politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Signs are that 2017 could be a big Westminster by-election yea
Comments
-
Well Charlie did want to be the defender or faith rather than defender of the faith. Post it on Twitter, maybe some UKIP heads will explode!TheScreamingEagles said:
The regnal name Charles chooses should be something that accurately reflects the population of the United Kingdom.kle4 said:Can monarchs pick any rental name, or have to use one of their various christian names, even if not their primary one?
Because I'm sick of all these George's and Edward's. And think of poor Henry's - they had before we had any george's, and none since. And what of Stephen? Doesn't sound like a kingly name at all they have avoided it ever since.
I'd go with Cnut, Aethelstan or something Scottish.
So he should go for King Mohammed0 -
Not entirely. Cameron ought to have bitten the bullet and ordered cats despite the cost (which is dwarfed by the F35 risk).JosiasJessop said:
The carriers and their capabilities are oft-visited topics on here. Like many things, it's all Labours fault. ?Hoon? said that they had decided to go without CATOBAR (catapult and traps), but the carriers were being designed so they could be retrofitted with them later.Nigelb said:
The Harriers are obsolete, so pretty pointless getting them back...viewcode said:FPT @PlatoSaid
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.PlatoSaid said:This is most entertaining rattling
Real Donald Trump
Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
All the alternatives are hugely expensive (retrofitting moving cables and their power supply to the carriers to enable conventional aircraft to fly off them) or humiliating (buying back the Harriers we sold to the USMC!). It is bad enough we're running a taxi service for the US Marines but this would make things worse.
Defence procurement has been a mess for decades. (Don't get me started on our battlefield armoured capacity...) We ought to contract it out to the Swedish procurement agency, which is about as good as it gets.
Years later, when the F35B project looked risky, and the carriers had been designed, the coalition went to BAE and asked them to look into fitting CATOBAR. It turns out the requirement for retrofitting the equipment had not been worked on for years, and there were many issues. AIUI lack of electrical power, deck heights and available spaces were two major ones.
Hoon really was disastrous for the military.
And defence procurement ineptitude long predates Hoon, who was admittedly a standout in that respect.
0 -
Is Charles still planning to be fides defensor or will he be traditional and be fidei defensor?0
-
We should build a new generation of Harriers.0
-
"Is Charles still planning to be fides defensor or will he be traditional and be fidei defensor?"
TSE get down from the table at once, no dessert until you have done your Latin homework!0 -
I think that would be Fiderum rather than Fides.TheScreamingEagles said:Is Charles still planning to be fides defensor or will he be traditional and be fidei defensor?
0 -
#BREAKING: First group of passengers, consisting of women and children, being released now - Malta PM https://t.co/rwTSDjJArq
Al Jaz
UPDATE: Hijacker says he is "pro-Gaddafi" and is willing to let all 111 passengers leave, but not its seven crew https://t.co/jWD6l4Q027 https://t.co/Yi4ASjGGpD0 -
It comes right back to that Nick Robinson quote. When she was HS he was offered to interview her many times. In the end he refused because, he said, he came out of the interview knowing nothing more than he had known when he went in.TheScreamingEagles said:
I could have understood if Mrs May had said 'Brexit is going to be very complex' but this really jarredCarolus_Rex said:
Now I normally disagree with you about Mrs May but I found that shocking (if the reports are correct). Dangerously close to Lèse-majesté I'd have thought.TheScreamingEagles said:It is interesting that Winston Churchill gave a running commentary on World War II to King George VI but Theresa May is unable to give a running commentary to the Queen on Brexit.
'The Queen and the duke were said to have been looking forward to hearing more about Mrs May’s thoughts on Brexit. This may have included insights into her selections for the cabinet, including the appointment of Boris Johnson as foreign secretary.
However, both were said to have been left disappointed, a source said.'
I wonder if Mrs May got star struck?
Or perhaps she doesn't have a clue apart from Brexit means Brexit.
A brief survey of recent Tory Party literature was as illuminating.0 -
Or elect Lab and get an owl each.Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
0 -
Hannibal would be a good regnal name, after the best general of antiquity.0
-
TheWhiteRabbit said:
"Is Charles still planning to be fides defensor or will he be traditional and be fidei defensor?"
TSE get down from the table at once, no dessert until you have done your Latin homework!
Yeah, I know.Carolus_Rex said:
I think that would be Fiderum rather than Fides.TheScreamingEagles said:Is Charles still planning to be fides defensor or will he be traditional and be fidei defensor?
The only Latin plural I'm 100% confident is that the plural of Dominatrix is Dominatrices0 -
If he says he's going to do something then it's best to consider the possibility that he might actually do it. I don't have the resources to ponder a probability cloud of what he might do.PlatoSaid said:
And so take Trump seriously - not literally. It's very clear and has been for over a year how he uses language. Getting all humpy by taking him literally adds nothing, but makes the politically outraged feel better.viewcode said:
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.PlatoSaid said:
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.viewcode said:FPT @PlatoSaid
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.PlatoSaid said:This is most entertaining rattling
Real Donald Trump
Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
All the alternatives are hugely expensive (retrofitting moving cables and their power supply to the carriers to enable conventional aircraft to fly off them) or humiliating (buying back the Harriers we sold to the USMC!). It is bad enough we're running a taxi service for the US Marines but this would make things worse.
He's saying publicly that defence contractors are on warning to stop taking the piss.
It's an unfiltered shot at those who've used US tax payers as patsies to subsidise their other commercial contracts.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.
Incidentally, was that "House of Cards" clip the right one? The Charles-avatar was in the second series.0 -
Rather embarrassingly, we might end up with no choice, the F35B not being close to active service for a while yet and at the whim of the US, whose navy constitute the vast majority of the ordered planes.Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
0 -
I disagree, but thank you for the thoughtful replyLuckyguy1983 said:FPT
No, not at all. It reminded me I used to read Redwood's blog quite regularly, and probably should do again. He writes very clearly and cogently on economic matters - though it has to be said he doesn't begin or end his blogs very well, they seem to just stop rather than conclude.viewcode said:
Whereas I realise that you think Brexit is a good thing, you've got to admit that if it's reached the point of "it's OK: John Redwood has a plan", then things have gone horribly wrong...Luckyguy1983 said:
Whether or not he does understand them, I am interested to know where his argument falls down around his references to WTO rules?rcs1000 said:
John Redwood, sadly, does not understand what "WTO rules" means.TheScreamingEagles said:
John Redwood: Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy – the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiationLuckyguy1983 said:
Said precisely no-one, ever.TheScreamingEagles said:Perhaps Dave believed the Leavers that Brexit would be easy.
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/07/17/getting-out-of-the-eu-can-be-quick-and-easy-the-uk-holds-most-of-the-cards-in-any-negotiation/
RCS dismissed his statements on WTO rules, but either didn't see or didn't wish to answer my follow up question about what Redwood actually said that was wrong, so as far as I am concerned Redwood's comments still stand.
As for it being a plan, it isn't a plan. It is an argument that Britain's negotiating position is strong, which as a net loser both in trade and in funding arrangements currently, should be obvious.
