budget adds what 'sensibility' to the discussion?
Too many chiefs living high on the hog and not enough indians is the point. Also we pay for many chiefs and do not even get the indians for our troubles.
Is Scotland planning to build its own planes, ships and tanks? Or is it planning to import them?
Well I doubt we will start manufacturing warplanes , however no reason why we cannot build our own ships, planes can be bought in like almost every other country does. We will get good deals on French or Swedish planes which are very capable and of course we will already own 10% of all current UK planes and helicopters as well as ships.
Good question from FISUK. The UK has in fact AFAIK already stopped building its own tanks and complete planes (mostly - not sure about Agusta Westland helicopters and light planes). The UK now makes bits of planes, some very substantial, and the kit for them. BAe have a plant in Edinburgh for avionics (ex-Ferranti, I think), for instance. So no change there.
(Not sure about light armoured vehicles; to be fair, some folk think main battle tanks are passe anyway.).
As for surface warships Scotland will be in exactly the same position it is now, i.e. can build them, but subs would have to be obtained from Barrow in Cumbria or e.g. the Germans.
To be pedantic, the baseline is more like about 8-9% of current inventory, but once the share of Trident and its systems has been swapped out then 10%+ is more like it, I suspect.
The White paper will have more detail - which is what it is there for.
I like Simon St Clares comment below despite his Frenchie sounding name. Gove must be shaking in his plimpsoles at the prospect of an attack by such a silly hunt.
Comments
Must be in the market for a new chap...Not the first time that Cameron has proved himself to be less adept at PR.
For a PR man he does seem to be prone to own goals, though he hasn't done a Gerald Ratner.
Can you not just admit it is pathetic.
The Nimrod in its original (falling to bits, going on fire) and derived (MRA4 project) was a disaster by the late 2010s, so yes, it is not so much Nimrod per se but Nimrod-equivalent that we need. That there was, and still is, no replacement is the appalling thing. If an off the shelf plane such as Orion or Atlantic would do, then it should have been acquired in time. If there were genuine reasons for UK exceptionalism, then MRA4 should have delivered that - that it did not is appalling.
That those simple suggestions may seem trolling to you shows to my mind how far the UK has got from the notion of being able to run a competent defence of its own territory and resources.
Overall it did a good job of showing the timeline and giving a rough idea of what happened, but it was seen by nearly everyone as pretty dry and boring, though it's stuck in my memory over 40 years later. Some roleplay of the secondary material would have been a really good idea, for boys too in my opinion.
That said, a problem about education is that we're all armchair generals with our own ideas, and we probably underestimate the difficulties and don't listen to the professionals as much as we would in, say, medicine or engineering.
If it was a Trident boat carrying the deterrent then patrolling inshore in often shallow waters close to a bogey is the last thing it wants to do.
The point of ptrolling your waters is to be seen to respond - and you can't do that in a hunter-killer boat unless you want to compromise the technology (by popping up the periscope in sight of the intruder). Nimrod (especially out of the Morayshire bases) was excellent for that - far quicker than the duty frigate from Pompey and highly visible.
Australian cricketers?
foreign football managers?
And you're basing this assumption on a sensationalist and inaccurate article in the DM?
Bit early to be knocking back the Bucky, Malky.
A modern airliner is designed to fly for many hours at high altitudes. If you take it to lower levels for long periods, then it decreases flying time and increases stress on airframes, effecting fatigue life.
We were fortunate that the Comet-based Nimrod was capable of this sort of mission profile. But in the end we just extended that basic airframe too much - in many ways the MRA4 was a brand new aircraft.
The US has tried going down the opposite track, heavily modifying the recently-designed 737-800 passenger airliner into the P8 Poseidon, including using wings from the 737-900. They apparently had problems making that airframe fit the low-and-long role.
However, for their version they have left on some sensors (MAD?), which reduces the need to go very low.
God knows what we're going to do. ISTR that helicopters are fulfilling the role temporarily, but they can't be as as capable ...
On the timeline/hardness issue, surely the answer is to give a basic overview in primary school and then adding increasing detail and nuance later? Indeed, history has helpfully provided us with periods that are well-documented and those about which we know little, so the periods we have fuzzy knowledge of could be better for younger children, leaving the Later Republican period of Rome, for example, for older pupils.
