Navy Grandees Letter (3 Merged Threads)

G

guestm

Guest
Re: Times: "Navy Grandees Attack ‘Perverse’ Defence Cuts

The Argies won't be able to take the Falklands again. Why?

Not because we have a RIC there, not because we have a couple of Typhoons. But simply, we have that scary BFBS bird at MPA who will take them all on.

Magic Mushroom. SAPPHIRE disputes those Tonka v Harrier points you bring up ref Herrick. It appears Harrier was a more capable platform with a much quicker flash to bang time. That said, the airframes were shot.

Edited beacuase I don't know where the Flaklands are.
 
Re: Times: "Navy Grandees Attack ‘Perverse’ Defence Cuts

Montigny-La-Palisse said:
The Argies won't be able to take the Falklands again. Why?

Not because we have a RIC there, not because we have a couple of Typhoons. But simply, we have that scary BFBS bird at MPA who will take them all on.

Magic Mushroom. SAPPHIRE disputes those Tonka v Harrier points you bring up ref Herrick. It appears Harrier was a more capable platform with a much quicker flash to bang time. That said, the airframes were shot.

Edited beacuase I don't know where the Flaklands are.
Monty
I didn't either in 1982 can't forget the fcuking shithole now. Went ashore in Stanley two days afer the ceasefire visited the Post Office covered in Argie turds bought some commemorative envelopes :D (What the fcuk for I don't know) went accross the road to a shop and paid £6 for a packet of wine gums cos I hadn't seen nutty for a month fcuking rip off Falkland sheepshagging kiddie molesting not worth fighting for cnuts. Steam released!!
 

Seadog

War Hero
Moderator
Re: Times: "Navy Grandees Attack ‘Perverse’ Defence Cuts

From soleil's link to The Times
Liam Fox defended the changes and said that the Falklands would remain well protected. Britain has four Typhoon fighters on the islands as well as a small unit of Marines.

A submarine is believed to be located in the area. “It is simply not the case that decommissioning the Harrier would impact upon our ability to defend territories in the South Atlantic,†the Defence Secretary said.

Field Marshal Liam Fox? Once (if) production drilling starts and the South Atlantic becomes busy there will need to be a more substantial naval presence there than now. There is only so many options open to fast air and submarine(s) if hostile forces are hassling/attacking oil rigs, their supply vessels, stand by vessels and the tankers moving the black stuff.

stan the man wrote
How sad that these old crusty cnuts only stand up and say something post retirement, pension in the bag,......

Chestnuts don't get any older than this Stan.

The signatories all 'retired' well before SDSR 2010 was even thought about.

Two of the signatories remain on the active list.

Ministerial approval is required for 2* and above in office before briefing the press.

I'm prepared to be corrected but one can commit murder, the Service pension is safe.

The last Admiral to gob off publicly while in office also resigned, took the Navy Minister with him and the then SoS of Defence barely flinched.

Unless you're on the staff of a Flag, General or Air Officer, you are unlikely to hear what advice is given to or gobbing off at SoS / Ministers goes on in private. And even then....
 
Re: Times: "Navy Grandees Attack ‘Perverse’ Defence Cuts"

Was it old Westy that left some documents loafing on a park bench in London prior to a previous defence review?? that hampered his career didn't it not
 
D

Deleted 493

Guest
Re: Times: "Navy Grandees Attack ‘Perverse’ Defence Cuts

stan_the_man said:
... what he said ...

The Argentines wouldn't take the Falklands. The have neither the capability, nor the drive to take the islands and, more importantly, hold them for any length of time to enable any UN negotiations to settle for their ownership. Be realistic. They will have to sustain a fair sized garrison and an unwilling captive native population in an environment where their ongoing military capability is at best, flakey. They love to shout, and love to be heard, but when it comes to backing it up these days, I'd say it's vanishingly unlikely that they'd move without us parking two subs off their coast and sending whatever came out underwater. And they have no airborne heavy lift capability.

So stop the tub-thumping, eh?

levers
 

penrecon

Lantern Swinger
Re: Times: "Navy Grandees Attack ‘Perverse’ Defence Cuts"

Goatman_Blue said:
Is there any GOOD reason (apart from the apparent death-grip of British Aerospace on the scrotum of HMG) why the French Navy - or indeed (whisper it) RN - could not operate Rafale from HMS QEIII ?

perhaps we should be told.....

--
AS......?

Goatbloke

Absolutely, the UK acquiring Rafale to equip the carrier(s) is the obvious and logical step, it would provide full interoperability with the French to make real sense of the intentions to co-operate on carrier capabilities and I would guess may well be cheaper than the F35, which while it's cutting edge and all that is fantastically expensive!
 

penrecon

Lantern Swinger
Re: Times: "Navy Grandees Attack ‘Perverse’ Defence Cuts"

stan_the_man said:
Was it old Westy that left some documents loafing on a park bench in London prior to a previous defence review?? that hampered his career didn't it not


As I recall, he 'dropped' them while strolling along the towpath at Maidenhead and would you believe it the next person to come along and find them was a Journalist - what an amazing coincidence!
 
Re: Times: "Navy Grandees Attack ‘Perverse’ Defence Cuts

Levers
Please don't think I'm tub thumping it wasn't worth going down there in 82 so certainly not now and I agree ref your comments on Argie capabilty. I think what I was trying to say that it is not worth having a carrier of any kind without it having the appropriate capabilty - so saving ARK with only GR4s and 9s embarked makes no sense at all. But neither does building another carrier which would be obsolete before it is capable of operating the aircraft it was designed to carry.
The goverment has decided to take the risk only history will tell if the gamble paid off.
And decisions like this do sadly have a habit of coming back and biting ones arse.
 
Re: Times: "Navy Grandees Attack ‘Perverse’ Defence Cuts"

I despair:

a - We sent this letter on the morning a planned NUS march on the Tory HQ, thus ensuring the news-cycle is available for, at best, 4 hours. The Gov't have easily shrugged it off - it's gone from the lead item on the Today programme to not even making PM. It shows quite how little effect it's had.

b - We didn't co-ordinate with the bennies (FI Gov't deny loss of CVS has any real effect), who are directly contradicting our arguments. Makes it feel even more like we're protesting because our toys have been taken away instead of any real strategic argument.

c - When did a protest letter ever make a change to Gov't policy? I doubt any credible Gov't would ever reverse a planning round decision, especially in Defence, just because a group of retired Subject Matter Experts wrote to a newspaper.

Nice idea, but never ever going to do anything.
 

Magic_Mushroom

War Hero
Re: Times: "Navy Grandees Attack ‘Perverse’ Defence Cuts"

penrecon said:
Goatman_Blue said:
Is there any GOOD reason (apart from the apparent death-grip of British Aerospace on the scrotum of HMG) why the French Navy - or indeed (whisper it) RN - could not operate Rafale from HMS QEIII ?

perhaps we should be told.....

--
AS......?

Goatbloke

Absolutely, the UK acquiring Rafale to equip the carrier(s) is the obvious and logical step, it would provide full interoperability with the French to make real sense of the intentions to co-operate on carrier capabilities and I would guess may well be cheaper than the F35, which while it's cutting edge and all that is fantastically expensive!

A very reasonable question Goatbloke.

Firstly, I’d suggest that FA-18E/F is a superior platform to Rafale so if we went for an off the shelf option, the Super Hornet is the better choice. Effectively, Rafale is out of the question anyway because BAeS would kick up a right royal stink if we bought a direct competitor to Typhoon.

However, buying F-35 is not just about getting F-35 and it opens a wide variety of military and political doors.

Regards,
MM
 

Seaweed

RIP
Book Reviewer
Re: Times: "Navy Grandees Attack ‘Perverse’ Defence Cuts"

In 1966 when Denis Healey chopped CVA01, 1SL (Admiral Luce) resigned. Phot op in Trafalgar Square and the water just closed over the top. Had no effect whatsoever and the public hardly noticed.

Ironically CVA01 was to have been called HMS Queen Elizabeth.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top