It is a great pity that Redwood isn't in the Government. It's one of the signs that her conversion to Brexit may be a facade in my opinion. Of the Brexiteers she has on board, I only really have time for Davis. Liam Fox is on his last chance and will never make serious waves. Boris' views flap about like a windsock and he depends on May entirely to keep him as Foreign Sec.0 -
Having just swanned in I was momentarily nonplussed. Then I realised you are referring to that Saxe-Coburg-Gotha fella.PlatoSaid said:Charles was summed up for me rather too closely here. I don't trust him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqzdd8RUbIs0 -
One of many reasons that prison is not the best place for petty criminals. There is a a recurrent theme of feckless youths being jailed, then radicalised inside.PlatoSaid said:O_o
AFP
Anis Amri: small-time criminal turned Berlin truck killer, believed to have been radicalised in an Italian prison https://t.co/10hPmmlkDI https://t.co/tsbzQunCXD
The Islamist gang can be very useful protection inside, and sometimes give the feckless angry drifter a cause. Prison is a very dangerous place indeed.0 -
As an aside, I'm planning to do a thread in the new year about Fidei Defensor and Brexit.
I mean there's history of England breaking with Rome being excommunicated and losing some privileges and titles and our Parliament just giving back those privileges and titles.0 -
Given it's a Catholic title he probably has to ask the Pope for permission to change itTheScreamingEagles said:Is Charles still planning to be fides defensor or will he be traditional and be fidei defensor?
0 -
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up is a very clear signal that he wants to negotiate a new arms reduction treaty.PlatoSaid said:
And so take Trump seriously - not literally. It's very clear and has been for over a year how he uses language. Getting all humpy by taking him literally adds nothing, but makes the politically outraged feel better.viewcode said:
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.PlatoSaid said:
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.viewcode said:FPT @PlatoSaid
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.PlatoSaid said:This is most entertaining rattling
Real Donald Trump
Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
All the alternatives are hugely expensive (retrofitting moving cables and their power supply to the carriers to enable conventional aircraft to fly off them) or humiliating (buying back the Harriers we sold to the USMC!). It is bad enough we're running a taxi service for the US Marines but this would make things worse.
He's saying publicly that defence contractors are on warning to stop taking the piss.
It's an unfiltered shot at those who've used US tax payers as patsies to subsidise their other commercial contracts.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.0 -
Nah it is an English/British title too.Charles said:
Given it's a Catholic title he probably has to ask the Pope for permission to change itTheScreamingEagles said:Is Charles still planning to be fides defensor or will he be traditional and be fidei defensor?
It was revoked by the Pope when Henry VIII broke from Rome, but Parliament in 1544 gave him the title of Fidei Defensor of the Anglican Church.0 -
"It was revoked by the Pope when Henry VIII broke from Rome, but Parliament in 1544 gave him the title of Fidei Defensor of the Anglican Church."
The title was just "Fidei Defensor" - the Anglican Church considering itself THE church, not a new church.0 -
Perhaps we could make a virtue of neccessity and use the planeless carriers as prison hulks parked off the South coast.
We could have one each for failed asylum seekers, and one for EU deportees.
This post was brought to you in the spirit of a Dickension Victorian Christmas.0 -
It's all Eff With Me And... consequences. And I'll Say It In Public - so I'm Winning The Chicken Gamewilliamglenn said:
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up is a very clear signal that he wants to negotiate a new arms reduction treaty.PlatoSaid said:
And so take Trump seriously - not literally. It's very clear and has been for over a year how he uses language. Getting all humpy by taking him literally adds nothing, but makes the politically outraged feel better.viewcode said:
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.PlatoSaid said:
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.viewcode said:FPT @PlatoSaid
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.PlatoSaid said:This is most entertaining rattling
Real Donald Trump
Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
All the alternatives are hugely expensive (retrofitting moving cables and their power supply to the carriers to enable conventional aircraft to fly off them) or humiliating (buying back the Harriers we sold to the USMC!). It is bad enough we're running a taxi service for the US Marines but this would make things worse.
He's saying publicly that defence contractors are on warning to stop taking the piss.
It's an unfiltered shot at those who've used US tax payers as patsies to subsidise their other commercial contracts.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.0 -
It's possible but I wouldn't jump to that conclusion yet - it may just be shower thoughts.williamglenn said:
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up is a very clear signal that he wants to negotiate a new arms reduction treaty.PlatoSaid said:
And so take Trump seriously - not literally. It's very clear and has been for over a year how he uses language. Getting all humpy by taking him literally adds nothing, but makes the politically outraged feel better.viewcode said:
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.PlatoSaid said:
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.viewcode said:FPT @PlatoSaid
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.PlatoSaid said:This is most entertaining rattling
Real Donald Trump
Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
All the alternatives are hugely expensive (retrofitting moving cables and their power supply to the carriers to enable conventional aircraft to fly off them) or humiliating (buying back the Harriers we sold to the USMC!). It is bad enough we're running a taxi service for the US Marines but this would make things worse.
He's saying publicly that defence contractors are on warning to stop taking the piss.
It's an unfiltered shot at those who've used US tax payers as patsies to subsidise their other commercial contracts.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.0 -
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100?Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations...
And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
0 -
Emperor Trump's New Clothes are of such magnificence in their delicacy and finery don't you think? Only a fool cannot see it...PlatoSaid said:
It's all Eff With Me And... consequences. And I'll Say It In Public - so I'm Winning The Chicken Gamewilliamglenn said:
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up is a very clear signal that he wants to negotiate a new arms reduction treaty.PlatoSaid said:
And so take Trump seriously - not literally. It's very clear and has been for over a year how he uses language. Getting all humpy by taking him literally adds nothing, but makes the politically outraged feel better.viewcode said:
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.PlatoSaid said:
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.viewcode said:FPT @PlatoSaid
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.PlatoSaid said:This is most entertaining rattling
Real Donald Trump
Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
All the alternatives are hugely expensive (retrofitting moving cables and their power supply to the carriers to enable conventional aircraft to fly off them) or humiliating (buying back the Harriers we sold to the USMC!). It is bad enough we're running a taxi service for the US Marines but this would make things worse.
He's saying publicly that defence contractors are on warning to stop taking the piss.
It's an unfiltered shot at those who've used US tax payers as patsies to subsidise their other commercial contracts.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.0 -
He may act the fool but he is anything but , his thoughts are planned even if not the best ideas in the world.edmundintokyo said:
It's possible but I wouldn't jump to that conclusion yet - it may just be shower thoughts.williamglenn said:
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up is a very clear signal that he wants to negotiate a new arms reduction treaty.PlatoSaid said:
And so take Trump seriously - not literally. It's very clear and has been for over a year how he uses language. Getting all humpy by taking him literally adds nothing, but makes the politically outraged feel better.viewcode said:
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.PlatoSaid said:
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.viewcode said:FPT @PlatoSaid
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.PlatoSaid said:This is most entertaining rattling
Real Donald Trump
Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
All the alternatives are hugely expensive (retrofitting moving cables and their power supply to the carriers to enable conventional aircraft to fly off them) or humiliating (buying back the Harriers we sold to the USMC!). It is bad enough we're running a taxi service for the US Marines but this would make things worse.
He's saying publicly that defence contractors are on warning to stop taking the piss.
It's an unfiltered shot at those who've used US tax payers as patsies to subsidise their other commercial contracts.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.0 -
The government tried to add cats and traps to the QE class carrier and failed at a cost of a couple of hundred million.Nigelb said:
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100?Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations...
And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.0 -
Maybe he just wants to defend the world chess federation...Carolus_Rex said:
I think that would be Fiderum rather than Fides.TheScreamingEagles said:Is Charles still planning to be fides defensor or will he be traditional and be fidei defensor?
0 -
Absolutely. Anglicans are Catholics, like the Old Catholics (who they remain in communion with) but just not the new-fangled sect in RomeTheWhiteRabbit said:"It was revoked by the Pope when Henry VIII broke from Rome, but Parliament in 1544 gave him the title of Fidei Defensor of the Anglican Church."
The title was just "Fidei Defensor" - the Anglican Church considering itself THE church, not a new church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church0 -
I know some here are interested in this subject - driverless vehicles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncmaIP7lb1c0 -
On Vanilla and have to say don't really understand the premise or logic of the thread header. Looks more like a Labour Party policy statement......
f("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper{};window.datawrapper["WOKif"]{},window.datawrapper["WOKif"].embedDeltas{"100":763.8,"200":583.8,"300":556.8,"400":529.8,"500":529.8,"600":529.8,"700":529.8,"800":502.79999999999995,"900":502.79999999999995,"1000":502.79999999999995},window.datawrapper["WOKif"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper"),window.datawrapper["WOKif"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["WOKif"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["WOKif"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper- a.data["datawrapperheight"])if("WOKif"==b)window.datawrapper["WOKif"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"})
0 -
'Let us assume charges in January, I'd assume a trial around April/May time, trial shouldn't take that long, assuming a conviction, a by-election writ moved in June, by election in September?'
If a by election writ is moved in June the by election would take place circa 4 weeks later!0 -
Ian Jones
How Christmas Day TV audiences have declined over the past 30 years, as measured by the most-watched programme. https://t.co/JJvcViR2pS0 -
For anyone interested, RNC guy gets Press Sec job
President-elect Trump announces communication team with Sean Spicer as WH Press Secretary https://t.co/vu1VIvEWxM0 -
Why not have an army of drones flying off the carriers? There are some interesting air-to-air drone (and plenty of decent air-to-ground) platforms under development, and you could fit many more of them on a carrier than regular fighters.viewcode said:
If we can't get F35B's, what's left? We going to start fitting Sidewinders and ASRAAMs to Merlins?Nigelb said:
The Harriers are obsolete, so pretty pointless getting them back....Defence procurement has been a mess for decades...We ought to contract it out to the Swedish procurement agency, which is about as good as it gets.
Pause
Thinks.
Can we do that? Use helicopters as air-to-air launching platforms?0 -
A small price to pay for the quote button.Moses_ said:On Vanilla and have to say don't really understand the premise or logic of the thread header. Looks more like a Labour Party policy statement......
f("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper{};window.datawrapper["WOKif"]{},window.datawrapper["WOKif"].embedDeltas{"100":763.8,"200":583.8,"300":556.8,"400":529.8,"500":529.8,"600":529.8,"700":529.8,"800":502.79999999999995,"900":502.79999999999995,"1000":502.79999999999995},window.datawrapper["WOKif"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper"),window.datawrapper["WOKif"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["WOKif"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["WOKif"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper- a.data["datawrapperheight"])if("WOKif"==b)window.datawrapper["WOKif"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"})0 -
Plus if drones were refused permission for a fly past of the control tower, they would obey orders.rcs1000 said:
Why not have an army of drones flying off the carriers? There are some interesting air-to-air drone (and plenty of decent air-to-ground) platforms under development, and you could fit many more of them on a carrier than regular fighters.viewcode said:
If we can't get F35B's, what's left? We going to start fitting Sidewinders and ASRAAMs to Merlins?Nigelb said:
The Harriers are obsolete, so pretty pointless getting them back....Defence procurement has been a mess for decades...We ought to contract it out to the Swedish procurement agency, which is about as good as it gets.
Pause
Thinks.
Can we do that? Use helicopters as air-to-air launching platforms?0 -
Drone landing on a carrier would be a bit tricky wouldn't it?rcs1000 said:
Why not have an army of drones flying off the carriers? There are some interesting air-to-air drone (and plenty of decent air-to-ground) platforms under development, and you could fit many more of them on a carrier than regular fighters.viewcode said:
If we can't get F35B's, what's left? We going to start fitting Sidewinders and ASRAAMs to Merlins?Nigelb said:
The Harriers are obsolete, so pretty pointless getting them back....Defence procurement has been a mess for decades...We ought to contract it out to the Swedish procurement agency, which is about as good as it gets.
Pause
Thinks.
Can we do that? Use helicopters as air-to-air launching platforms?
Given they are communicated to via satellite there is some serious lag in their input.0 -
Surely the future of combat aviation is drones, and the Fleet Air Arm should convert to Helicopters and drones?Nigelb said:
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100?Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations...
And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
HMS Ocean has been one of our most useful ships in recent times, as well as one of the cheapest.
0 -
Which doesn't mean it was impossible.MaxPB said:
The government tried to add cats and traps to the QE class carrier and failed at a cost of a couple of hundred million.Nigelb said:
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100?Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations...
And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
Given the ridiculous expense of carriers, having ones which don't work is stupid.
Rcs' drone suggestion isn't ridiculous, but again pushes the problem into the long grass (and might still require cats) - especially if you're considering air to air capability.
0 -
Hello: briefly, as I need to pick my daughter up.Luckyguy1983 said:No, not at all. It reminded me I used to read Redwood's blog quite regularly, and probably should do again. He writes very clearly and cogently on economic matters - though it has to be said he doesn't begin or end his blogs very well, they seem to just stop rather than conclude.
RCS dismissed his statements on WTO rules, but either didn't see or didn't wish to answer my follow up question about what Redwood actually said that was wrong, so as far as I am concerned Redwood's comments still stand.
As for it being a plan, it isn't a plan. It is an argument that Britain's negotiating position is strong, which as a net loser both in trade and in funding arrangements currently, should be obvious.
It is a great pity that Redwood isn't in the Government. It's one of the signs that her conversion to Brexit may be a facade in my opinion. Of the Brexiteers she has on board, I only really have time for Davis. Liam Fox is on his last chance and will never make serious waves. Boris' views flap about like a windsock and he depends on May entirely to keep him as Foreign Sec.
WTO rules merely means that countries cannot discriminate, it does not mean - as he suggests in the article - that there are certain maximum tariffs set by the WTO.
As the EU's CET schedule is well known, we know exactly what the tariffs we would face in the event of uber-hard Brexit would be. So, cars is the number one British export at 9.7% of the total, and there would be 10% tariffs imposed on them. At the very least there would be a price elasticity of demand effect, and the price increase would reduce the number sold. It is also entirely possible that - were we to leave the Europan medicines agency - you would need to see drugs made in Britain (our second biggest export, once we exclude commodities) recertified for sales in the EU. And this - of course - in addition to the costs of hard Brexit on our financial services industry.
For this reason, his breezy "2.7%" is grossly inaccurate, because it does not reflect exactly what the UK exports.
Now, can we get through all that, and do fine as a country in a WTO scenario. In the medium term, of course we can. But the short term consequences on our biggest export industries - autos, drugs, and finance - would be extremely severe.0 -
This is epic - just think of the Blues Brothers
Video: serious #security incident at #Kazan #airport in #Russia, where a car drove through terminal building
https://t.co/30sO5BOfyQ0 -
Having the USMC on the Queen Elizabeth for the maiden operational cruise in 2021 is immensely depressing. Can it really be that hard to have one squadron operational by then?0
-
Yes - conversion was the wrong word. 'Avowed determination to make it a success' was more what I wanted to say.kle4 said:
That would depend on what you mean by facade I think. She was officially Remain and so publicly on the record that staying in would have been preferable, so unless she says she was lying or mistaken before, the only option open to her is to say she is committed to making Brexit the best Brexit there is, and we shall do fantastically, while conveniently not mentioning she apparently thought we'd do more fantastically within the EU. She's converted to Brexit happening, because it must for her politically let alone democracy, but that doesn't mean her official position from before has been repudiated.Luckyguy1983 said:FPT
It's one of the signs that her conversion to Brexit may be a facade in my opinion.viewcode said:
Whereas I realise that you think Brexit is a good thing, you've got to admit that if it's reached the point of "it's OK: John Redwood has a plan", then things have gone horribly wrong...Luckyguy1983 said:
Whether or not he does understand them, I am interested to know where his argument falls down around his references to WTO rules?rcs1000 said:
John Redwood, sadly, does not understand what "WTO rules" means.TheScreamingEagles said:
John Redwood: Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy – the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiationLuckyguy1983 said:
Said precisely no-one, ever.TheScreamingEagles said:Perhaps Dave believed the Leavers that Brexit would be easy.
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/07/17/getting-out-of-the-eu-can-be-quick-and-easy-the-uk-holds-most-of-the-cards-in-any-negotiation/0 -
As Saint Theresa is to Carlotta, so the Donald is to Plato ?foxinsoxuk said:
Emperor Trump's New Clothes are of such magnificence in their delicacy and finery don't you think? Only a fool cannot see it...PlatoSaid said:
It's all Eff With Me And... consequences. And I'll Say It In Public - so I'm Winning The Chicken Gamewilliamglenn said:
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up is a very clear signal that he wants to negotiate a new arms reduction treaty.PlatoSaid said:
And so take Trump seriously - not literally. It's very clear and has been for over a year how he uses language. Getting all humpy by taking him literally adds nothing, but makes the politically outraged feel better.viewcode said:
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.PlatoSaid said:
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.viewcode said:FPT @PlatoSaid
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.PlatoSaid said:This is most entertaining rattling
Real Donald Trump
Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
All the alternatives are hugely expensive (retrofitting moving cables and their power supply to the carriers to enable conventional aircraft to fly off them) or humiliating (buying back the Harriers we sold to the USMC!). It is bad enough we're running a taxi service for the US Marines but this would make things worse.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.
0 -
There's no reason why computers on the carrier couldn't take over control and guide them in. There's no worry about the pilot, so there might be other alternative ways to land/recover them too.Alistair said:
Drone landing on a carrier would be a bit tricky wouldn't it?rcs1000 said:
Why not have an army of drones flying off the carriers? There are some interesting air-to-air drone (and plenty of decent air-to-ground) platforms under development, and you could fit many more of them on a carrier than regular fighters.viewcode said:
If we can't get F35B's, what's left? We going to start fitting Sidewinders and ASRAAMs to Merlins?Nigelb said:
The Harriers are obsolete, so pretty pointless getting them back....Defence procurement has been a mess for decades...We ought to contract it out to the Swedish procurement agency, which is about as good as it gets.
Pause
Thinks.
Can we do that? Use helicopters as air-to-air launching platforms?
Given they are communicated to via satellite there is some serious lag in their input.0 -
I'd love to source this, but from memory that was the base cost that would have been accepted. The cost that BAE came up with was so much it would have been cheaper to scrap what had been built of the QE so far and start again.MaxPB said:
The government tried to add cats and traps to the QE class carrier and failed at a cost of a couple of hundred million.Nigelb said:
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100?Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations...
And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
A situation made more complex by the question of whether we went with traditional steam plant or the new all-electric systems, which still are not in operational use on the Ford yet.0 -
I do believe that the end result was a basic level incompatibility with current technology down to the original design.Nigelb said:
Which doesn't mean it was impossible.MaxPB said:
The government tried to add cats and traps to the QE class carrier and failed at a cost of a couple of hundred million.Nigelb said:
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100?Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations...
And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
Given the ridiculous expense of carriers, having ones which don't work is stupid.
Rcs' drone suggestion isn't ridiculous, but again pushes the problem into the long grass (and might still require cats) - especially if you're considering air to air capability.0 -
I like the idea of a drone carrier but there are problems, namely:rcs1000 said:
Why not have an army of drones flying off the carriers? There are some interesting air-to-air drone (and plenty of decent air-to-ground) platforms under development, and you could fit many more of them on a carrier than regular fighters.viewcode said:
If we can't get F35B's, what's left? We going to start fitting Sidewinders and ASRAAMs to Merlins?Nigelb said:
The Harriers are obsolete, so pretty pointless getting them back....Defence procurement has been a mess for decades...We ought to contract it out to the Swedish procurement agency, which is about as good as it gets.
Pause
Thinks.
Can we do that? Use helicopters as air-to-air launching platforms?
* One of the functions of a carrier is to do airspace denial over-the-horizon. Can drones do combat flying (not just air-to-ground) over-the-horizon, in unfriendly waters, in overcast stormy conditions? I don't think there's a drone that could take on, say, a SU27 off the coast of Norway in December. If there is one, tell me.
* Is there a V/STOL drone?0 -
That was indeed the problem.JosiasJessop said:
I'd love to source this, but from memory that was the base cost that would have been accepted. The cost that BAE came up with was so much it would have been cheaper to scrap what had been built of the QE so far and start again.MaxPB said:
The government tried to add cats and traps to the QE class carrier and failed at a cost of a couple of hundred million.Nigelb said:
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100?Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations...
And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
A situation made more complex by the question of whether we went with traditional steam plant or the new all-electric systems, which still are not in operational use on the Ford yet.0 -
I'm delighted to be a winner not a whiner.Nigelb said:
As Saint Theresa is to Carlotta, so the Donald is to Plato ?foxinsoxuk said:
Emperor Trump's New Clothes are of such magnificence in their delicacy and finery don't you think? Only a fool cannot see it...PlatoSaid said:
It's all Eff With Me And... consequences. And I'll Say It In Public - so I'm Winning The Chicken Gamewilliamglenn said:
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up is a very clear signal that he wants to negotiate a new arms reduction treaty.PlatoSaid said:
And so take Trump seriously - not literally. It's very clear and has been for over a year how he uses language. Getting all humpy by taking him literally adds nothing, but makes the politically outraged feel better.viewcode said:
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.PlatoSaid said:
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.viewcode said:FPT @PlatoSaid
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.PlatoSaid said:This is most entertaining rattling
Real Donald Trump
Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
All the alternatives are hugely expensive (retrofitting moving cables and their power supply to the carriers to enable conventional aircraft to fly off them) or humiliating (buying back the Harriers we sold to the USMC!). It is bad enough we're running a taxi service for the US Marines but this would make things worse.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.0 -
You wouldn't need recertification. If a plant (and its plants not drugs that are the issue) has EMA certification then it has it. We would need to put in place a certification process for the UK market (but would suggest we just use the current EMA rules).rcs1000 said:
Hello: briefly, as I need to pick my daughter up.
WTO rules merely means that countries cannot discriminate, it does not mean - as he suggests in the article - that there are certain maximum tariffs set by the WTO.
As the EU's CET schedule is well known, we know exactly what the tariffs we would face in the event of uber-hard Brexit would be. So, cars is the number one British export at 9.7% of the total, and there would be 10% tariffs imposed on them. At the very least there would be a price elasticity of demand effect, and the price increase would reduce the number sold. It is also entirely possible that - were we to leave the Europan medicines agency - you would need to see drugs made in Britain (our second biggest export, once we exclude commodities) recertified for sales in the EU. And this - of course - in addition to the costs of hard Brexit on our financial services industry.
For this reason, his breezy "2.7%" is grossly inaccurate, because it does not reflect exactly what the UK exports.
Now, can we get through all that, and do fine as a country in a WTO scenario. In the medium term, of course we can. But the short term consequences on our biggest export industries - autos, drugs, and finance - would be extremely severe.
On drug approvals, again if a drug is to be sold into Europe it would need EMA approval - and if it has it already it can't be taken away. Going forward MHRA would continue to review drugs for approval in the UK, although we might lose a nice little side business where we act as rapporteur (lead agency) for Europe on many drugs.
The obvious solution is, of course, to remain inside the EMA and I don't think it is to anyone's benefit to kick us out - not patients, not doctors, not drug companies and not governments*. And it's not a dimunition of sovereignty to adopt common standards in a specific area.
* Except Sweden who have their eyes on our rapporteur business0 -
The cost of that would have been truly massive. Even the Harrier programs were massively costly at the time, especially if you include the research and the P1127 prototypes.Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
The Harriers were magnificent, but also very flawed, planes.
To make them worth having, you're looking at a 4.5 or 5 generation plane. And none of those are cheap to develop. Add in VTOL / STOVL capabilities and you're looking at many, many billions.
The only way to get them on the cheap is to go for the previous generation plane off the peg. The only way to get a modern plane with an assured price is to by off the peg, if you can get a seller.
With the F35 we're going for a bespoke suit, where the final price and capabilities are both unknown and somewhat out of our hands.
If we were going to pull out, it should have been done when the US pulled out of the F136 second engine project, which had been part of the deal.0 -
I think you're conflating the ability to win an election with the competence to govern. And the idea that an election (or referendum) win ought to exempt the winner(s) from criticism is a strange one.PlatoSaid said:
I'm delighted to be a winner not a whiner.Nigelb said:
As Saint Theresa is to Carlotta, so the Donald is to Plato ?foxinsoxuk said:
Emperor Trump's New Clothes are of such magnificence in their delicacy and finery don't you think? Only a fool cannot see it...PlatoSaid said:
It's all Eff With Me And... consequences. And I'll Say It In Public - so I'm Winning The Chicken Gamewilliamglenn said:
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up ..PlatoSaid said:
And so take Trump seriously - not literally.viewcode said:
If the last 18 months have taught me anything, it's to take people seriously when they say what they are going to do.PlatoSaid said:
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.viewcode said:FPT @PlatoSaid
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.PlatoSaid said:This is most entertaining rattling
Real Donald Trump
Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
All the alternatives are hugely expensive (retrofitting moving cables and their power supply to the carriers to enable conventional aircraft to fly off them) or humiliating (buying back the Harriers we sold to the USMC!). It is bad enough we're running a taxi service for the US Marines but this would make things worse.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.
0 -
Rubber runways?MTimT said:@rcs2000 "there might be other alternative ways to land/recover them too"
Large butterfly nets?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Lu6LEQ0zo
(I think that was another from the late, great Eric Brown)0 -
It's incredible that no one can build any modern planes in this modern era.JosiasJessop said:
The cost of that would have been truly massive. Even the Harrier programs were massively costly at the time, especially if you include the research and the P1127 prototypes.Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
The Harriers were magnificent, but also very flawed, planes.
To make them worth having, you're looking at a 4.5 or 5 generation plane. And none of those are cheap to develop. Add in VTOL / STOVL capabilities and you're looking at many, many billions.
The only way to get them on the cheap is to go for the previous generation plane off the peg. The only way to get a modern plane with an assured price is to by off the peg, if you can get a seller.
With the F35 we're going for a bespoke suit, where the final price and capabilities are both unknown and somewhat out of our hands.
If we were going to pull out, it should have been done when the US pulled out of the F136 second engine project, which had been part of the deal.
So incredible that I refuse to believe it.
Why don't they give the job to some RAF engineers, they will probably get something built that works.0 -
None of which excuses Cameron's failure to address the problem.MaxPB said:
That was indeed the problem.JosiasJessop said:
I'd love to source this, but from memory that was the base cost that would have been accepted. The cost that BAE came up with was so much it would have been cheaper to scrap what had been built of the QE so far and start again.MaxPB said:
The government tried to add cats and traps to the QE class carrier and failed at a cost of a couple of hundred million.Nigelb said:
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100?Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations...
And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
A situation made more complex by the question of whether we went with traditional steam plant or the new all-electric systems, which still are not in operational use on the Ford yet.
And a simultaneous excoriation of Hoon might have been cathartic.
0 -
The Israelis received 2 F35's last week. They flew from Italy but were delayed by fog - of all things. I think that this time the Israelis and anyone else have bought a pig in a poke; I cannot see a long life for this plane which has a list of faults as long as your arm even before they get into actual active battle conditions.JosiasJessop said:
The cost of that would have been truly massive. Even the Harrier programs were massively costly at the time, especially if you include the research and the P1127 prototypes.Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
The Harriers were magnificent, but also very flawed, planes.
To make them worth having, you're looking at a 4.5 or 5 generation plane. And none of those are cheap to develop. Add in VTOL / STOVL capabilities and you're looking at many, many billions.
The only way to get them on the cheap is to go for the previous generation plane off the peg. The only way to get a modern plane with an assured price is to by off the peg, if you can get a seller.
With the F35 we're going for a bespoke suit, where the final price and capabilities are both unknown and somewhat out of our hands.
If we were going to pull out, it should have been done when the US pulled out of the F136 second engine project, which had been part of the deal.0 -
No, I'm making fun of someone who moans endlessly.Nigelb said:
I think you're conflating the ability to win an election with the competence to govern. And the idea that an election (or referendum) win ought to exempt the winner(s) from criticism is a strange one.PlatoSaid said:
I'm delighted to be a winner not a whiner.Nigelb said:
As Saint Theresa is to Carlotta, so the Donald is to Plato ?foxinsoxuk said:
Emperor Trump's New Clothes are of such magnificence in their delicacy and finery don't you think? Only a fool cannot see it...PlatoSaid said:
It's all Eff With Me And... consequences. And I'll Say It In Public - so I'm Winning The Chicken Gamewilliamglenn said:
Similarly his tweet about a nuclear build up ..PlatoSaid said:
And so take Trump seriously - not literally.viewcode said:
.PlatoSaid said:
I think you're making the classic error of taking Trump LITERALLY, not figuratively.viewcode said:FPT @PlatoSaid
We are building two aircraft carriers. Unlike most other carriers they can only handle aircraft that can land vertically. The only two production fighter aircraft with that capability are the F35B and the Harrier variants. If Trump cancels the F35B (a variant of the F35) for shits and giggles then we will be left with our arse hanging in the wind.PlatoSaid said:This is most entertaining rattling
All the alternatives are hugely expensive (retrofitting moving cables and their power supply to the carriers to enable conventional aircraft to fly off them) or humiliating (buying back the Harriers we sold to the USMC!). It is bad enough we're running a taxi service for the US Marines but this would make things worse.
Look at the sentiment behind his tweets, not the literal words and you'll get it.
It's quite common on here and the interwebs to tease others.0 -
Wishful thinking of Hoonian magnitude.Speedy said:
It's incredible that no one can build any modern planes in this modern era.JosiasJessop said:
The cost of that would have been truly massive. Even the Harrier programs were massively costly at the time, especially if you include the research and the P1127 prototypes.Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
The Harriers were magnificent, but also very flawed, planes.
To make them worth having, you're looking at a 4.5 or 5 generation plane. And none of those are cheap to develop. Add in VTOL / STOVL capabilities and you're looking at many, many billions.
The only way to get them on the cheap is to go for the previous generation plane off the peg. The only way to get a modern plane with an assured price is to by off the peg, if you can get a seller.
With the F35 we're going for a bespoke suit, where the final price and capabilities are both unknown and somewhat out of our hands.
If we were going to pull out, it should have been done when the US pulled out of the F136 second engine project, which had been part of the deal.
So incredible that I refuse to believe it.
Why don't they give the job to some RAF engineers, they will probably get something built that works.
0 -
Viewing Trump is easy.matt said:
@viewcode
Regardless of whether Trump believes what he says (and I think that he's a charmless, narcissistic liar so yes and no) some thought ought to be given to how the Chinese or Russians, to take two pertinent examples, see diplomacy by tweet.
He is the biggest loose cannon in world history, pray that you don't take his attention and aims straight at you.0 -
And they understand it perfectly as I and millions of others do. That you prefer to assume literal understanding as that suits your view is entirely different.matt said:
@viewcode
Regardless of whether Trump believes what he says (and I think that he's a charmless, narcissistic liar so yes and no) some thought ought to be given to how the Chinese or Russians, to take two pertinent examples, see diplomacy by tweet.0 -
At least they will build a plane that can fly, unlike Lockheed it seems.Nigelb said:
Wishful thinking of Hoonian magnitude.Speedy said:
It's incredible that no one can build any modern planes in this modern era.JosiasJessop said:
The cost of that would have been truly massive. Even the Harrier programs were massively costly at the time, especially if you include the research and the P1127 prototypes.Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
The Harriers were magnificent, but also very flawed, planes.
To make them worth having, you're looking at a 4.5 or 5 generation plane. And none of those are cheap to develop. Add in VTOL / STOVL capabilities and you're looking at many, many billions.
The only way to get them on the cheap is to go for the previous generation plane off the peg. The only way to get a modern plane with an assured price is to by off the peg, if you can get a seller.
With the F35 we're going for a bespoke suit, where the final price and capabilities are both unknown and somewhat out of our hands.
If we were going to pull out, it should have been done when the US pulled out of the F136 second engine project, which had been part of the deal.
So incredible that I refuse to believe it.
Why don't they give the job to some RAF engineers, they will probably get something built that works.
Even the Wright brothers managed to do that with 1900 technology.0 -
Unfortunately it was a problem that couldn't be fixed without an additional £3-4bn in spending. The old carrier contracts were so ridiculously expensive to cancel or change that the solution was just too expensive. Both Brown and Hoon need to be out on trial for defrauding the taxpayer!Nigelb said:
None of which excuses Cameron's failure to address the problem.MaxPB said:
That was indeed the problem.JosiasJessop said:
I'd love to source this, but from memory that was the base cost that would have been accepted. The cost that BAE came up with was so much it would have been cheaper to scrap what had been built of the QE so far and start again.MaxPB said:
The government tried to add cats and traps to the QE class carrier and failed at a cost of a couple of hundred million.Nigelb said:
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100?Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations...
And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
A situation made more complex by the question of whether we went with traditional steam plant or the new all-electric systems, which still are not in operational use on the Ford yet.
And a simultaneous excoriation of Hoon might have been cathartic.0 -
Modern planes are massively complex beasts. It's not just about the airframe: it's about the entire system, from weapons integration to refuelling.Speedy said:
It's incredible that no one can build any modern planes in this modern era.JosiasJessop said:
The cost of that would have been truly massive. Even the Harrier programs were massively costly at the time, especially if you include the research and the P1127 prototypes.Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
The Harriers were magnificent, but also very flawed, planes.
To make them worth having, you're looking at a 4.5 or 5 generation plane. And none of those are cheap to develop. Add in VTOL / STOVL capabilities and you're looking at many, many billions.
The only way to get them on the cheap is to go for the previous generation plane off the peg. The only way to get a modern plane with an assured price is to by off the peg, if you can get a seller.
With the F35 we're going for a bespoke suit, where the final price and capabilities are both unknown and somewhat out of our hands.
If we were going to pull out, it should have been done when the US pulled out of the F136 second engine project, which had been part of the deal.
So incredible that I refuse to believe it.
Why don't they give the job to some RAF engineers, they will probably get something built that works.
This is worse if you try to treat all planes in a squadron as part of one system, with data being shared: one plane can see a target, whilst another fires its weapons at that target.
Prototype planes can be made fairly cheaply: the JSF project that became the F35 had a competition, with Boeing's laughable option being beaten by Lockheed Martin. That competition ended in 2001. Since then there has been the task of turning flying prototypes into a warplane. The P1127 to Harrier took about seven years.
I know a little about radar systems - PESA, AESA etc. Even these are massively expensive to develop if you want to be at the bleeding edge of performance. They're also fascinating if you're a little sad ...0 -
Ukip statement on the latest Islamic terrorism
"How a lack European border controls puts us all in peril
It gives no one in UKIP any pleasure whatsoever to state 'we warned you'. Nigel Farage made it patently clear earlier this year that ISIS would use the refugee crisis and Merkel's 'open door invite' to the troubled parts of the Middle East to smuggle hundreds of jihadists into Europe.
The slaughter of innocents in Paris and Nice wasn't a coincidence and the latest atrocity in Berlin shows that ISIS is now at war with Europe. The EU's continued support of Schengen and uncontrolled immigration both within and from outside the EU is (i) costing innocent lives, (ii) leaving hundreds with life-threatening or life-changing injuries and (iii) undermining social cohesion and our Judeo-Christian way of life.
That Anis Amri was able to enter the EU from Tunisia, be jailed in Italy, escape to Germany, kill and maim in Berlin, then flee back to Italy via France where he was shot dead, is testament to the failure of the EU to protect it citizens and control its internal and external borders.
Only one Party has had the political courage to consistently warn of the dangers of uncontrolled immigration and the loss of sovereignty to the EU and that's UKIP.
UKIP must continue speaking truth to power and ensure that the UK is fully removed from the ticking time bomb that is the EU. History will judge that at a time of despair and tribulation only UKIP stood tall and was willing to fight for our hard fought for values and right to run our own affairs via a fully Sovereign Parliament."0 -
I liked the X32. It had vectored thrust and didn't need an additional lift engine. I think it would have worked.JosiasJessop said:...Boeing's laughable option being beaten by Lockheed Martin...
0 -
Merkel live on Sky - I'm having trouble enduring her0
-
It seems we have a pattern here.MaxPB said:
Unfortunately it was a problem that couldn't be fixed without an additional £3-4bn in spending. The old carrier contracts were so ridiculously expensive to cancel or change that the solution was just too expensive. Both Brown and Hoon need to be out on trial for defrauding the taxpayer!
In the West we make weapons that are useless and their only value is scrap value.
So the F-35 and those aircraft carries and destroyers will go straight out of the production line to the scrapyard, just like surplus food in the EU.
It's all about subsidizing the sector without producing any value.
The only problem is the F-35 costs it's weight in Gold, literally it's the same price per ounce, but the scrapyard will only pay us for it's cheaper metal.0 -
If be, as a military planner, moderately worried about a combat system that someone can change the controller of mid operation.rcs1000 said:
There's no reason why computers on the carrier couldn't take over control and guide them in. There's no worry about the pilot, so there might be other alternative ways to land/recover them too.Alistair said:
Drone landing on a carrier would be a bit tricky wouldn't it?rcs1000 said:
Why not have an army of drones flying off the carriers? There are some interesting air-to-air drone (and plenty of decent air-to-ground) platforms under development, and you could fit many more of them on a carrier than regular fighters.viewcode said:
If we can't get F35B's, what's left? We going to start fitting Sidewinders and ASRAAMs to Merlins?Nigelb said:
The Harriers are obsolete, so pretty pointless getting them back....Defence procurement has been a mess for decades...We ought to contract it out to the Swedish procurement agency, which is about as good as it gets.
Pause
Thinks.
Can we do that? Use helicopters as air-to-air launching platforms?
Given they are communicated to via satellite there is some serious lag in their input.0 -
The translator doesn't help.PlatoSaid said:Merkel live on Sky - I'm having trouble enduring her
0 -
If you'd read many of my posts, you'd know that I acknowledge how he won. We're discussing governing. If pointing out an apparent deficiency of scepticism is ad hom, then so be it.PlatoSaid said:
And no, I didn't bet on this election, as I recognised that my assessment of his chances was likely to be biased by my absolute contempt for Trump.0 -
No sane aviator would have flown the X32, and enemy planes would have fallen out of the sky from laughter. It looked terrible.viewcode said:
I liked the X32. It had vectored thrust and didn't need an additional lift engine. I think it would have worked.JosiasJessop said:...Boeing's laughable option being beaten by Lockheed Martin...
Worse (from memory): the Lockheed prototypes were pretty much flying shells of a final configuration that has remained more or less the same (*). Boeing admitted the final planes would look very different from the X32. I also think that LM did a test fire of weapons from one prototype.
Basically, LM's X35 was far ahead of Boeing. Though it would be interesting to wonder if we'd be in this mess if Boeing had won the contract.
(*) http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=280 -
Sovereign only when it suits Farage and UKIP. If Parliamentary Sovereignty involves legally having to ask MPs to vote on things like A50, then suddenly UKIP don't want it and it is a block on the the "people's" choices.isam said:Ukip statement on the latest Islamic terrorism
"How a lack European border controls puts us all in peril
It gives no one in UKIP any pleasure whatsoever to state 'we warned you'. Nigel Farage made it patently clear earlier this year that ISIS would use the refugee crisis and Merkel's 'open door invite' to the troubled parts of the Middle East to smuggle hundreds of jihadists into Europe.
The slaughter of innocents in Paris and Nice wasn't a coincidence and the latest atrocity in Berlin shows that ISIS is now at war with Europe. The EU's continued support of Schengen and uncontrolled immigration both within and from outside the EU is (i) costing innocent lives, (ii) leaving hundreds with life-threatening or life-changing injuries and (iii) undermining social cohesion and our Judeo-Christian way of life.
That Anis Amri was able to enter the EU from Tunisia, be jailed in Italy, escape to Germany, kill and maim in Berlin, then flee back to Italy via France where he was shot dead, is testament to the failure of the EU to protect it citizens and control its internal and external borders.
Only one Party has had the political courage to consistently warn of the dangers of uncontrolled immigration and the loss of sovereignty to the EU and that's UKIP.
UKIP must continue speaking truth to power and ensure that the UK is fully removed from the ticking time bomb that is the EU. History will judge that at a time of despair and tribulation only UKIP stood tall and was willing to fight for our hard fought for values and right to run our own affairs via a fully Sovereign Parliament."0 -
Weasel twaddle from her - and she walked straight off.williamglenn said:
The translator doesn't help.PlatoSaid said:Merkel live on Sky - I'm having trouble enduring her
Glad I'm not German.0 -
BREAKING: Libyan plane hijackers demand creation of a pro-Gaddafi political party0
-
At this rate of rising defence costs and complexity, which we may have already reached that level, we will only be able to buy a single fighter plane that neither flies or shoots.JosiasJessop said:
Modern planes are massively complex beasts. It's not just about the airframe: it's about the entire system, from weapons integration to refuelling.
This is worse if you try to treat all planes in a squadron as part of one system, with data being shared: one plane can see a target, whilst another fires its weapons at that target.
Prototype planes can be made fairly cheaply: the JSF project that became the F35 had a competition, with Boeing's laughable option being beaten by Lockheed Martin. That competition ended in 2001. Since then there has been the task of turning flying prototypes into a warplane. The P1127 to Harrier took about seven years.
I know a little about radar systems - PESA, AESA etc. Even these are massively expensive to develop if you want to be at the bleeding edge of performance. They're also fascinating if you're a little sad ...
Same with tanks and of course ships.
The answer is NO, you don't need to have ever complex systems that don't work and cost too much, you need simplicity that is cheap and does the basics.
You need weapons that work, are cheaper than the enemies defences per unit and can be massed produced.0 -
"In the West we make weapons that are useless and their only value is scrap value."Speedy said:
It seems we have a pattern here.MaxPB said:
Unfortunately it was a problem that couldn't be fixed without an additional £3-4bn in spending. The old carrier contracts were so ridiculously expensive to cancel or change that the solution was just too expensive. Both Brown and Hoon need to be out on trial for defrauding the taxpayer!
In the West we make weapons that are useless and their only value is scrap value.
So the F-35 and those aircraft carries and destroyers will go straight out of the production line to the scrapyard, just like surplus food in the EU.
It's all about subsidizing the sector without producing any value.
The only problem is the F-35 costs it's weight in Gold, literally it's the same price per ounce, but the scrapyard will only pay us for it's cheaper metal.
Citation required.
The West makes some of the best weapons systems in the world. We don't get everything right, but when 'we' do they can be superlative.
I also like many Russian systems though, especially when you consider they were designed for different missions.0 -
Trump has clarified his position on Nukes. He's said that it should be an arms race.
Of course figuratively he means "Me Trump, Me strong"0 -
People reading the 2100 version of Wikipedia will look at European immigration policy 1960-2016 in disbelief.rottenborough said:
Sovereign only when it suits Farage and UKIP. If Parliamentary Sovereignty involves legally having to ask MPs to vote on things like A50, then suddenly UKIP don't want it and it is a block on the the "people's" choices.isam said:Ukip statement on the latest Islamic terrorism
"How a lack European border controls puts us all in peril
It gives no one in UKIP any pleasure whatsoever to state 'we warned you'. Nigel Farage made it patently clear earlier this year that ISIS would use the refugee crisis and Merkel's 'open door invite' to the troubled parts of the Middle East to smuggle hundreds of jihadists into Europe.
The slaughter of innocents in Paris and Nice wasn't a coincidence and the latest atrocity in Berlin shows that ISIS is now at war with Europe. The EU's continued support of Schengen and uncontrolled immigration both within and from outside the EU is (i) costing innocent lives, (ii) leaving hundreds with life-threatening or life-changing injuries and (iii) undermining social cohesion and our Judeo-Christian way of life.
That Anis Amri was able to enter the EU from Tunisia, be jailed in Italy, escape to Germany, kill and maim in Berlin, then flee back to Italy via France where he was shot dead, is testament to the failure of the EU to protect it citizens and control its internal and external borders.
Only one Party has had the political courage to consistently warn of the dangers of uncontrolled immigration and the loss of sovereignty to the EU and that's UKIP.
UKIP must continue speaking truth to power and ensure that the UK is fully removed from the ticking time bomb that is the EU. History will judge that at a time of despair and tribulation only UKIP stood tall and was willing to fight for our hard fought for values and right to run our own affairs via a fully Sovereign Parliament."
Why have we done this to ourselves?0 -
So cheap ?MaxPB said:
Unfortunately it was a problem that couldn't be fixed without an additional £3-4bn in spending. The old carrier contracts were so ridiculously expensive to cancel or change that the solution was just too expensive. Both Brown and Hoon need to be out on trial for defrauding the taxpayer!Nigelb said:
None of which excuses Cameron's failure to address the problem.MaxPB said:
That was indeed the problem.JosiasJessop said:
I'd love to source this, but from memory that was the base cost that would have been accepted. The cost that BAE came up with was so much it would have been cheaper to scrap what had been built of the QE so far and start again.MaxPB said:
The government tried to add cats and traps to the QE class carrier and failed at a cost of a couple of hundred million.Nigelb said:
What percentage increase in the defence budget are you proposing ? 100?Luckyguy1983 said:We should build a new generation of Harriers.
In any event, the performance trade-offs for VTOL capacity are not really worthwhile if it's the only aircraft you have - and unlike the US, we can't afford multiple systems.
Another thought: if we had cats on our carriers, we could lease a squadron of Rafales from the French. Imagine being able to drop that little sweetener into the Brexit negotiations...
And it would dramatically increase NATO's european air capacity and flexibility.
A situation made more complex by the question of whether we went with traditional steam plant or the new all-electric systems, which still are not in operational use on the Ford yet.
And a simultaneous excoriation of Hoon might have been cathartic.
The long terms costs of the current situation could be a multiple of that.
And anyway, the situation was so egregious, arguably we ought to have threatened BAE with voiding the contracts.
But agreed about Hoon and Brown
0 -
Don't we know of 3 already? Jamie Reed, Andy Burnham and Steve Rotherham (Liverpool Mayoral candidate).0
-
Sky saying 350k have crossed Med in 2016 - and 3500 have drowned0
-
It did look like an avuncular, overly-cheerful cartoon character though:viewcode said:
I liked the X32. It had vectored thrust and didn't need an additional lift engine. I think it would have worked.JosiasJessop said:...Boeing's laughable option being beaten by Lockheed Martin...
http://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/f-32/images/df-sd-03-15738.jpg0 -
When I say next gen Harriers, I mean new computer equipment, old plane. Let's just have something that goes please. Face facts - we're not going to be getting into dog fights are we? We will use these planes to drop things on various warm and sunny parts of the world against people with fairly simple surface to air missiles.
It was gross dereliction of duty to flog them off to the US without something to replace them with - and they only bought them all so we'd be forced to buy their over-priced crap.0 -
Did it work ?MarqueeMark said:
It did look like an avuncular, overly-cheerful cartoon character though:viewcode said:
I liked the X32. It had vectored thrust and didn't need an additional lift engine. I think it would have worked.JosiasJessop said:...Boeing's laughable option being beaten by Lockheed Martin...
http://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/f-32/images/df-sd-03-15738.jpg
If it did then who cares about it's looks.
The thing will fight a war not a beauty contest.0 -
I'm not sure that's true any more. Even in the Soviet days they had good subs and planes, but the Putin generation of kit looks really good: who the hell thought they'd do a very-long-range nuclear-tipped torpedo? How do we cope with what is effectively a deniable stealth ICBM? The 21st century Western stuff isn't really scary: drones are nice but are limited.JosiasJessop said:The West makes some of the best weapons systems in the world
0 -
I'm all for transportation, as I have argued here before.foxinsoxuk said:Perhaps we could make a virtue of neccessity and use the planeless carriers as prison hulks parked off the South coast.
We could have one each for failed asylum seekers, and one for EU deportees.
This post was brought to you in the spirit of a Dickension Victorian Christmas.0 -
Range and payload ? Useless.Luckyguy1983 said:When I say next gen Harriers, I mean new computer equipment, old plane. Let's just have something that goes please. Face facts - we're not going to be getting into dog fights are we? We will use these planes to drop things on various warm and sunny parts of the world against people with fairly simple surface to air missiles.
It was gross dereliction of duty to flog them off to the US without something to replace them with - and they only bought them all so we'd be forced to buy their over-priced crap.
It would probably cost less to build two new carriers from scratch and buy the Rafale.
0 -
http://news.sky.com/story/uk-living-on-fantasy-island-over-eu-divorce-demands-10705627
UK 'living on Fantasy Island' over EU divorce demands0 -
You can't have carriers without air to air capable planes on them. It would be as much of an error as sailing them without anti submarine protection in the fleet.Luckyguy1983 said:When I say next gen Harriers, I mean new computer equipment, old plane. Let's just have something that goes please. Face facts - we're not going to be getting into dog fights are we? We will use these planes to drop things on various warm and sunny parts of the world against people with fairly simple surface to air missiles.
It was gross dereliction of duty to flog them off to the US without something to replace them with - and they only bought them all so we'd be forced to buy their over-priced crap.0 -
I'm entirely for a penal colony on some unhabited island with crap weather.Luckyguy1983 said:
I'm all for transportation, as I have argued here before.foxinsoxuk said:Perhaps we could make a virtue of neccessity and use the planeless carriers as prison hulks parked off the South coast.
We could have one each for failed asylum seekers, and one for EU deportees.
This post was brought to you in the spirit of a Dickension Victorian Christmas.0 -
Adjudicated by who? What is the process for dispute resolution?Charles said:
And it's not a dimunition of sovereignty to adopt common standards in a specific area.rcs1000 said:
Hello: briefly, as I need to pick my daughter up.
WTO rules merely means that countries cannot discriminate, it does not mean - as he suggests in the article - that there are certain maximum tariffs set by the WTO.
As the EU's CET schedule is well known, we know exactly what the tariffs we would face in the event of uber-hard Brexit would be. So, cars is the number one British export at 9.7% of the total, and there would be 10% tariffs imposed on them. At the very least there would be a price elasticity of demand effect, and the price increase would reduce the number sold. It is also entirely possible that - were we to leave the Europan medicines agency - you would need to see drugs made in Britain (our second biggest export, once we exclude commodities) recertified for sales in the EU. And this - of course - in addition to the costs of hard Brexit on our financial services industry.
For this reason, his breezy "2.7%" is grossly inaccurate, because it does not reflect exactly what the UK exports.
Now, can we get through all that, and do fine as a country in a WTO scenario. In the medium term, of course we can. But the short term consequences on our biggest export industries - autos, drugs, and finance - would be extremely severe.0 -
Awkward
Paul Joseph Watson
Berlin terrorist: "I call on my Muslim brothers everywhere...kill the crusader pigs." #NothingToDoWithIslam https://t.co/hbjlf8ARuY0