Arguably, though, it is indeed simpler to study the stone age, because there's simply less evidence about it, and it's less obviously relevant too. It's probably important to modern society to understand recent history, perhaps not so important to understand the spread of understanding of the use of fire or the wheel, especially as we don't really know. (Disclaimer: this is just idle saloon bar debate, I'm not proposing to put forward my views to a Select Committee)
By the way, would something really recent like Afghanistan where the facts are not yet entirely clear and subject to dispute be taught in schools at all? A basic understanding of the pros and cons of intervention seems a useful thing for voters to have.
Classical history is an excellent period to teach (notably the Second Punic War, Later Republican Rome and the decline of the Western Empire). For younger pupils episodes such as the thwarting of Xerxes' ambitions (Thermopylae) and the retreat of the Ten Thousand from the heart of Persia could be ideal.
I was extremely fortunate in that my 'A' level history course was very cleverly designed to look at the extremes of evidence whilst developing a solid understanding of the periods we were looking at. Running concurrently with two separate teachers we studied the Sub-Roman/Early Medieval period (then known as the Anglo-Saxon period) and the early to mid 19th century - under the heading of 'mid-Victorian prosperity'.
This gave us the two extremes of evidence and taught us how to use them. In one case there is little documentary evidence and what there is is usually not primary source material so that other techniques (archaeology particularly) need to be used to help verify or disprove the documentary evidence. In the other case there is a tidal wave of documentary evidence - novels, journals and diaries, acts of Parliament, newspapers and official reports - all of which have to be interpreted and analysed.
It was a very effective and thorough introduction to the study of history and one I am very grateful for.
By the way, I do think that the wargaming hobby has the potential to play a big part in helping children develop and understanding of the timelines of history. Something that can come under the heading of teaching kids without them realising it.
Russia has been penetrating the coastal waters of western countries for decades: either by air, surface ship or submarine.
Remember 'Whisky on the Rocks' in 1981, when the Soviet submarine S-363 ran aground in the fjord leading to Sweden's naval base in Karlsrona? It set off a 14 day stand off with all kinds of military and diplomatic shenanigans.
At least the Swedes identified the sub correctly. The periscope of its sister Whisky class submarine which penetrated Loch Ness is still being mistaken by the Scots for the head of a monster.
Malc, there are clear and present dangers much closer than twelve miles off the Moray Firth.
The fact that they were individual aircraft (and not a common design) meant that the wing-roots were spannahed. It is not the MRA4 that is missed - AIUI - but the Helix system: AirSeeker looks good-for-the-money though....
P.S. As an aside; I am happy to see you weeping over the privatisation of SAR. Despite Scotland having it's own, nowhere to be seen, Fishery-Protection fleet you will soon - being devolved - also have to accept that your taxes should be expended on your waters for said services!
:twunt:
At least, that's what someone down the pub told me a while back. ;-)
The differences were because the original planes were hand-built, in a time when small differences of half an inch or so did not matter. But they do matter when you're extending the wings ...
The MRA4 was surely such a big change from the original plane that it was essentially new: only the fuselage remained the same, and even that was renovated to last another two or three decades.
A handy diagram is halfway down the following link:
http://www.aviation-news.co.uk/archive/nimrod-mra4.html
I'm actually far more concerned at the moment about rescue and disaster cover and economic protection but to be worried also about military threats would be no more than being in line with Unionist sayings - if not doings.
And many thanks to those discussing history teaching. Most interesting.
Clearly we do not want pupils indoctrinated by any particular view. But understanding the range of opinion about, say, whether Britain should intervene in other countries would be useful and informed by an understanding of what has happened up to now. Your experience sounds great. On wargaming, it's certainly given me a vastly increased interest in both history and geography, neither of which engaged me at school. Role-playing wargames where a number of people take different roles in e.g. Middle East simulation are particularly interesting, though I imagine would be very hard to handle without controversy.
So each year starts with Cavemen and ends with Iraq War, but with the emphasis changing each year to reflect a different aspect of the period
Get yourself an atlas: Look at your coastline* and EEZ. Then - and breathe - think about the size of your economy and population. At this point give-up.
Norway spends 50% more on defence - per-capita, nominal - than either England or France. Now factor how they need conscription to maintain this model; will off-shore their "Dave" support to England; and that the SDF will have ~Euro 3billion (Sterling being refused) to fund what you claim is £4-billion (12% of MoD expenditure) on bennies for Buckfast....
I think I have made my point....
* Or your waistline. Both are proxies...! :P
I wrote an essay on "What is History" for a degree course three years ago... Will try and dig it out and see what I said! It got a 2.1, but was probably a load of rubbish
Why not just admit our defence spending is wasted and we do not get value for money.
You either agree to international norms: Provide SAR for your EEZ or you give-up sovereignty. Seeing the eScoti, Ulster-Scots and other Oirish having a handbag over Rockall EEZ/SAR could be meaninglessly fun....
P.S. OGH's site is very educational. Or it used to be....
I am sure the Russkis would have been petrified by the appearance of an armed trawler. Perhaps the Captain could board them and behead the Russkis with his claymore!
Surely an overflight by a couple of Tornados was all that was required, sending a frigate seems a bit unnessecary.
"WW1 row and 'devil cast out' in newspapers"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-25609199
The Observer front page is also the first one featured......must be because of the Observer's impressive reach and circulation.....no doubt......
Your suggestion that Senior Officers spend all day eating and drinking their way through the Defence budget adds what 'sensibility' to the discussion?
a "fast response" ship in Portsmouth is our union benefit and the fact that you are not genuflecting and praising them for this means you should be pilloried.
Just like you to be so wrong, mind.
Can patrons please support Unckie' Malc's attempt to start the Scottish version of the "Natural-Law" Party. Apparently he can levitate 2K-tonnes vessels from Faslane to the Moray-Firth...!
:happy-clappy:
I think that you are agreeing with Gove! Surely what he was arguing was for the Great War to be discussed from a variety of perspectives, which should include both a patriotic approach and a critique of imperialism and jingoism.
I too learned a lot at the school of Avalon Hill and SPI. I woild add forward planning and understanding probability to history and geography.
I am astonished that more people aren't concerned about the issue - there must be enough rightwingers and rescue-oriented lefties on this board. Anyway, it has been instructive in more than one sense (there were some good points made) and I'm off for a walk now. I'm just hoping that the reduction in coverage (until something is done about it) is not going to play a part in the next disaster, of whatever kind, to afflict our shores.
Now the FCO has offloaded the World Service onto the licence payer, its remit is being reworked.
Out go dull attempts to convert communists into free market economists. In comes adverts and woman friendly fashion comment.
The Independent on Sunday has seen an internal BBC communication which encourages journalists working on the BBC World News global television operation to follow a supposedly more female-friendly news agenda, with more stories on "fashion" and fewer on "politics".
...
Details of the proposed "feminisation" of the World News output follow research carried out by the BBC's "audience team" to mark International Women's Day. In a memo written to staff on 26 November, Zoe Porter, editor of BBC World News, gave a summary of women's feedback on the output.
It called for more coverage of "young presenters, women field reporters and fashion".
The BBC World Service in Berlin already carries advertisements.
The BBC. Popular, audience driven and self-financing? Whatever next.
The full sorry story is here: http://ind.pn/Krd9hY
FT uses "Leftard": Junior will be unhappy.
So why should I be surprised that Sven sucks so much? He hates so much it makes the English tax-payers squeak (the [MODERATED])!!!
Time to lay off the Bucky yourself for a bit, methinks!
the danger of mixing politics and education
http://youtu.be/aLlrfEYtqFU
In a nut shell.
EtA: Swern Svollofout of Broxtowe. Should I © that...?
Pick the bones out of that.
Whoosh!
The following posts:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/?pagination=false
“The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel,” McLeroy told Washington Monthly. “Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes.”
It's a view.....and no worse than teaching 1980s Britain via Billy Elliot......interestingly Hunt does not actually engage with Gove's argument - just responds with "the left did their bit too"
(Not sure about light armoured vehicles; to be fair, some folk think main battle tanks are passe anyway.).
As for surface warships Scotland will be in exactly the same position it is now, i.e. can build them, but subs would have to be obtained from Barrow in Cumbria or e.g. the Germans.
To be pedantic, the baseline is more like about 8-9% of current inventory, but once the share of Trident and its systems has been swapped out then 10%+ is more like it, I suspect.
The White paper will have more detail - which is what it is there for.
Thanks for the heads up about the Thatcher biog and Hastings books being only 99p. Not even Poundland can beat that:)