Phil FosterBut by that logic doesn’t all of Tierra Del Fuego ‘belong’ to Chile?
Moggy
My point exactly. I’ve said it time and again, Uraguay is right next door to Argentina and although Argentina has claimed their land before, along with every other neighbour, Uraguay does not belong to Argentina. The Faroe Islands are closer to the UK (or maybe Iceland) but they do not belong to the UK or Iceland. You cannot make territorial claims based on proximity.
Phil FosterQuote….
Last year it emerged that police have already been handed ‘Chinese-style’ powers to enter private-homes and seize political posters during the London games.
The measures passed by the Government will allow officers and Olympics officials to enter homes and shops near official venues to confiscate protest material.
The powers were introduced to preserve the monopoly of official advertisers on the London 2012 site and would allow advertising posters or hoardings placed in homes to be removed.
The law was drawn so widely, however, that it includes ‘ non-commercial material’ – which could extend its reach to include legitimate campaign literature.Unquote.
Now, I am usually at the top of the queue to throw scorn on political protests because they serve no good and the participants always look like complete losers that shouldn’t be listened to anyway.
But, giving our already anti people Police the power to remove “Cuba Libre” from a house is just over the top.YOUR Parliament voted this in last year, but the papers were more interested in crap like X factor.
We just need a coup, PLEASE.
This election can’t come soon enough. The problem is, the Blue party will get in, and they are just as bad/inexperienced/young/stupid/thick. The 3rd party is just a noisy neighbour, the other parties can’t whistle up the money to compete.
Have you got a link?
Phil FosterQuote….
Last year it emerged that police have already been handed ‘Chinese-style’ powers to enter private-homes and seize political posters during the London games.
The measures passed by the Government will allow officers and Olympics officials to enter homes and shops near official venues to confiscate protest material.
The powers were introduced to preserve the monopoly of official advertisers on the London 2012 site and would allow advertising posters or hoardings placed in homes to be removed.
The law was drawn so widely, however, that it includes ‘ non-commercial material’ – which could extend its reach to include legitimate campaign literature.Unquote.
Now, I am usually at the top of the queue to throw scorn on political protests because they serve no good and the participants always look like complete losers that shouldn’t be listened to anyway.
But, giving our already anti people Police the power to remove “Cuba Libre” from a house is just over the top.YOUR Parliament voted this in last year, but the papers were more interested in crap like X factor.
We just need a coup, PLEASE.
This election can’t come soon enough. The problem is, the Blue party will get in, and they are just as bad/inexperienced/young/stupid/thick. The 3rd party is just a noisy neighbour, the other parties can’t whistle up the money to compete.
Have you got a link?
Phil Foster“The Royal Navy’s presense should be increased”. With what.? I thought the Navy was on its knees together with the rest of our armed forces.!
Well that’s the worrying thing isn’t it? I don’t think the Royal Navy is as incapable as all that but it has been terribly thinned down and stretched out. The 1982 conflict came about because the Argentine government misunderstood British intentions. Today, they might not misunderstand the intentions but they might instead misjudge the British capability to defend the islands. The British government is relying on the current garrison and their ability to reinforce it. What really makes me angry is that the British government attitude toward our armed forces might once again push us to the brink of another unwanted conflict.
Phil Foster“The Royal Navy’s presense should be increased”. With what.? I thought the Navy was on its knees together with the rest of our armed forces.!
Well that’s the worrying thing isn’t it? I don’t think the Royal Navy is as incapable as all that but it has been terribly thinned down and stretched out. The 1982 conflict came about because the Argentine government misunderstood British intentions. Today, they might not misunderstand the intentions but they might instead misjudge the British capability to defend the islands. The British government is relying on the current garrison and their ability to reinforce it. What really makes me angry is that the British government attitude toward our armed forces might once again push us to the brink of another unwanted conflict.
Phil FosterMe too.
I spent some time in the 1980s travelling around Argentina, some of it staying with locals I met on my travels, & who invited me into their houses.
Because of an error by the official who issued it, I turned up at the border with an invalid visa, but was (after some very polite questioning) admitted to the country anyway, with handshakes all round & good wishes from the immigration officials. I have some doubts as to whether an Argentinean arriving at Dover less than five years after the war with an invalid visa would have been treated so well.
