So who takes on the burden of those reparations? Higher taxes on everyone? Do you make the people who voted for those who enacted the policies pay it?

That argument falls down on the simple fact that public funds are used for criminal injuries and state liability payments in many countries all the time.

A truly shameful subject that should make all concerned feel great unease. Personally, given that this is not an abstract, distant argument but one where the victims are still with us then I think an apology and compensation appropriate. On the rights/wrongs of the aborigine people, I’m sure they do suffer a lot of social problems, but the question is why? Make a people second class and then whinge at the results? This is like the argument of white South Africans who wanted blacks to be second class then used the fact blacks were poor and less well educated to justify the act of keeping them second class.

Their isn’t much point putting any stoock in long term defence procurement at the moment because it’ll be all change when the conservatives get in anyway.

The Conservatives have adopted the perfectly sensible Labour policy in 1997 of honouring the previous governments spending for three years after coming to power IF they win, which is a big IF, to give stability. Of course that doesn’t mean they can’t increase, but so far I’m not seeing any sign that they’ll increase defence spending, and historically the Tories have been no better than Labour on this issue IMO.

The beauty of RAM is it’s modular “bolt-on” capability, with Sea Ram using Phalanx chassis units it’s essentially a self contained system of genuine effectiveness. That does offer the type a genuine self defence capability if needed to conduct MCMV or security ops in or near hot zones without a major weapons upgrade being required. Whether to go with Sea Ram or the lightweight, modular drop in VLS developed for LCS (which should easily be able to be accomodated as just another mission module given the intended modular architecture of C3) is a debatable point though. But I agree, the RN have to make sure that C3 doesn’t become an alternative warship and excuse to further cut hull numbers of the Frigate force.

I don’t think that full-spec PAAMS is feasible for C1. What you’re then talking about is a fully-equipped Type 45, to which you add more systems. Not affordable. It would have to be a cut-down PAAMS. That could still be a capable AAW system, though not quite as good as what T45 has, & with less growth potential. But crucially, it could be a lot cheaper.

My feeling is that unit cost should drop substantially for any additional T45’s provided they’re ordered before the builders dispose of staff, tooling, jigs etc. and that the RN would be better advised to build T45 7 & 8 and a couple more (I’d really like the originally planned 12) and call that C1, but that’s just my view, then use funds released from not designing another high end frigate/destroyer type vessel to back fit the extra 16 VLS cells for either TLAM or Scalp for strategic/operational land attack (or extra Aster) and maybe NSM cannisters for shorter range land attack/anti-ship attack, that’d be a hell of a surface combatant.

IMO, for C3 there are compelling reasons for diesel propulsion that outweigh the benefits of standardising on a single GT (I’d prefer the WR21 to the MT30 for T45/C1/C2), their load characteristics are better suited to MCMV and OPV types and they’re more fuel efficient, which is important for a compact ship expected to have high endurance, and they’re more easy to be operated self maintained by the vessel than GT’s. Also, one of the big plus points of a GT, it’s acceleration and quick start up are probably not that critical on a vessel like C3. Whether shafts or IEP is interesting, on this type there are good arguments for both, they will have a much lower electrical load so some of the advantages of IEP will be superfluous, and IEP is still pretty expensive with distribution systems, VFD’s etc. That said, for survey work and MCM azimuth thrusters with DP using diesel electric drive would be very advantageous.
On C2, that is the whole part of FSC that seems odd to me. Is it a cut down Frigate or pumped up OPV? To me, C1 should definitely be a T45 derivative, at least for hull form and propulsion, and I’d retain PAAMS too, but for C2 I really think a 4000-5000T Frigate with GT (single WR21) + diesels, IEP, is the way to go. And I’d optimise it as an ASW type to operate under the AAW umbrella of T45 or rely on point defence SAM for self defence.

If the arguments being put forward here were for C1 and C2 sharing the same design I’d agree 100% but it seems people aren’t reading the requirements or looking at what VT have proposed. C1 and C2 is a requirement for 16 hulls, that is where there are synergies as both are probably going to be Frigate sized combat vessels and an austere version of a high end Frigate to bulk up numbers does make sense. C3 however is not intended to be a Frigate, not intended to be a front line combat vessel beyond the arms needed for anti-piracy, anti-smuggling and probably counter-terror/insurgency, which is way removed from the capabilities of a Frigate. 24kts. does not need GT’s, the hull form can be a lot cheaper, cheaper materials used, growth margins can be incorporated and still build a much more modest sized vessel than a Frigate. And what VT are proposing is not an austerity Frigate, it’s a large sea going GP/OPV design with capability of Policing/patrol duties and also survey/MCM, the hull is derived from an OPV as presumably the power plant, if C2 is going to be an enhanced OPV then the RN have big problems. The VT design looks a very good C3 proposal, but an upgraded version intended as a T22/23 replacement (which is what C2 will eventually do for a good part of the Frigate force) would be a massive step backwards. The saying steel is cheap is true for high end warships only because the actual hull and machinery isn’t the main part of the cost of destroyers, carriers, frigates etc., on an austere vessel with limited military systems it does not hold true at all and on vessels like OPV’s steel is anything but cheap, bearing in mind as hull size goes up so does required power, that puts up bunker volume required etc. and gets into a circle of growth, and a 4000T OPV/MCMV/Survey vessel will not make sense unless that vessels primary role needs it (possible I admit, but IMO unlikely), whilst diesels are actually better suited to such a design on technical as well as cost grounds IMO. 16 C1 and C2 to a common design? Absolutely. But let’s not try and pretend C3 is going to be a cheap frigate, even if it is where are the RN’s future secondary vessels then going to come from if the intended replacement has transmorphed into a Frigate?

We need a mix of nuclear, clean coal with carbon capture and renewables (wind, tidal, wave, biomass etc.) and a huge expansion of urban tri-gen CHP facilities to provide district heating/cooling much more efficiently. Personally, I think the main grid supply will need base load turbine generators (hopefully nuke and clean coal) for the foreseeable future. That said, it’s surprising what painless, easy and cheap energy efficiency measures can do too.