Am I the only one who felt a cold shiver run down the spine on hearing this would be a joint program with France? Don’t get me wrong, France can build superb ships and left to themselves would build a great carrier. Same is true of the UK (money allowing), however bring the two together and it usually ends in a nightmare of politics, bitchin’, arguments over workshare, mud slinging when things go wrong and massive time/budget over runs.
Thanks for posting these Neptune! Great info, I sometimes wonder where box ship development will end, I sometimes worry that we’ll see a repeat of the 70’s tanker boom followed by collapse (in the 70’s tankers expanded massively with ever bigger ULCC’s being built, many of which were no longer wanted as they were handed over). I mean, Maersk have a history of predicting right, they didn’t get so large and successful by being dumb, but I do wonder. Do you get the magazines of the RINA and IMarE at all?
That’s fair enough, but in that case why did NATO leaders agree to the Afghan mission? If the leaders of these countries had refused to support or take part in Afghan ops I’d respect that as it is their free choice to take that position, but the fact is they didn’t do that and many countries committed to the operation and then either didn’t meet their promised troop deployments or only did so under ROE so limiting as to make their contribution totally pointless. Decide, either in or out, but stop this trash of supporting it and then making sure nothing comes of that support, despite promises to the contrary.
That’s fair enough, but in that case why did NATO leaders agree to the Afghan mission? If the leaders of these countries had refused to support or take part in Afghan ops I’d respect that as it is their free choice to take that position, but the fact is they didn’t do that and many countries committed to the operation and then either didn’t meet their promised troop deployments or only did so under ROE so limiting as to make their contribution totally pointless. Decide, either in or out, but stop this trash of supporting it and then making sure nothing comes of that support, despite promises to the contrary.
Warning, these are from the Sun, hardly a credible information source. You’ll probably find there is a lot more they’re not telling us about these stories as it’d detract from the sensationalism of the story.
Warning, these are from the Sun, hardly a credible information source. You’ll probably find there is a lot more they’re not telling us about these stories as it’d detract from the sensationalism of the story.
I think we should put a lid on anti-American views, it is not America who is not pulling their weight in Afghanistan, they’ve done a lot more over there than any other country and are still the bedrock of the force deployed in that country. US troops have given huge support to both British and other deployments, including logistics, close air support, lift and fire support.
About NATO, countries have failed to honour committments and still don’t want to send troops out there. Other countries have sent troops but with rules of engagement so restrictive they’re militarily pretty worthless (and that is not an attack on the troops themselves, but the politicians who are tying their hands) or have sent token detachments with zero value purely to allow their leaders to claim they’re doing their bit. The recent NATO involvement in South Lebanon has made things a lot harder but these problems in getting NATO to committ properly go back long before the Lebanon operation (and even then most NATO members have hardly been falling over themselves to offer troops for Lebanon, look at France’s initial offer) and there are NATO members who maintain large force structures who seem reluctant to pull their weight.
I think we should put a lid on anti-American views, it is not America who is not pulling their weight in Afghanistan, they’ve done a lot more over there than any other country and are still the bedrock of the force deployed in that country. US troops have given huge support to both British and other deployments, including logistics, close air support, lift and fire support.
About NATO, countries have failed to honour committments and still don’t want to send troops out there. Other countries have sent troops but with rules of engagement so restrictive they’re militarily pretty worthless (and that is not an attack on the troops themselves, but the politicians who are tying their hands) or have sent token detachments with zero value purely to allow their leaders to claim they’re doing their bit. The recent NATO involvement in South Lebanon has made things a lot harder but these problems in getting NATO to committ properly go back long before the Lebanon operation (and even then most NATO members have hardly been falling over themselves to offer troops for Lebanon, look at France’s initial offer) and there are NATO members who maintain large force structures who seem reluctant to pull their weight.
Pandering to scared and naive voters, who wish they could hide under their beds in the hope that the big-bad world outside their front doors will leave them alone. Oh, and they don’t give a rats **** about anyone other than themselves. :p
Be fair, some countries think sending a platoon to sit in a guarded compound in Kabul airport or offering the use of a KC135 is doing their bit and pulling their weight 😡 A lot of NATO countries have sent troops, just so long as they aren’t allowed to go anywhere near any fighting or be exposed to danger, that’s really a great help, they’d be more of a help if they were honest and just said they want no part of any of it.
Pandering to scared and naive voters, who wish they could hide under their beds in the hope that the big-bad world outside their front doors will leave them alone. Oh, and they don’t give a rats **** about anyone other than themselves. :p
Be fair, some countries think sending a platoon to sit in a guarded compound in Kabul airport or offering the use of a KC135 is doing their bit and pulling their weight 😡 A lot of NATO countries have sent troops, just so long as they aren’t allowed to go anywhere near any fighting or be exposed to danger, that’s really a great help, they’d be more of a help if they were honest and just said they want no part of any of it.
Well we don’t have the resouces to send more troops there at the moment, but then again we shouldn’t have to. It’s other NATO members that are dragging their feet.
But we certainly can afford to spend more on defence as a whole, though that wouldn’t help the situation in Afghanistan at the moment.
Exactly, very well put. The USA, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands are doing their bit with the British, where is the rest of NATO?
Well we don’t have the resouces to send more troops there at the moment, but then again we shouldn’t have to. It’s other NATO members that are dragging their feet.
But we certainly can afford to spend more on defence as a whole, though that wouldn’t help the situation in Afghanistan at the moment.
Exactly, very well put. The USA, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands are doing their bit with the British, where is the rest of NATO?
Ok then so where’s our American friends when we need them most? Where are the F15s F16s etc Aircraft carriers, Hornets . Seems to me we have been left in the lurch, with egg on our face.
________________________________
Errr…the US have a lot more troops and aircraft in Afghanistan than we do. And according to this weeks news British troops would rather have USAF than RAF close air support.
Ok then so where’s our American friends when we need them most? Where are the F15s F16s etc Aircraft carriers, Hornets . Seems to me we have been left in the lurch, with egg on our face.
________________________________
Errr…the US have a lot more troops and aircraft in Afghanistan than we do. And according to this weeks news British troops would rather have USAF than RAF close air support.
A shame Peter Jackson beat the North Koreans in filming the Lord of the Rings. What will Pyong Yang do with the Mount doom they built now? :confused: