A one state solution is impossible because there are almost equal numbers of Palestinians and Jews in the area of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Now, one could attempt some kind of Northern Irish solution and try and force power sharing, but I simply don't buy it; simply you would be asking the Israeli Jews to give up control of their life and their state. If there were twice as many Jews and Palestinians, then some kind of Bosnian confederation might work, but there isn't. So, it can't work,
A two state solution is also impossible, because the Settlers make up an ever greater proportion of the Israeli population (and voters), and there is no appetite to remove them from the West Bank.
The only "solution" is ethnic cleansing, which results in the Palestinians being forced out of the West Bank and Gaza, and into neighbouring countries. That is what several members of the current Israeli cabinet openly propose. But that is morally repugnant.
So, war will continue. The Palestinians will suffer. While Israel will continue to endure terrorist attacks, because if you are a Palestinian, what do you have to lose?
The second reason that ethnic cleansing / migration / call it whatever euphemism you like is untenable is that the neighbouring Arab countries are dead set against allowing any significant migration of Palestinians into their territories after seeing what the PLO / Black September did to Jordan in the 70s.
So we continue the awful merry-go-round of hate & despair, with no end in sight.
There may have been periods of co-existence, and also a smaller British population in some areas, but I'm extremely suspicious of culturally self-serving history, especially it it doesn't tally with patterns of human migration and conflict in the rest of Europe at that time.
The movement West by the Britons does not suggest a rosy garden of perfection.
But there wasn't a movement west. That is the '1066 and all that' version. The modern Welsh in, say, Cardiganshire, are to a surprising extent the genetic descendents of Britons who lived in Cardiganshire 2500 years ago. The modern English who live in, say, Worcestershire, are the genetic descendents of Britons who lived in Worcestershire 2500 years ago. Those in modern Wales retained a Brythonic culture - those in modern England adopted an Anglo Saxon culture.
Hmm, I am not sure there is much scientific basis to that is there? My understanding is that all peoples of the British Isles (excepting recent immigrants) are pretty much ethnically identical from a genetic perspective. I think it was a controversial Welsh historian (can't remember his name) who stated that Welsh people are largely "Roman bastards" and if they were truly Celtic they would be tall and blond.
I think there's quite a lot of genetic evidence to that effect - though if you're asking me for a source I would have to gesture vaguely in the direction of my bookshelf and mumble. But genetics shows that people have stayed in the same place for a remarkably long period of time.
... After a quick glance at the bookshelf, "The Origins of the British" by Stephen Oppenheimer might be where I read it. Perhaps.
On the coast of Asia Minor, there are still many Turkish people who are of Ancient Greek descent, more recently mixed with more people from Anatolia.
The flags and culture have changed, but the people are still the same. But that change of culture and languagd was not particularly peaceful, or universally accepted; that's the pattern throughout history.
Again, not always - and there is a striking lack of evidence in England during the dark ages of cultural-change-by-force. When cultural change IS by force, you can normally find evidence of it. I believe the consensus of medieval historians currently (though I suspect Richard, among others, is better informed than me; I'm just a reader of history, not a historian) is that the cultural change in England in the post-Roman period was largely through choice - just as the cultural change in the UK in the 20th century was through choice.
Lack of evidence doesn't prove the alternative, though. Would nascent Romano-British rulers willingly cede to new Anglo-Saxon arrivals?
No - the story I am telling (again, I am a reader of history, not a historian, so this is second hand) is one of cultural adoption even by the big men of the time. Who were the warlords of the post-Roman world? Almost certainly many, if not most, were the 'big men' and their descendants of the late Roman world - who in many cases would have been the descendents of the 'big men' of the pre-Roman world who had successfully adapted to Roman Britain. There would have been others, too - Germanic warband leaders, Romans from elsewhere in the empire - but the picture as I understand it is that it was essentially the same people in charge, just speaking a different language. They didn't cede - they just behaved differently to their forebears.
I have a bit of a problem with this - language is so ingrained in my idea of identity that I cannot imagine willingly changing it. But as I understand it, that is what happened.
The book I am reading at the moment is Max Adams's 'The First Kingdom'. But this is just one of a number telling variations on essentially the same story (though an enjoyably well-written example). I recommend it.
Something to consider is the Greek empires, after Alexander. Which involved a takeover of existing kingdoms by a new ruling class, who specifically regarded other cultures as inferior.
Tons of fusion of art, culture etc. But it was far from an idyllic everyone-sings-along-round-the-campfire meeting of minds.
Exactly so. That's why so much was reminding me of the Near East.
Gov Sununu is an uber moderate RINO that is why and could certainly win, that tells you sod all about the rest of the midterms which will be a referendum on Trump's presidency and the impact of his tariffs on the economy in particular
There are 35 Senate seats up for grabs.
Only 7 are at all competitive. One of these is the Democrat held New Hampshire. It's quite significant for the Senate midterms if the Dems lose it.
Sununu may in some ways be "moderate" but he's 100% backing Trump since a while back AFAIK
Tillis looks like he might lose North Carolina.
The Dems should take North Carolina and Maine. They may lose New Hampshire - but however popular Sununu is, in a midterm election with an unpopular President, I just don't see it.
Gains beyond North Carolina and Maine will, however, be harder. If Sherrod Brown - who won Ohio in the last Trump midterms - were to stand again, then I suppose that could come into play. Joni Ernst in Iowa only just won last time around, so that's a possible.
And then there are Texas and Florida, but it would need to be a monumentally bad night for the Republicans for those to come into play.
Apropos the discussion of UK spy satellites a few days ago & why a nation might want one or two of their own just as an insurance policy even when high quality commercial satellite imagery is available - Maxar has just cut Ukraine off from their service: https://mil.in.ua/en/news/maxar-cuts-off-ukraine-s-access-to-satellite-imagery/
I wonder how many satellite imagery companies there are that are entirely outside the reach of the USA that might still be willing to supply Ukraine with data? Probably not many.
So any nation wishing to wage war has to have a pop-up satellite network and either the ability to defend them or replace them quickly. Can we do that?
You could re-engine the Gripen and tell the US to go hang (though ITAR is unlikely to be an issue; it's more the question of immediate operability in the face of any attempted US veto).
With what? Neither EJ200 or SNECMA M88 are designed for single engined applications. Saab and GE spent a lot of time and money re-engineering the F404 for Gripen. If anybody wants a non-ITAR combat aircraft any time in the next decade it's Eurofigher, Rafale or get to fuck.
Rafael is carrier-capable and mature. We have carriers with F35s that the US can turn off. We have (dating from the Cameron days) a pre-existing cooperation structure with the French. Fitting the carriers with cats and traps and buying Rafaels is doable in, what? Three years? Sounds good.
Would be an enormous waste of money for no good reason.
You could re-engine the Gripen and tell the US to go hang (though ITAR is unlikely to be an issue; it's more the question of immediate operability in the face of any attempted US veto).
With what? Neither EJ200 or SNECMA M88 are designed for single engined applications. Saab and GE spent a lot of time and money re-engineering the F404 for Gripen. If anybody wants a non-ITAR combat aircraft any time in the next decade it's Eurofigher, Rafale or get to fuck.
Rafael is carrier-capable and mature. We have carriers with F35s that the US can turn off. We have (dating from the Cameron days) a pre-existing cooperation structure with the French. Fitting the carriers with cats and traps and buying Rafaels is doable in, what? Three years? Sounds good.
I do not believe you can convert our carriers to Catobar.
You have used a word which everyone does, and I think it is at the heart of why therer has been no solution possible: refugees.
People fleeing their homes in Gaza as the IDF bomb them are refugees. The multi-generational decedents of the people who left what is now Israel in 1948? Not refugees.
So if a thief keeps the stuff he stole long enough, it's his?
I'm sure that's music to Vladimir Putin's ears. And the Chinese in Tibet and so on. It's not completely unreasonable - it's why the Americans don't restore their land to the Natives after all - but it's a terrible precedent in this case, where the theft post-dates the improvement in international behaviour we optimistically tried to achieve after two murderous world wars.
The right of return of refugees is a recognised principle of intenrational humanitarian law for a reason, and Israel doesn't get a pass just because it has had the military force to renege on its obligations for 70 years.
In fact, of course, given Israel's large settlement building programme in the West Bank, the theft is ongoing. A Palestinian state in Gaza may just about be viable if your rose tinted spectacles are strong enough, but the West Bank would look like Swiss cheese, and with intrusive Israeli border posts around every village, at which Palestinians are delayed for hours while Israelis mysteriously get through in five minutes, there's no realistic way such a state would have the consent of its inhabitants at all.
Then, how far back do you go? If you support returning the Palestinians to their land (I assume you mean those forced out from the designated Palestinian land taken by Israel in 1948) then I assume you would also support a return of Germany and Poland to their borders pre-1945. It's only 3 years apart after all, and in the case of the lost German land, mostly homogenous ethnic German in 1939 so no justification for it being Polish and certainly not Russian.
I agree that the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Poland and Poles from the USSR after the Second World War was a huge crime, comparable to the Israeli ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians at about the same time, and perhaps even worse, in terms of lives lost, than the disaster of Indian independence.
There's a crucial difference, though: the Germans and Poles have accepted their current borders, though they were determined by ethnic cleansing.
The Palestinians, as you may have noticed, have not.
In fact, even the Israeli government in the 1950s felt a bit guilty about their theft and ethnic cleansing - they offered to take 100,000 of the 700,000 Palestinians back in return for a peace treaty, thereby fulfilling a seventh of their international obligations. The Arabs refused, because Israeli had a clear obligation to take them all back.
Hence seventy years of instability, and realistically probably another seventy.
The only way the "Right of Return" can be implemented, is by driving out/killing the Jews in turn. Which, they will resist.
It is not within the realm of practical possibility.
We might just as well argue that Europeans should be driven out of America, or Protestants out of Ireland.
You have used a word which everyone does, and I think it is at the heart of why therer has been no solution possible: refugees.
People fleeing their homes in Gaza as the IDF bomb them are refugees. The multi-generational decedents of the people who left what is now Israel in 1948? Not refugees.
So if a thief keeps the stuff he stole long enough, it's his?
I'm sure that's music to Vladimir Putin's ears. And the Chinese in Tibet and so on. It's not completely unreasonable - it's why the Americans don't restore their land to the Natives after all - but it's a terrible precedent in this case, where the theft post-dates the improvement in international behaviour we optimistically tried to achieve after two murderous world wars.
The right of return of refugees is a recognised principle of intenrational humanitarian law for a reason, and Israel doesn't get a pass just because it has had the military force to renege on its obligations for 70 years.
In fact, of course, given Israel's large settlement building programme in the West Bank, the theft is ongoing. A Palestinian state in Gaza may just about be viable if your rose tinted spectacles are strong enough, but the West Bank would look like Swiss cheese, and with intrusive Israeli border posts around every village, at which Palestinians are delayed for hours while Israelis mysteriously get through in five minutes, there's no realistic way such a state would have the consent of its inhabitants at all.
Then, how far back do you go? If you support returning the Palestinians to their land (I assume you mean those forced out from the designated Palestinian land taken by Israel in 1948) then I assume you would also support a return of Germany and Poland to their borders pre-1945. It's only 3 years apart after all, and in the case of the lost German land, mostly homogenous ethnic German in 1939 so no justification for it being Polish and certainly not Russian.
I agree that the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Poland and Poles from the USSR after the Second World War was a huge crime, comparable to the Israeli ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians at about the same time, and perhaps even worse, in terms of lives lost, than the disaster of Indian independence.
There's a crucial difference, though: the Germans and Poles have accepted their current borders, though they were determined by ethnic cleansing.
The Palestinians, as you may have noticed, have not.
In fact, even the Israeli government in the 1950s felt a bit guilty about their theft and ethnic cleansing - they offered to take 100,000 of the 700,000 Palestinians back in return for a peace treaty, thereby fulfilling a seventh of their international obligations. The Arabs refused, because Israeli had a clear obligation to take them all back.
Hence seventy years of instability, and realistically probably another seventy.
I mean there was a war in 1947-48. And borders, whether we like it or not, are often determined via war. We only get exercised when the wrong side wins.
Israel's existence is based on the right of return after over a 1000 years, refusing a right of return after less than 100 years (or 1 in DJT's proposal) is clearly not even-handed, so not a great basis for a stable future.
You could re-engine the Gripen and tell the US to go hang (though ITAR is unlikely to be an issue; it's more the question of immediate operability in the face of any attempted US veto).
With what? Neither EJ200 or SNECMA M88 are designed for single engined applications. Saab and GE spent a lot of time and money re-engineering the F404 for Gripen. If anybody wants a non-ITAR combat aircraft any time in the next decade it's Eurofigher, Rafale or get to fuck.
Rafael is carrier-capable and mature. We have carriers with F35s that the US can turn off. We have (dating from the Cameron days) a pre-existing cooperation structure with the French. Fitting the carriers with cats and traps and buying Rafaels is doable in, what? Three years? Sounds good.
I do not believe you can convert our carriers to Catobar.
You could... for a cost. From memory, New Labour really ballsed that one up. If you want something capable of being altered in the future, fully pay for the passive provision for that capability. Don't just use it as a PR thing.
It might be cheaper just to build new carriers...
Edit: again, from distant memory, power provision for an EMALS solution is a problem, as is deck height for the equipment.
Polish president voices hope for swift progress in K2 tank deal
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=393623 Polish President Andrzej Duda has expressed hope for swift progress in finalizing a contract with South Korea to buy K2 battle tanks, highlighting the importance of continued defense cooperation, Seoul's foreign ministry said Friday.
Duda made the remarks during a courtesy call paid by Korean Foreign Minister Cho Tae-yul in Warsaw on Thursday (local time), as the two countries are seeking to finalize the second round of the $7 billion deal under which South Korea will export 820 K2 tanks to Poland.
The two countries signed the $12.4 billion agreement in July 2022, under which South Korea will supply K2 tanks, K9 self-propelled howitzers, FA-50 light attack aircraft and Chunmoo multiple rocket launchers to the European nation...
..The ministry quoted Kosiniak-Kamysz as reaffirming Poland's commitment to implementing the bilateral comprehensive defense partnership "without delay."
The two sides also agreed to continue talks on the K2 tank contract and explore opportunities for additional arms procurement to further enhance defense cooperation.
You could re-engine the Gripen and tell the US to go hang (though ITAR is unlikely to be an issue; it's more the question of immediate operability in the face of any attempted US veto).
With what? Neither EJ200 or SNECMA M88 are designed for single engined applications. Saab and GE spent a lot of time and money re-engineering the F404 for Gripen. If anybody wants a non-ITAR combat aircraft any time in the next decade it's Eurofigher, Rafale or get to fuck.
Rafael is carrier-capable and mature. We have carriers with F35s that the US can turn off. We have (dating from the Cameron days) a pre-existing cooperation structure with the French. Fitting the carriers with cats and traps and buying Rafaels is doable in, what? Three years? Sounds good.
I do not believe you can convert our carriers to Catobar.
I thought they were fitted "for but not with". Was I wrong?
Apropos the discussion of UK spy satellites a few days ago & why a nation might want one or two of their own just as an insurance policy even when high quality commercial satellite imagery is available - Maxar has just cut Ukraine off from their service: https://mil.in.ua/en/news/maxar-cuts-off-ukraine-s-access-to-satellite-imagery/
I wonder how many satellite imagery companies there are that are entirely outside the reach of the USA that might still be willing to supply Ukraine with data? Probably not many.
So any nation wishing to wage war has to have a pop-up satellite network and either the ability to defend them or replace them quickly. Can we do that?
Or have strong alliances with other countries that have the capability. We used to have such a strong alliance. We do not any more.
Why shouldn't Palestinians have the right to return? After all Jewish people were in exile 2000 years before reclaiming their homeland.
The Jews bought most of their homeland. I suppose the Palestinians could make an offer.
I don't think that accurate even in Israel proper, and certainly not in the West Bank.
Palestinians are not allowed to buy land in Israel, nor can Israeli Arabs, apart from from other Israeli Arabs. The law is that once land is Jewish owned it can only be bought by Jews.
You could re-engine the Gripen and tell the US to go hang (though ITAR is unlikely to be an issue; it's more the question of immediate operability in the face of any attempted US veto).
With what? Neither EJ200 or SNECMA M88 are designed for single engined applications. Saab and GE spent a lot of time and money re-engineering the F404 for Gripen. If anybody wants a non-ITAR combat aircraft any time in the next decade it's Eurofigher, Rafale or get to fuck.
Rafael is carrier-capable and mature. We have carriers with F35s that the US can turn off. We have (dating from the Cameron days) a pre-existing cooperation structure with the French. Fitting the carriers with cats and traps and buying Rafaels is doable in, what? Three years? Sounds good.
I do not believe you can convert our carriers to Catobar.
I thought they were fitted "for but not with". Was I wrong?
AIUI, and I might be wrong, that was mainly PR. Money was not spent actually putting in the passive provision for them to be fitted. For instance, the cat and trap apparatus all requires space under the flight deck. And if you don't have that space, you cannot fir them (or lose a deck...). Power for EMALS solutions, or steam for traditional cat and traps, is also an issue.
You have used a word which everyone does, and I think it is at the heart of why therer has been no solution possible: refugees.
People fleeing their homes in Gaza as the IDF bomb them are refugees. The multi-generational decedents of the people who left what is now Israel in 1948? Not refugees.
So if a thief keeps the stuff he stole long enough, it's his?
I'm sure that's music to Vladimir Putin's ears. And the Chinese in Tibet and so on. It's not completely unreasonable - it's why the Americans don't restore their land to the Natives after all - but it's a terrible precedent in this case, where the theft post-dates the improvement in international behaviour we optimistically tried to achieve after two murderous world wars.
The right of return of refugees is a recognised principle of intenrational humanitarian law for a reason, and Israel doesn't get a pass just because it has had the military force to renege on its obligations for 70 years.
In fact, of course, given Israel's large settlement building programme in the West Bank, the theft is ongoing. A Palestinian state in Gaza may just about be viable if your rose tinted spectacles are strong enough, but the West Bank would look like Swiss cheese, and with intrusive Israeli border posts around every village, at which Palestinians are delayed for hours while Israelis mysteriously get through in five minutes, there's no realistic way such a state would have the consent of its inhabitants at all.
Then, how far back do you go? If you support returning the Palestinians to their land (I assume you mean those forced out from the designated Palestinian land taken by Israel in 1948) then I assume you would also support a return of Germany and Poland to their borders pre-1945. It's only 3 years apart after all, and in the case of the lost German land, mostly homogenous ethnic German in 1939 so no justification for it being Polish and certainly not Russian.
I agree that the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Poland and Poles from the USSR after the Second World War was a huge crime, comparable to the Israeli ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians at about the same time, and perhaps even worse, in terms of lives lost, than the disaster of Indian independence.
There's a crucial difference, though: the Germans and Poles have accepted their current borders, though they were determined by ethnic cleansing.
The Palestinians, as you may have noticed, have not.
In fact, even the Israeli government in the 1950s felt a bit guilty about their theft and ethnic cleansing - they offered to take 100,000 of the 700,000 Palestinians back in return for a peace treaty, thereby fulfilling a seventh of their international obligations. The Arabs refused, because Israeli had a clear obligation to take them all back.
Hence seventy years of instability, and realistically probably another seventy.
I mean there was a war in 1947-48. And borders, whether we like it or not, are often determined via war. We only get exercised when the wrong side wins.
Israel's existence is based on the right of return after over a 1000 years, refusing a right of return after less than 100 years (or 1 in DJT's proposal) is clearly not even-handed, so not a great basis for a stable future.
First off, Jews didn't have a right of return. They bought land from the inhabitants around the turn of the century. Some would say they were returning to the land of their fathers but you have dimwits like @Richard_Tyndall saying the Jews weren't indigenous to the area.
Then you had the situation where there were enough of them so by treaty (thanks for nothing Balfour) promising them land there.
Then you had the UN partition plan, accepted by the Jews, rejected by the Arabs.
Then you had war. And once you have war, all bets are off.
NEW POLL: LABOUR STILL LEADS AS CONSERVATIVES DIPS, REFORM UK NO CHANGE Lab 28% (+2) Cons 21% (-1) Lib Dems 13% (=) Reform 25% (=) Greens 7% (-1) SNP 2% (=) Others 4% (=) 👥1632 surveyed | 🔎5-6 Feb 2025 | 🗓️+/- 28 Feb 2025
You could re-engine the Gripen and tell the US to go hang (though ITAR is unlikely to be an issue; it's more the question of immediate operability in the face of any attempted US veto).
With what? Neither EJ200 or SNECMA M88 are designed for single engined applications. Saab and GE spent a lot of time and money re-engineering the F404 for Gripen. If anybody wants a non-ITAR combat aircraft any time in the next decade it's Eurofigher, Rafale or get to fuck.
Rafael is carrier-capable and mature. We have carriers with F35s that the US can turn off. We have (dating from the Cameron days) a pre-existing cooperation structure with the French. Fitting the carriers with cats and traps and buying Rafaels is doable in, what? Three years? Sounds good.
The space the catapult would have occupied is now the combat information centre. There is no carrier capable trainer to qualify crew (the French Navy do quals on US carriers). The only catapult you can actually buy is American. You need to triple the size of the air wing due to the very high training requirements of CATOBAR aviation. The UK would be behind India in the queue for Rafale M. India are not getting theirs until 2029.
I haven't checked the below nor the citations, but...
Viewcode can the British Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers be fitted to CATOBAR format?
Perplexity.ai Yes, the British Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers can potentially be fitted to CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) format. The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the carriers might be fitted with catapults "in the coming years" to launch certain types of aircraft, particularly uncrewed air systems (UAS)[3].
The carriers were originally designed with the possibility of conversion to CATOBAR in mind. There is space for an angled deck, although some modifications to the forward port side deck edge might be necessary[10]. Additionally, there is a full-height gallery deck between the hangar and flight deck that could accommodate the fitting of Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and arrestor gear[10].
However, it's important to note that while technically feasible, previous attempts to convert the carriers to CATOBAR encountered significant challenges:
1. Cost: In 2012, cost projections for converting one carrier to CATOBAR configuration doubled, leading to a reversal of the decision[4].
2. Time: The conversion work was estimated to add another 3 years to the construction time[7].
Currently, the Royal Navy is considering a phased approach called Project Ark Royal, which envisions a progression from STOVL (Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing) to STOL (Short Take-Off and Landing), then to STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery), and finally to CATOBAR[1]. This approach aims to spread out the financial cost and incrementally improve capability over time.
You could re-engine the Gripen and tell the US to go hang (though ITAR is unlikely to be an issue; it's more the question of immediate operability in the face of any attempted US veto).
With what? Neither EJ200 or SNECMA M88 are designed for single engined applications. Saab and GE spent a lot of time and money re-engineering the F404 for Gripen. If anybody wants a non-ITAR combat aircraft any time in the next decade it's Eurofigher, Rafale or get to fuck.
Rafael is carrier-capable and mature. We have carriers with F35s that the US can turn off. We have (dating from the Cameron days) a pre-existing cooperation structure with the French. Fitting the carriers with cats and traps and buying Rafaels is doable in, what? Three years? Sounds good.
The space the catapult would have occupied is now the combat information centre. There is no carrier capable trainer to qualify crew (the French Navy do quals on US carriers). The only catapult you can actually buy is American. You need to triple the size of the air wing due to the very high training requirements of CATOBAR aviation. The UK would be behind India in the queue for Rafale M. India are not getting theirs until 2029.
*thumbs up emoji
So Rafale isn't an option, then ?
But yes, the idea of any major modifications to our carriers, other than just scraping/selling them, is borderline insane.
This is more cheerful. Indeed brilliant. Miniature AI repair men fixing remote controls etc. Appeals to the toy-loving child that still lurks in all of us
NEW POLL: LABOUR STILL LEADS AS CONSERVATIVES DIPS, REFORM UK NO CHANGE Lab 28% (+2) Cons 21% (-1) Lib Dems 13% (=) Reform 25% (=) Greens 7% (-1) SNP 2% (=) Others 4% (=) 👥1632 surveyed | 🔎5-6 Feb 2025 | 🗓️+/- 28 Feb 2025
So it's an MoE adjustment. Shame Farage didn't get the kicking he deserved for his pro Trump treachery.
I can see that the first progenitor of the revisionist peaceful Saxon invasion theory was STurner, a friend of Disraeli's father , who was criticised at the time for over-romanticisation, and was also writing at a time of high political imperative to present a concept of anglosaxon liberty, during the period of Napoleon.
Apropos the discussion of UK spy satellites a few days ago & why a nation might want one or two of their own just as an insurance policy even when high quality commercial satellite imagery is available - Maxar has just cut Ukraine off from their service: https://mil.in.ua/en/news/maxar-cuts-off-ukraine-s-access-to-satellite-imagery/
I wonder how many satellite imagery companies there are that are entirely outside the reach of the USA that might still be willing to supply Ukraine with data? Probably not many.
So any nation wishing to wage war has to have a pop-up satellite network and either the ability to defend them or replace them quickly. Can we do that?
No, we can’t.
Outside of Falcon 9, medium and heavy launches are scarce and booked years in advance. Production schedules for rockets mean that you can’t just order another one.
If you tried to book a payload on Ariane 6, I think you’d be looking at 2 years, minimum.
Yes, this means some interesting things.
Europe has a small number of dedicated military satellites. They are expensive and their replacement times would be in the order of half a decade - more likely a decade. This makes them vulnerable to ASAT - small number of targets that are irreplaceable in the short term.
What Europe needs is its own mega constellation for data and surveillance - backed by rapid, frequent launch. Which means thousands of targets, which can be replaced on a near daily basis. Which makes ASAT useless.
The 1948 borders are done for. Having started and lost multiple wars and the world moved on, the Arab side doesn't get a mulligan on that generous offer.
I don't think there's a viable Palestinian state or political class, so I think this post misses the most viable option of a three state solution. Reintegration of the West Bank and Gaza into Jordan and Egypt, with some devolution of domestic and social policy but no independent military, policing, etc.
NEW POLL: LABOUR STILL LEADS AS CONSERVATIVES DIPS, REFORM UK NO CHANGE Lab 28% (+2) Cons 21% (-1) Lib Dems 13% (=) Reform 25% (=) Greens 7% (-1) SNP 2% (=) Others 4% (=) 👥1632 surveyed | 🔎5-6 Feb 2025 | 🗓️+/- 28 Feb 2025
So it's an MoE adjustment. Shame Farage didn't get the kicking he deserved for his pro Trump treachery.
Yep, and that's exactly what people would have been saying if it had been the other way....
You could re-engine the Gripen and tell the US to go hang (though ITAR is unlikely to be an issue; it's more the question of immediate operability in the face of any attempted US veto).
With what? Neither EJ200 or SNECMA M88 are designed for single engined applications. Saab and GE spent a lot of time and money re-engineering the F404 for Gripen. If anybody wants a non-ITAR combat aircraft any time in the next decade it's Eurofigher, Rafale or get to fuck.
Rafael is carrier-capable and mature. We have carriers with F35s that the US can turn off. We have (dating from the Cameron days) a pre-existing cooperation structure with the French. Fitting the carriers with cats and traps and buying Rafaels is doable in, what? Three years? Sounds good.
I do not believe you can convert our carriers to Catobar.
I thought they were fitted "for but not with". Was I wrong?
AIUI, and I might be wrong, that was mainly PR. Money was not spent actually putting in the passive provision for them to be fitted. For instance, the cat and trap apparatus all requires space under the flight deck. And if you don't have that space, you cannot fir them (or lose a deck...). Power for EMALS solutions, or steam for traditional cat and traps, is also an issue.
The original plan gave some lip service to adding cats and traps. Due to political manoeuvring in the depths of the project, requirements not being tracked, cost cutting without understanding consequences etc.. the requirement to make it possible was lost in the pile.
When it was looked, again, at under the Coalition government, it was found to require a rip out and redo that equalled the post war conversions of WWII carriers to the jet age. Which turned out to be huge money pits.
I can see that the first progenitor of the revisionist peaceful Saxon invasion theory was STurner, a friend of Disraeli's father , who was criticised at the time for over-romanticisation, and was also writing at a time of high political imperative to present a concept of anglosaxon liberty, during the period of Napoleon.
At a time, when Anglo-Saxon liberty was being contrasted with the "Norman Yoke, " by English nationalist historians and novelists.
Viewcode: Please tell me more about the British Royal Navy's project called "Project Ark Royal"
Perplexity.ai: Project Ark Royal is an initiative by the RN to enhance its Queen Elizabeth-class (QEC) aircraft carriers. This project, part of the Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF) initiative, aims to progressively upgrade the carriers' launch and recovery systems, enabling them to operate a wider range of aircraft and advanced drones[1][7].
Key Features and Objectives
1. Phased Approach: The project envisions a gradual progression from STOVL (Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing) to STOL (Short Take-Off and Landing), then to STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery), and finally to CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery)[2].
2. Aircraft Compatibility: Potential for operating fixed-wing crewed aircraft like F/A-18E, F-35C, Rafale[1].
3. Carrier Modifications: Plans include adding an angled flight deck, arrestor gear, and launch equipment.[1][7].
4. Enhanced Cooperation: Enable closer operations with allies, esp UK/US cooperation on carrier ops[1].
Timeline and Implementation
1. Initial demonstrations will involve ramp launches, followed by assessments once recovery systems are in place[1].
2. The first phase, scheduled for November 2025, will involve launching a Mojave drone from a Royal Navy carrier off the U.S. east coast[2].
3. Future phases include integrating more complex drones, deploying aircraft arrestor gear, and conducting Joint Warrior operations[1].
Potential Benefits
1. Increased Versatility: A wider range of crewed and uncrewed aircraft enhances operational flexibility[1].
3. Future-Proofing: It prepare, the carriers for future air vehicles, including large drones and potentially the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray for air-to-air refueling[7].
Note that full implementation, especially CATOBAR conversion, would likely not be realized before the 2030s and is subject to funding approval[7].
The 1948 borders are done for. Having started and lost multiple wars and the world moved on, the Arab side doesn't get a mulligan on that generous offer.
I don't think there's a viable Palestinian state or political class, so I think this post misses the most viable option of a three state solution. Reintegration of the West Bank and Gaza into Jordan and Egypt, with some devolution of domestic and social policy but no independent military, policing, etc.
That's possible for Gaza, but how do you deal with the settlers in the West Bank?
Nicely written header tackling a very challenging topic. I'm not sure I feel so ready to write off a 2 state solution as others.
Yes Israel would have an unfriendly state on its border, but there's nothing new about that! Reducing the amount of interaction/debates about borders and settlers should improve the prospect of peace I would think.
I can see that the first progenitor of the revisionist peaceful Saxon invasion theory was STurner, a friend of Disraeli's father , who was criticised at the time for over-romanticisation, and was also writing at a time of high political imperative to present a concept of anglosaxon liberty, during the period of Napoleon.
At a time, when Anglo-Saxon liberty was being contrasted with the "Norman Yoke, " by English nationalist historians and novelists.
Yes, and indeed also. There may have been interesting discoveries since, too, but historiography always needs careful scrutiny.
The 1948 borders are done for. Having started and lost multiple wars and the world moved on, the Arab side doesn't get a mulligan on that generous offer.
I don't think there's a viable Palestinian state or political class, so I think this post misses the most viable option of a three state solution. Reintegration of the West Bank and Gaza into Jordan and Egypt, with some devolution of domestic and social policy but no independent military, policing, etc.
That's possible for Gaza, but how do you deal with the settlers in the West Bank?
Land swaps. When I say the West Bank I mean, you know, 95% of the West Bank and an equivalent amount of mostly empty land to the south for what they're not getting.
Nicely written header tackling a very challenging topic. I'm not sure I feel so ready to write off a 2 state solution as others.
Yes Israel would have an unfriendly state on its border, but there's nothing new about that! Reducing the amount of interaction/debates about borders and settlers should improve the prospect of peace I would think.
The settlers aren't going anywhere: indeed, every day, there are more settlers in the West Bank, and the prospects for a viable Palestinian state diminish.
Let us not forget that even the "Two State" solution that Arafat turned down wouldn't have got rid of most of them, it would have resulted in a weird patchwork, split up state, dotted with Israeli outposts.
You could re-engine the Gripen and tell the US to go hang (though ITAR is unlikely to be an issue; it's more the question of immediate operability in the face of any attempted US veto).
With what? Neither EJ200 or SNECMA M88 are designed for single engined applications. Saab and GE spent a lot of time and money re-engineering the F404 for Gripen. If anybody wants a non-ITAR combat aircraft any time in the next decade it's Eurofigher, Rafale or get to fuck.
Rafael is carrier-capable and mature. We have carriers with F35s that the US can turn off. We have (dating from the Cameron days) a pre-existing cooperation structure with the French. Fitting the carriers with cats and traps and buying Rafaels is doable in, what? Three years? Sounds good.
Would be an enormous waste of money for no good reason.
The Americans can turn off the F35Bs in a fit of pique, and we have a pique-y President. Sounds like a good reason to me.
Personally I’d rather people didn’t dump AI generated text into this forum.
I’m here to read people’s personal responses to current events (plus the occasional betting post) based on their own past experience that is outside my own. I can ask Claude/ChatGPT/Mistral for AI generated takes whenever I like.
The 1948 borders are done for. Having started and lost multiple wars and the world moved on, the Arab side doesn't get a mulligan on that generous offer.
I don't think there's a viable Palestinian state or political class, so I think this post misses the most viable option of a three state solution. Reintegration of the West Bank and Gaza into Jordan and Egypt, with some devolution of domestic and social policy but no independent military, policing, etc.
That's possible for Gaza, but how do you deal with the settlers in the West Bank?
Land swaps. When I say the West Bank I mean, you know, 95% of the West Bank and an equivalent amount of mostly empty land to the south for what they're not getting.
When you say "land swaps" you are still working on the theory that there is a majority in Israel willing to move the settlers. And that's simply not true, and it becomes less true every day as the settler population increases.
The only scenario where Israel would contemplate something of that nature would be if they faced an existential crisis.
NEW POLL: LABOUR STILL LEADS AS CONSERVATIVES DIPS, REFORM UK NO CHANGE Lab 28% (+2) Cons 21% (-1) Lib Dems 13% (=) Reform 25% (=) Greens 7% (-1) SNP 2% (=) Others 4% (=) 👥1632 surveyed | 🔎5-6 Feb 2025 | 🗓️+/- 28 Feb 2025
So it's an MoE adjustment. Shame Farage didn't get the kicking he deserved for his pro Trump treachery.
Why is the order Lab (28) Con (21) Lib dem (13) Reform (25) rather than: Lab (28) Reform (25) Con (21) Lib dem (13) ?
Personally I’d rather people didn’t dump AI generated text into this forum.
I’m here to read people’s personal responses to current events (plus the occasional betting post) based on their own past experience that is outside my own. I can ask Claude/ChatGPT/Mistral for AI generated takes whenever I like.
If we got rid of all the AI bots, it'd just be me and you, @Phil. And I'm not even sure about you.
NEW POLL: LABOUR STILL LEADS AS CONSERVATIVES DIPS, REFORM UK NO CHANGE Lab 28% (+2) Cons 21% (-1) Lib Dems 13% (=) Reform 25% (=) Greens 7% (-1) SNP 2% (=) Others 4% (=) 👥1632 surveyed | 🔎5-6 Feb 2025 | 🗓️+/- 28 Feb 2025
So it's an MoE adjustment. Shame Farage didn't get the kicking he deserved for his pro Trump treachery.
Why is the order Lab (28) Con (21) Lib dem (13) Reform (25) rather than: Lab (28) Reform (25) Con (21) Lib dem (13) ?
Personally I’d rather people didn’t dump AI generated text into this forum.
I’m here to read people’s personal responses to current events (plus the occasional betting post) based on their own past experience that is outside my own. I can ask Claude/ChatGPT/Mistral for AI generated takes whenever I like.
If we got rid of all the AI bots, it'd just be me and you, @Phil. And I'm not even sure about you.
Well I’ve actually MET you, and I’m still not sure you’re human
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
The 1948 borders are done for. Having started and lost multiple wars and the world moved on, the Arab side doesn't get a mulligan on that generous offer.
I don't think there's a viable Palestinian state or political class, so I think this post misses the most viable option of a three state solution. Reintegration of the West Bank and Gaza into Jordan and Egypt, with some devolution of domestic and social policy but no independent military, policing, etc.
That's possible for Gaza, but how do you deal with the settlers in the West Bank?
Land swaps. When I say the West Bank I mean, you know, 95% of the West Bank and an equivalent amount of mostly empty land to the south for what they're not getting.
When you say "land swaps" you are still working on the theory that there is a majority in Israel willing to move the settlers. And that's simply not true, and it becomes less true every day as the settler population increases.
The only scenario where Israel would contemplate something of that nature would be if they faced an existential crisis.
Well yes, I don't blame the Israelis for being sceptical after "remove the settlers in exchange for peace" worked so incredibly well in Gaza. The point is that this happens as part of an externally enforced permanent deal.
And I think with fairly limited land swaps (time for the Arabs to get real here) you can keep about 85-90% of Israeli settlements within the new border. Certainly of legal (by Israeli law) ones.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
From Stephen Oppenheimer's "The origins of the British":
That statistical argument is incredibly fallacious. If the population after an invasion ends up 4% invaders afterwards, that tells us nothing about how many of the indigenous population was killed. It could result from a whole range of possibilities, for example an invasion force of about 4% of the indigenous population killing no one, or an invasion force of about 1% killing three quarters of the population.
I can see that the first progenitor of the revisionist peaceful Saxon invasion theory was STurner, a friend of Disraeli's father , who was criticised at the time for over-romanticisation, and was also writing at a time of high political imperative to present a concept of anglosaxon liberty, during the period of Napoleon.
At a time, when Anglo-Saxon liberty was being contrasted with the "Norman Yoke, " by English nationalist historians and novelists.
Yes, and indeed also. There may have been interesting discoveries since, too, but historiography always needs careful scrutiny.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the major 'English" incursions into what we now call South Wales didn't happen until after the Normans took over control of England. In other words a stalemate had developed with Saxon control to the East, more or less, of Offa's Dyke and Celts to the West. It had taken several hundred years to get to that situation, but it seems to have lasted for quite a while.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Nice to have a long introduction. The only thing not discussed which I think is relevance is the Holocaust. The context of that and the founding of the state of Israel is huge. It also drives much of what Israel does now. If you have the memory of the camps, even if now its mostly second hand, how can you not look at your current set of enemies and imagine they would do the same if they could?
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
The 1948 borders are done for. Having started and lost multiple wars and the world moved on, the Arab side doesn't get a mulligan on that generous offer.
I don't think there's a viable Palestinian state or political class, so I think this post misses the most viable option of a three state solution. Reintegration of the West Bank and Gaza into Jordan and Egypt, with some devolution of domestic and social policy but no independent military, policing, etc.
That's possible for Gaza, but how do you deal with the settlers in the West Bank?
Land swaps. When I say the West Bank I mean, you know, 95% of the West Bank and an equivalent amount of mostly empty land to the south for what they're not getting.
When you say "land swaps" you are still working on the theory that there is a majority in Israel willing to move the settlers. And that's simply not true, and it becomes less true every day as the settler population increases.
The only scenario where Israel would contemplate something of that nature would be if they faced an existential crisis.
Well yes, I don't blame the Israelis for being sceptical after "remove the settlers in exchange for peace" worked so incredibly well in Gaza. The point is that this happens as part of an externally enforced permanent deal.
And I think with fairly limited land swaps (time for the Arabs to get real here) you can keep about 85-90% of Israeli settlements within the new border. Certainly of legal (by Israeli law) ones.
That's from 2020, there's been a lot of expansion particularly of "outposts" that are not officially recognized.
I would love your plan to happen: I think it would be the fairest solution. But I think that every day that goes by, Israeli expansion into the West Bank grows, and the harder it is for there to be a viable Palestinian state (or indeed a viable plot of land to merge into Jordan).
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
You could re-engine the Gripen and tell the US to go hang (though ITAR is unlikely to be an issue; it's more the question of immediate operability in the face of any attempted US veto).
With what? Neither EJ200 or SNECMA M88 are designed for single engined applications. Saab and GE spent a lot of time and money re-engineering the F404 for Gripen. If anybody wants a non-ITAR combat aircraft any time in the next decade it's Eurofigher, Rafale or get to fuck.
Rafael is carrier-capable and mature. We have carriers with F35s that the US can turn off. We have (dating from the Cameron days) a pre-existing cooperation structure with the French. Fitting the carriers with cats and traps and buying Rafaels is doable in, what? Three years? Sounds good.
Would be an enormous waste of money for no good reason.
The Americans can turn off the F35Bs in a fit of pique, and we have a pique-y President. Sounds like a good reason to me.
Were we spending 5% of GDP on defence, perhaps. But we're not, and there are far more useful, and urgent demands on the available funds.
The carriers are largely vanity projects, so we might as well keep them as such, with the least expenditure.
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
You could re-engine the Gripen and tell the US to go hang (though ITAR is unlikely to be an issue; it's more the question of immediate operability in the face of any attempted US veto).
With what? Neither EJ200 or SNECMA M88 are designed for single engined applications. Saab and GE spent a lot of time and money re-engineering the F404 for Gripen. If anybody wants a non-ITAR combat aircraft any time in the next decade it's Eurofigher, Rafale or get to fuck.
Rafael is carrier-capable and mature. We have carriers with F35s that the US can turn off. We have (dating from the Cameron days) a pre-existing cooperation structure with the French. Fitting the carriers with cats and traps and buying Rafaels is doable in, what? Three years? Sounds good.
Can @Dura_Ace tell us whether the USA can turn off our F35s - how much autonomy do we have?
(I don't know the detail. I know we have more autonomy, but not how much.)
Can the USA, for example, prevent them flying on the day over ... say ... Scotland? Or Ukraine?
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I think it's entirely possible that trouble comes to the Caucuses, and if it does, Russia doesn't have a lot of ability to put it down.
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
A total Russian collapse is not at all on the West's interests, which I'm still not entuirely sure Zekensky fully understands.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I think it's entirely possible that trouble comes to the Caucuses, and if it does, Russia doesn't have a lot of ability to put it down.
I can with confidence predict that Putin will not be leader of Russia in 20 years time. I also have some confidence that his successor will not be quite as evil. Reason, as with Stalin and Brezniev et al anyone likely to succeed was weeded out as a threat, awful lot of windows to walk out of in Moscow. Anyone as wicked as Putin in Moscow has already walked out of a window.
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
Matt Goodwin, like that chap who used to work for Cameron, has really gone down the rabbit hole.
There’s a lot of alt right stuff trying to undermine confidence in Britain and Europe right now. I wonder why now and where it comes from. It’s not even subtle. 🤔
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
I don’t think I’d fight for Britain any more. Seriously
I'm pretty sure my 21 year old grandson would, although he's in Australia now! Only temporarily, or at least that's the current plan.
At my advanced age I confess it is a tad unlikely I’d get the call up. So it’s somewhat hypothetical
But I can entirely understand the sentiments of the guy in that Goodwin article. What exactly would he be fighting for? If you are a young white native male in the UK, it is obvious that society regards you as the least deserving, the most problematic, and generally toxic. Why fight for that?
Phillips OBrien @phillipspobrien.bsky.social · 32m I do not think people realize how comprehensive the Trump Administration is being in its attempts to help Putin kill Ukrainians. I have it on an excellent source that Ukrainian UAV operations are 15% less effective because of the US intel cut off.
This should be a chilling warning for the rest of Europe. If the US can help Putin kill Ukrainians today, the US can help Putin kill lots of other Europeans tomorrow.
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
Matt Goodwin, like that chap who used to work for Cameron, has really gone down the rabbit hole.
There’s a lot of alt right stuff trying to undermine confidence in Britain and Europe right now. I wonder why now and where it comes from. It’s not even subtle. 🤔
What exactly in that Goodwin article is factually wrong? We HAVE allowed in 100,000+ illegal migrants by boat since 2018. Free speech IS increasingly policed. Men DO get a tougher deal in almost all aspects - they die younger, do worse in education, and now - latest data - they earn less
This is not “Kremlin fucking disinformation” you moron. This is the case
Why should that man fight for the UK? Which has, by the by, taught his cohort to hate his own racist evil country, anyway
I know young men like this - couple in my family - and this is exactly what they think. So do fuck off
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
I don’t think I’d fight for Britain any more. Seriously
I'm pretty sure my 21 year old grandson would, although he's in Australia now! Only temporarily, or at least that's the current plan.
At my advanced age I confess it is a tad unlikely I’d get the call up. So it’s somewhat hypothetical
But I can entirely understand the sentiments of the guy in that Goodwin article. What exactly would he be fighting for? If you are a young white native male in the UK, it is obvious that society regards you as the least deserving, the most problematic, and generally toxic. Why fight for that?
The corps of aged right wing columnists, blowhards and assorted raconteurs will surely be drafted first.
I’m sure Lieutenant Johnson and Captain Gove will be inspiring officers. The question is which side will they fight for and who benefits is a different question altogether.
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
Matt Goodwin, like that chap who used to work for Cameron, has really gone down the rabbit hole.
There’s a lot of alt right stuff trying to undermine confidence in Britain and Europe right now. I wonder why now and where it comes from. It’s not even subtle. 🤔
The Daily Mail had thousands of comments along these lines yesterday. Some were Russian bots, although obviously not all.
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
Matt Goodwin, like that chap who used to work for Cameron, has really gone down the rabbit hole.
There’s a lot of alt right stuff trying to undermine confidence in Britain and Europe right now. I wonder why now and where it comes from. It’s not even subtle. 🤔
The Daily Mail had thousands of comments along these lines yesterday. Some were Russian bots, although obviously not all.
That the problem, the bots and alt right are not without influence. So many bots though.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
I don’t think I’d fight for Britain any more. Seriously
I'm not sure how much people fight *for* their country. I suppose many different people have many different motivations. I think I would fight if I felt my home, or my family, or my general way of life were being threatened. I wouldn't be fighting for the UK, as such, but for the people I loved.
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
It's nuts you can pay extra for a fancy model, and the whole lot is still VAT free.
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
More common conditions, including anxiety and depression do lead to awards of PIP mobility. Autistic spectrum disorder and PTSD attracted the highest proportion of awards. Nonetheless, 60% of claimants with depression and 67% of claimants with anxiety as their main condition got an award of the mobility component.
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
Britain’s population is ageing klaxon.
It would be interesting to see the age demographic breakdown of who has a motability car.
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
Britain’s population is ageing klaxon.
One of my more controversial takes is a lot of car-based disability benefits are fraudulent, but councils daren't investigate. Whenever they bother to enforce blue badges in Edinburgh they end up towing loads of cars.
You could re-engine the Gripen and tell the US to go hang (though ITAR is unlikely to be an issue; it's more the question of immediate operability in the face of any attempted US veto).
With what? Neither EJ200 or SNECMA M88 are designed for single engined applications. Saab and GE spent a lot of time and money re-engineering the F404 for Gripen. If anybody wants a non-ITAR combat aircraft any time in the next decade it's Eurofigher, Rafale or get to fuck.
Rafael is carrier-capable and mature. We have carriers with F35s that the US can turn off. We have (dating from the Cameron days) a pre-existing cooperation structure with the French. Fitting the carriers with cats and traps and buying Rafaels is doable in, what? Three years? Sounds good.
Can @Dura_Ace tell us whether the USA can turn off our F35s - how much autonomy do we have?
(I don't know the detail. I know we have more autonomy, but not how much.)
Can the USA, for example, prevent them flying on the day over ... say ... Scotland? Or Ukraine?
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
It's nuts you can pay extra for a fancy model, and the whole lot is still VAT free.
Also, the idea people need new cars because second hand ones are unreliable is a bit out of date. Cars are vastly more reliable than, say, 30 years ago.
You could re-engine the Gripen and tell the US to go hang (though ITAR is unlikely to be an issue; it's more the question of immediate operability in the face of any attempted US veto).
With what? Neither EJ200 or SNECMA M88 are designed for single engined applications. Saab and GE spent a lot of time and money re-engineering the F404 for Gripen. If anybody wants a non-ITAR combat aircraft any time in the next decade it's Eurofigher, Rafale or get to fuck.
Rafael is carrier-capable and mature. We have carriers with F35s that the US can turn off. We have (dating from the Cameron days) a pre-existing cooperation structure with the French. Fitting the carriers with cats and traps and buying Rafaels is doable in, what? Three years? Sounds good.
Can @Dura_Ace tell us whether the USA can turn off our F35s - how much autonomy do we have?
(I don't know the detail. I know we have more autonomy, but not how much.)
Can the USA, for example, prevent them flying on the day over ... say ... Scotland? Or Ukraine?
No fucking idea, but it would make a lot of sense from an American perspective to build in such a feature. I don't know why they wouldn't.
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
Matt Goodwin, like that chap who used to work for Cameron, has really gone down the rabbit hole.
There’s a lot of alt right stuff trying to undermine confidence in Britain and Europe right now. I wonder why now and where it comes from. It’s not even subtle. 🤔
The Daily Mail had thousands of comments along these lines yesterday. Some were Russian bots, although obviously not all.
There is a particular kind of person who is absolutely desperate for everything to go wrong, salivating over terrorist attacks, the prospect of the British Army getting wiped out, climate change bring unstoppable etc etc
Viewcode: Please tell me more about the British Royal Navy's project called "Project Ark Royal"
Perplexity.ai: Project Ark Royal is an initiative by the RN to enhance its Queen Elizabeth-class (QEC) aircraft carriers. This project, part of the Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF) initiative, aims to progressively upgrade the carriers' launch and recovery systems, enabling them to operate a wider range of aircraft and advanced drones[1][7].
Key Features and Objectives
1. Phased Approach: The project envisions a gradual progression from STOVL (Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing) to STOL (Short Take-Off and Landing), then to STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery), and finally to CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery)[2].
2. Aircraft Compatibility: Potential for operating fixed-wing crewed aircraft like F/A-18E, F-35C, Rafale[1].
3. Carrier Modifications: Plans include adding an angled flight deck, arrestor gear, and launch equipment.[1][7].
4. Enhanced Cooperation: Enable closer operations with allies, esp UK/US cooperation on carrier ops[1].
Timeline and Implementation
1. Initial demonstrations will involve ramp launches, followed by assessments once recovery systems are in place[1].
2. The first phase, scheduled for November 2025, will involve launching a Mojave drone from a Royal Navy carrier off the U.S. east coast[2].
3. Future phases include integrating more complex drones, deploying aircraft arrestor gear, and conducting Joint Warrior operations[1].
Potential Benefits
1. Increased Versatility: A wider range of crewed and uncrewed aircraft enhances operational flexibility[1].
3. Future-Proofing: It prepare, the carriers for future air vehicles, including large drones and potentially the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray for air-to-air refueling[7].
Note that full implementation, especially CATOBAR conversion, would likely not be realized before the 2030s and is subject to funding approval[7].
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
More common conditions, including anxiety and depression do lead to awards of PIP mobility. Autistic spectrum disorder and PTSD attracted the highest proportion of awards. Nonetheless, 60% of claimants with depression and 67% of claimants with anxiety as their main condition got an award of the mobility component.
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
More common conditions, including anxiety and depression do lead to awards of PIP mobility. Autistic spectrum disorder and PTSD attracted the highest proportion of awards. Nonetheless, 60% of claimants with depression and 67% of claimants with anxiety as their main condition got an award of the mobility component.
Being depressed entitles you to a car now?
A new car, changed every three years, free insurance for three drivers, and free servicing.
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
Relatedly, we had one of these rolling around the neighbourhood in the 1990s. Apparently the government didn't forcibly take them back until 2007 - some customers loved them and didn't want to give them up. This was the genesis of Motability.
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
To be fair, the 2025 data only contains information from six weeks of corporate bond sales, during which only a very small number of British non-financial firms issued bonds. I would be extremely surprised if Motability ends up in the top five when full year data is available.
(It's also worth noting that Motability tends to issue pretty short term debt, which means there is much more rolling over of existing bonds than with other firms.)
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
Matt Goodwin, like that chap who used to work for Cameron, has really gone down the rabbit hole.
There’s a lot of alt right stuff trying to undermine confidence in Britain and Europe right now. I wonder why now and where it comes from. It’s not even subtle. 🤔
The Daily Mail had thousands of comments along these lines yesterday. Some were Russian bots, although obviously not all.
There is a particular kind of person who is absolutely desperate for everything to go wrong, salivating over terrorist attacks, the prospect of the British Army getting wiped out, climate change bring unstoppable etc etc
George Orwell noted, during WWII, the existence of people who revelled in things going wrong, and found British success almost intolerable.
Relatedly, we had one of these rolling around the neighbourhood in the 1990s. Apparently the government didn't forcibly take them back until 2007 - some customers loved them and didn't want to give them up. This was the genesis of Motability.
I always thought that was the Only Fools and Horses-mobile, but that must have been the Robin Reliant, with a similar comical quality.
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
More common conditions, including anxiety and depression do lead to awards of PIP mobility. Autistic spectrum disorder and PTSD attracted the highest proportion of awards. Nonetheless, 60% of claimants with depression and 67% of claimants with anxiety as their main condition got an award of the mobility component.
Being depressed entitles you to a car now?
Or having a car makes you depressed? Correlation != Causation.
I hear on the news that the EU is going to free up $800bn to rearm. SKS is talking about "boots on the ground."
Seems overkill to oppose Russia which is set to collapse any minute now according to PB war-watchers.
I don't think there are many on here or elsewhere that think Russia is about to collapse, though definition of what that may mean is likely to vary. Very few people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, so it is possible, even if unlikely.
I myself, through having a personal connection with Ukraine, pray for the day when Putin dies or is overthrown, though what replaces him is almost as frightening. What is essential IMO, is that Russia must not be allowed to think that they have won. Their once assumed to be mighty military has been almost thoroughly humiliated by a much smaller one.
They will no doubt try to learn from this and rearm. We need to form a new alliance of democratic powers and release the US from what is clearly too big a burden for them, the grown-up burden of leadership. They can be reinvited to such a club if they return to being a beacon of hope and freedom such as they used to be. I also pray for that day.
*Raises hand* - I'm tentatively predicting the collapse of Russia, within 20 years or so. But there's a lot can happen between now and then. Very broadly, we are much better off if we are in a position to contain and shape the Russian collapse than if we are not. And importantly, the fewer people Russia is able to kill and the less of the world economy it is able to control between now and then, the better.
Russia is currently, clearly, a major threat to Ukraine, and if it is able to conclude its war in Ukraine favourably, it will be a major threat to our allies in Poland, the Baltics and Scandinavia. This strikes me as a bad outcome and I do not understand the view of those who are indifferent to it.
However, while there are good and bad outcomes for what remains of the west, there are no good outcomes for Russia. If it loses, it has lost millions of people and most of its cash reserves for nothing and its people are likely to be a bit cross. If it wins, it has expanded its empire, but a significant share of its population will be sullen and resentful. History suggests this is more likely to be an expensive burden for it than a benefit.
FWIW, my prediction is that ... after this lot ... we are likely to have a new cold war with an iron curtain along wherever the final ceasefire / armistice line turns out to be.
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Yes, I've thought along those lines. If and when Russia does collapse, who picks up the pieces? One way of making sure it's not China is by doing what Putin is now. Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
Quite frankly, Britain is more likely to collapse than Russia
I hope your likelihoods don't inform your betting.
Given that Britain came within a large whisker of collapsing in 2014 - via Scottosh indy (which will return, one day) - then it's not like I am predicting something outlandish
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
The 1948 borders are done for. Having started and lost multiple wars and the world moved on, the Arab side doesn't get a mulligan on that generous offer.
I don't think there's a viable Palestinian state or political class, so I think this post misses the most viable option of a three state solution. Reintegration of the West Bank and Gaza into Jordan and Egypt, with some devolution of domestic and social policy but no independent military, policing, etc.
That's possible for Gaza, but how do you deal with the settlers in the West Bank?
You swap Gaza for the West Bank. The Israeli settlers get newly built housing and apartments on a lovely shoreline in Gaza, and the Palestinians are re-united on the West Bank.
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
Matt Goodwin, like that chap who used to work for Cameron, has really gone down the rabbit hole.
There’s a lot of alt right stuff trying to undermine confidence in Britain and Europe right now. I wonder why now and where it comes from. It’s not even subtle. 🤔
What exactly in that Goodwin article is factually wrong? We HAVE allowed in 100,000+ illegal migrants by boat since 2018. Free speech IS increasingly policed. Men DO get a tougher deal in almost all aspects - they die younger, do worse in education, and now - latest data - they earn less
This is not “Kremlin fucking disinformation” you moron. This is the case
Why should that man fight for the UK? Which has, by the by, taught his cohort to hate his own racist evil country, anyway
I know young men like this - couple in my family - and this is exactly what they think. So do fuck off
If you were a young working class white man, at almost any period in our history, the elites had a far lower opinion of you than they do today.
Yet, millions fought bravely for their country
Our problems are first world problems. If our society is conquered, they will become third world problems.
Comments
So we continue the awful merry-go-round of hate & despair, with no end in sight.
Gains beyond North Carolina and Maine will, however, be harder. If Sherrod Brown - who won Ohio in the last Trump midterms - were to stand again, then I suppose that could come into play. Joni Ernst in Iowa only just won last time around, so that's a possible.
And then there are Texas and Florida, but it would need to be a monumentally bad night for the Republicans for those to come into play.
It is not within the realm of practical possibility.
We might just as well argue that Europeans should be driven out of America, or Protestants out of Ireland.
It might be cheaper just to build new carriers...
Edit: again, from distant memory, power provision for an EMALS solution is a problem, as is deck height for the equipment.
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=393623
Polish President Andrzej Duda has expressed hope for swift progress in finalizing a contract with South Korea to buy K2 battle tanks, highlighting the importance of continued defense cooperation, Seoul's foreign ministry said Friday.
Duda made the remarks during a courtesy call paid by Korean Foreign Minister Cho Tae-yul in Warsaw on Thursday (local time), as the two countries are seeking to finalize the second round of the $7 billion deal under which South Korea will export 820 K2 tanks to Poland.
The two countries signed the $12.4 billion agreement in July 2022, under which South Korea will supply K2 tanks, K9 self-propelled howitzers, FA-50 light attack aircraft and Chunmoo multiple rocket launchers to the European nation...
..The ministry quoted Kosiniak-Kamysz as reaffirming Poland's commitment to implementing the bilateral comprehensive defense partnership "without delay."
The two sides also agreed to continue talks on the K2 tank contract and explore opportunities for additional arms procurement to further enhance defense cooperation.
Then you had the situation where there were enough of them so by treaty (thanks for nothing Balfour) promising them land there.
Then you had the UN partition plan, accepted by the Jews, rejected by the Arabs.
Then you had war. And once you have war, all bets are off.
NEW POLL: LABOUR STILL LEADS AS CONSERVATIVES DIPS, REFORM UK NO CHANGE
Lab 28% (+2)
Cons 21% (-1)
Lib Dems 13% (=)
Reform 25% (=)
Greens 7% (-1)
SNP 2% (=)
Others 4% (=)
👥1632 surveyed | 🔎5-6 Feb 2025 | 🗓️+/- 28 Feb 2025
There is no carrier capable trainer to qualify crew (the French Navy do quals on US carriers).
The only catapult you can actually buy is American.
You need to triple the size of the air wing due to the very high training requirements of CATOBAR aviation.
The UK would be behind India in the queue for Rafale M. India are not getting theirs until 2029.
*thumbs up emoji
Viewcode
can the British Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers be fitted to CATOBAR format?
Perplexity.ai
Yes, the British Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers can potentially be fitted to CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) format. The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the carriers might be fitted with catapults "in the coming years" to launch certain types of aircraft, particularly uncrewed air systems (UAS)[3].
The carriers were originally designed with the possibility of conversion to CATOBAR in mind. There is space for an angled deck, although some modifications to the forward port side deck edge might be necessary[10]. Additionally, there is a full-height gallery deck between the hangar and flight deck that could accommodate the fitting of Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and arrestor gear[10].
However, it's important to note that while technically feasible, previous attempts to convert the carriers to CATOBAR encountered significant challenges:
- 1. Cost: In 2012, cost projections for converting one carrier to CATOBAR configuration doubled, leading to a reversal of the decision[4].
- 2. Time: The conversion work was estimated to add another 3 years to the construction time[7].
Currently, the Royal Navy is considering a phased approach called Project Ark Royal, which envisions a progression from STOVL (Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing) to STOL (Short Take-Off and Landing), then to STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery), and finally to CATOBAR[1]. This approach aims to spread out the financial cost and incrementally improve capability over time.Citations:
[1] https://www.twz.com/royal-navy-wants-to-refit-its-carriers-with-catapults-arresting-wires
[2] https://www.defencexp.com/explained-stobar-vs-catobar-type-of-aircraft-carriers/
[3] https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-confirm-aircraft-carriers-may-be-fitted-with-catapults/
[4] https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/brief-guide-to-the-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carriers/
[5] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/catobar-vs-stobar-which-aircraft-carrier-better-209219/
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier
[7] https://www.navylookout.com/cats-traps-and-claptrap-why-the-royal-navys-new-aircraft-carriers-operate-vstol-aircraft/
[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er2BAnuJN3Y
[9] https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1bguslg/why_are_the_queen_elizabeth_class_carriers_stovl/
[10] https://www.navylookout.com/development-of-the-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier-a-design-history/
[11] https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/equipment/ships/queen-elizabeth-class
Answer from Perplexity:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/can-the-british-queen-elizabet-1CYX8_rxRXCJu9R8N.7Xbw?utm_source=copy_output
But yes, the idea of any major modifications to our carriers, other than just scraping/selling them, is borderline insane.
This is more cheerful. Indeed brilliant. Miniature AI repair men fixing remote controls etc. Appeals to the toy-loving child that still lurks in all of us
https://youtu.be/LXeULq6COBY?si=9u0cWbJPukz089fi
Saxon invasion theory was STurner, a friend of Disraeli's father , who was criticised at the time for over-romanticisation, and was also writing at a time of high political imperative to
present a concept of anglosaxon liberty, during the period of Napoleon.
Outside of Falcon 9, medium and heavy launches are scarce and booked years in advance. Production schedules for rockets mean that you can’t just order another one.
If you tried to book a payload on Ariane 6, I think you’d be looking at 2 years, minimum.
Yes, this means some interesting things.
Europe has a small number of dedicated military satellites. They are expensive and their replacement times would be in the order of half a decade - more likely a decade. This makes them vulnerable to ASAT - small number of targets that are irreplaceable in the short term.
What Europe needs is its own mega constellation for data and surveillance - backed by rapid, frequent launch. Which means thousands of targets, which can be replaced on a near daily basis. Which makes ASAT useless.
I don't think there's a viable Palestinian state or political class, so I think this post misses the most viable option of a three state solution. Reintegration of the West Bank and Gaza into Jordan and Egypt, with some devolution of domestic and social policy but no independent military, policing, etc.
When it was looked, again, at under the Coalition government, it was found to require a rip out and redo that equalled the post war conversions of WWII carriers to the jet age. Which turned out to be huge money pits.
Please tell me more about the British Royal Navy's project called "Project Ark Royal"
Perplexity.ai:
Project Ark Royal is an initiative by the RN to enhance its Queen Elizabeth-class (QEC) aircraft carriers. This project, part of the Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF) initiative, aims to progressively upgrade the carriers' launch and recovery systems, enabling them to operate a wider range of aircraft and advanced drones[1][7].
Key Features and Objectives
- 1. Phased Approach: The project envisions a gradual progression from STOVL (Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing) to STOL (Short Take-Off and Landing), then to STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery), and finally to CATOBAR (Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery)[2].
- 2. Aircraft Compatibility: Potential for operating fixed-wing crewed aircraft like F/A-18E, F-35C, Rafale[1].
- 3. Carrier Modifications: Plans include adding an angled flight deck, arrestor gear, and launch equipment.[1][7].
- 4. Enhanced Cooperation: Enable closer operations with allies, esp UK/US cooperation on carrier ops[1].
Timeline and Implementation- 1. Initial demonstrations will involve ramp launches, followed by assessments once recovery systems are in place[1].
- 2. The first phase, scheduled for November 2025, will involve launching a Mojave drone from a Royal Navy carrier off the U.S. east coast[2].
- 3. Future phases include integrating more complex drones, deploying aircraft arrestor gear, and conducting Joint Warrior operations[1].
Potential Benefits- 1. Increased Versatility: A wider range of crewed and uncrewed aircraft enhances operational flexibility[1].
- 2. Cost Efficiency: The phased approach spreads costs whilst incrementally improving capabilities[2].
- 3. Future-Proofing: It prepare, the carriers for future air vehicles, including large drones and potentially the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray for air-to-air refueling[7].
Note that full implementation, especially CATOBAR conversion, would likely not be realized before the 2030s and is subject to funding approval[7].Citations:
[1] https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/project-ark-royal-plans-for-angled-decks-and-drones/
[2] https://www.twz.com/royal-navy-wants-to-refit-its-carriers-with-catapults-arresting-wires
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_(91)
[4] https://flightsim.to/file/75128/hms-queen-elisabeth-catobar-conversion-project-ark-royal
[5] https://www.hydro-international.com/content/article/discovering-h-m-s-ark-royal?output=pdf
[6] https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/13xiiaz/uk_explores_cats_and_traps_retrofit_to_qec/
[7] https://www.navylookout.com/the-royal-navy-has-ambitious-plans-for-its-future-maritime-aviation-force/
[8] https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=191&t=2037423
Answer from Perplexity:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/can-the-british-queen-elizabet-1CYX8_rxRXCJu9R8N.7Xbw?utm_source=copy_output
I'm not sure I feel so ready to write off a 2 state solution as others.
Yes Israel would have an unfriendly state on its border, but there's nothing new about that!
Reducing the amount of interaction/debates about borders and settlers should improve the prospect of peace I would think.
Let us not forget that even the "Two State" solution that Arafat turned down wouldn't have got rid of most of them, it would have resulted in a weird patchwork, split up state, dotted with Israeli outposts.
I’m here to read people’s personal responses to current events (plus the occasional betting post) based on their own past experience that is outside my own. I can ask Claude/ChatGPT/Mistral for AI generated takes whenever I like.
The only scenario where Israel would contemplate something of that nature would be if they faced an existential crisis.
Lab (28) Reform (25) Con (21) Lib dem (13) ?
*Oh yes, anyone who hasn't been asleep through Middle East politics for the past 20 years and isn't an idiot
@GoodwinMJ
"Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him"
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1897958575676256355
And I think with fairly limited land swaps (time for the Arabs to get real here) you can keep about 85-90% of Israeli settlements within the new border. Certainly of legal (by Israeli law) ones.
See e.g. https://israelpolicyforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Map-9.png
I have no idea when Russia will collapse ... last time it took 30-45 years, depending how the start is dated.
One (not very likely, but more charitable than the obvious) theory about Mr Trump's actions is that he is concerned about the consequences of a complete Russian collapse in terms of China getting fuller Pacific access and a big chunk of Russia than he is about the consequences of collapsing Ukraine and handing it over to be dismembered.
From a USA Govt realpolitikal view, there is some logic to it.
Possibly in 25 years time, the superpowers of the day (USA? China? Europe? None of them are by any means certain to still be powers in 25 years time) will be picking over the corpse of Russia like squabbling eagles over a dead elk.
I would love your plan to happen: I think it would be the fairest solution. But I think that every day that goes by, Israeli expansion into the West Bank grows, and the harder it is for there to be a viable Palestinian state (or indeed a viable plot of land to merge into Jordan).
But we're not, and there are far more useful, and urgent demands on the available funds.
The carriers are largely vanity projects, so we might as well keep them as such, with the least expenditure.
(I don't know the detail. I know we have more autonomy, but not how much.)
Can the USA, for example, prevent them flying on the day over ... say ... Scotland? Or Ukraine?
A contained Russia very much is, though.
But I can entirely understand the sentiments of the guy in that Goodwin article. What exactly would he be fighting for? If you are a young white native male in the UK, it is obvious that society regards you as the least deserving, the most problematic, and generally toxic. Why fight for that?
·
32m
I do not think people realize how comprehensive the Trump Administration is being in its attempts to help Putin kill Ukrainians. I have it on an excellent source that Ukrainian UAV operations are 15% less effective because of the US intel cut off.
Phillips OBrien
@phillipspobrien.bsky.social
This should be a chilling warning for the rest of Europe. If the US can help Putin kill Ukrainians today, the US can help Putin kill lots of other Europeans tomorrow.
https://bsky.app/profile/phillipspobrien.bsky.social/post/3ljryaonv3s2f
This is not “Kremlin fucking disinformation” you moron. This is the case
Why should that man fight for the UK? Which has, by the by, taught his cohort to hate his own racist evil country, anyway
I know young men like this - couple in my family - and this is exactly what they think. So do fuck off
I’m sure Lieutenant Johnson and Captain Gove will be inspiring officers. The question is which side will they fight for and who benefits is a different question altogether.
Until the first shell goes off, at least.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-03-04/how-auto-sales-giant-motability-cornered-britain-s-car-market
Motability bought one of every five new cars sold in the UK last year. And yet it only exists to serve a very specific type of customer: people claiming mobility benefits.
https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/claiming-pip-mobility-component-on-mental-health-grounds-who-gets-an-award
More common conditions, including anxiety and depression do lead to awards of PIP mobility. Autistic spectrum disorder and PTSD attracted the highest proportion of awards. Nonetheless, 60% of claimants with depression and 67% of claimants with anxiety as their main condition got an award of the mobility component.
Until you spill their pint.
Relatedly, we had one of these rolling around the neighbourhood in the 1990s. Apparently the government didn't forcibly take them back until 2007 - some customers loved them and didn't want to give them up. This was the genesis of Motability.
(It's also worth noting that Motability tends to issue pretty short term debt, which means there is much more rolling over of existing bonds than with other firms.)
Go listen to that David Betz podcast I linked yesterday
The Israeli settlers get newly built housing and apartments on a lovely shoreline in Gaza, and the Palestinians are re-united on the West Bank.
today.
Yet, millions fought bravely for their country
Our problems are first world problems. If our society is conquered, they will become third world problems.