Carriers......the latest.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Stirling, Sep 12, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Isn't it strange how the media are wheeling out land-centric pundits like Gen Sir Richard Dannatt and Max Hastings to pontificate about the RN's replacement aircraft carriers? Why aren't Admirals being asked to comment on FRES, MBTs and heavy artillery? Could it be that they have more respect for a joint-service approach instead of promoting internecine squabbles?
     
  2. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    Labour filth only cares about 'jobs', couldn't care less about the defence of his country.
     
  3. yes, and ONLY in their own constituences.
     
  4. Sunday must be talk nonsense day. :roll:
     
  5. As Bob Crow stated this morning these hard cuts to the public sector might not have to be so drastic if the tax avoidance loopholes were closed, but the Tories ain't likely to do that are they. Also the bankers played a massive part in getting us into this shitehole but it's us that are being punished, not those greedy swine and from what I hear the big bonuses for them are on the horizon. :twisted:

    The completion of the 2 carriers is IMO on very shakey ground but we will know soon enough.
     
  6. the way i see it (as a layman)the banks have or are about to pay 30 billion back to the government that is half of the deficit.so why the need to do what they are doing .It is just the cons way and always has been throw thousands out of work stop benifits etc .dont get me wrong weed all these idle bastards out yes but to hit the real poor is shite .But they not bothered sat on there millions
     
  7. Oh and don't forget what the old etonian millionaires keep telling us, 'we are all in this together', no shit!
     
  8. That's an interesting take on an elected official supporting his local constituents. Particularly when it highlights the potential effect not just on his community but the entire country as well as looking at the potential loss of skills. His opinion on the actual needs of the carriers is not mentioned.

    People like Dannet take one stance, possibly you agree with him.
     
  9. so you didn't read the link you posted either?
     
  10. This ISN'T the latest on the carriers, it's only a regurgitated FoI request, dressed up as news.

    Dunfermline MP is only doing his job. Had "Gordon the Forces Friend" done his job and funded the force structure required in the 1998 SDR (yes 12 years ago), then this entire thread (and many others in cyberworld) would be unnecessary. As it was Gordon failed utterly in his job, with the result that the forces as a whole have been decimated and forced to fight two wars with an utterly inadequate force strucutre while having to rob Peter to pay Paul.

    I doubt the old Etonians have anything to do with the disaster that is the forward programme...........
     
  11. Tax avoidance loopholes:- New Liebour and Gordon Brown had 13 years to close all these and did not.Greedy Bankers:-Gordon Brown never discouraged the Geedy Bankers in fact he did the opposite.Some even got Knighthoods to reward their greed(Sir Fred Goodwin).Bank Debts:-If the Banks Debts were the only money owed by this country we'd be laughing.Unfortunately New Liebour was borrowing and racking up record debts apart from that and it is these that are the cause of the cutbacks
    It is easy to blame the current government about the cutbacks but whoever was in power would have to do the same.As far as I can tell the only real arguement is when to impliment the cuts not that they should never take place.
     
  12. As N-G says. we need to think this out. We need the crabs for air defence,locally, i know, i know, they havent let us forget the battle of Britain.We need the Army, to go where the septics tell us to go, to back them up. We need the carriers to project ourselves where we may have to go. we dont need Trident. nuke tip some tomahawks, and we can threaten any other tin pot nuke armed country( iran, pakistan, india) at a lot lower cost to the tax payer. happy days, :D
     
  13. FIRST - we need to think about what the NEXT war will be.

    It is no use for the RN to plan to fight Suez, the RAF the Battle of Britain and the Army to invade Iraq or occupy Afghanistan.

    The late 90's SDR made sense because it set out its intentions - here the intentions are (or at least SEEM) to be hidden until the spending cuts are announced and the service chiefs aren't singing from a combined song sheet.

    FIRST, decide what you want - then see what you can afford.

    .
     
  14. Whenever the planners have predicted what the "NEXT war" will be, it's usually turned out to be something different. Troops trained to defend the Fulda Gap against the Soviet hordes suddenly found themselves whisked to Belize. Troops trained for counter-insurgency (COIN) ops and fighting in built-up areas (FIBUA) found themselves operating in the jungles of Sierra Leone. Troops trained in jungle warfare found themselves fighting in the freezing South Atlantic. Troops trained for Arctic warfare were sent to the deserts of Kuwait and Iraq.

    Before the Argentinean invasion, who expected us to be fighting in the Falklands? Most people hadn't even heard of them. And before 9/11, who would have expected us to be fighting in Afghanistan?

    By all means, make contingency plans but don't expect to have all bases covered unless you retain truly balanced and capable forces. This includes being able to deploy air superiority from the sea. Whatever you do, don't predicate your forces on a certain "NEXT war". However, a foreign policy review would certainly be a good place to start. That's why the current SDSR, based solely on financial considerations, is a farce. If SDR is anything to go by, it won't be properly funded either.
     
  15. The bankers and there bonuses are very easy targets for anger but also fairly stupid ones.
    Not all the banks needed a bail out. So why shouldnt they be able to pay there workers how ever they wish? But then te banks that were bailed out have to be able to compete for talented bankers and thus have to pay bonuses as well, to help them make money.
    Just accept that is the way the city works and move on. It is not in the intrest of the UK to ruin the banks we now own even more than they already are.
    And if these tax loopholes are so easy to close why didnt the communist party we had in charge for the past 12 years do it?
     
  16. :roll: :roll: Oh! Dear Danny Boy, ( re those nice bankers ) The Banking Crisis originated in the USA. Re Sub prime mortgage, high risk and irresponsible lending. Followed by the Banks in the UK. Northen Rock, RBS, HBOS, LLOYDS etc etc ring any bells?? PS You dont work for Anji Knight at the BBA do you :lol: :lol:
     
  17. Im not saying it didnt. But not all the banks needed help FACT. How in a free country is it the place of anyone to say who can be paid what wage in a buisness that is working. And if you then start tellig people how they can be paid in the banks that didnt work you will ruin them even more by making anyone with any sense leave and go and do the same job for more money. We will only make OUR (we own them) banks worse off than they are now.
     
  18. Yes I did, I hate all polititians as most of them are self serving liars only interested in power for powers sake.

    The Con-Libs have asked for 5 yrs, I may not be around then to judge them.

    Spot on Not A Boffin and Fishhead BTW.
     

Share This Page