Sweeping statement. Personally I doubt his/her experience would have been much different.
Phil FosterGood point, well made.
Phil FosterIndeed.
Two squadrons of Su-35 would be a far greater threat – and much cheaper.
Now that WOULD cause problems.
Phil FosterTurning them into bombers ? Why not. After all the airframe was originally designed that way. But it would require a major change in the underfuselage configuration to have it identical to the IDS version’s…
Plus, it would require the replacement of the current avionic by a dedicated one…
BTW: I wonder if it would be possible to replace the ADV’s engines by the Typhoon’s. For sure it would help to carry really heavy payloads…
Actually no. I have seen Tornado ADV (I think they were F2s) research aircraft fitted with the same underfuselage pylons that the IDS (GR4s) use. I don’t think any modification is required.
Phil FosterYou have all the answers, none very clear and none of the points are fully addressed as evidenced by the fact that every question is dodged rather than answered. Very political, very bullish, you’d make a fine government spin doctor. It really is like hitting your head against a wall and with an attitude like this the war in AFG really is a lost cause as is the long term future of the British armed forces.
Phil FosterThe Chinook upgrade starts with the unused special forces airframes, these will then be rolled back into the fleet, thus not reducung the overall available airframe count.
The Lynx was borderline unusable in Afghanistan due to its lack of hot and high capability (reports that it could only fly between dusk and dawn) so not only will the upgrade increase life but effectively provide more uasable airframes.
The extra Merlins have been widely reported.
Furthermore of the helicopter fleet only a small proportioin of the helicopter fleet is deployed at any one time with types being rotated in and out of theatre thus further reducing the effects of taking airframes mout for reconditioning.
The only extra Merlins I have read about are the ones we bought off Denmark, the replacements on order belong to the Danes. If there is another order for the British armed forces I haven’t read about it anywhere, Wiki tells me about the order I already know about.
Laurence you haven’t addressed my question. 8 Chinnoks that should have been in service years ago are being brought up to useable condition at huge extra cost. This is not an increase in airlift capability in as much as it is not over and above the original requirement.
Any re-engineering work on any airframe will take airframes out of service for an unspecified period of time therefore reducing the airlift capability. If any airframes are required to replace service losses and the intended replacement is in for re-engineering you’re out of luck until the work is completed.
What is needed is more helicopters in the field, the number of airframes there is dictated by the total available including those being used for training purposes, maintenence reserve purposes, work-a-day purposes and now re-engineering purposes. Seeing as the overall number of airframes is undergoing an increased number of tasks, the number available for immediate field use in, for example, AFG will effectively by reduced.
And I only use AFG as an example because other tasks have not been catered for such as unforseen circumstances such as possible future conflicts or disaster relief. Thats when we get back to struggling to cover all bases and your argument that seems to suggest that we don’t need to.
It also covers my argument that the defence budget is mismanaged to a shocking degree, just getting that right might even negate an increased defence budget but it’s not going to happen is it?
Phil FosterThat is only a very small part of the Chinook programme, the entire fleet is now being recaptalised and brought to a common standard. The extra Merlins were ordered aster the 2006 report and the Lynx re-engining will dramatically increase lift by increasing type availability and increasing lift capacity in hot and high evrionments like Afghanistan. All three remedial actions having been announced AFTER the one report that you so cling to.
But again that doesn’t provide more Chinook airframes. In fact it takes airframes out of service whilst they are being modified to bring all of them up to a common standard.
Do you have a link for the extra Merlin order?
The Lynx re-engining will indeed improve the lift of the individual airframe but will not improve the overall airlift capability. Again the airlift capability will be reduced for a time whilst new engines are fitted.
Phil FosterI might add that the last major defence review was when? 1999? Think how much has changed in that time. In the US they have a major defence review every four years to ‘try’ to fine tune requirements and make sure all the bases are covered. The Tories have mooted this and I agree that we need a similar approach here in the UK.
Phil Foster[QUOTE=sealordlawrence;1373856]
Again, depends on what you want to do with your fleet, sure if you are assaulting a defended beachhead then yes you need air power, but otherwise?
Defence spending at 2.6% of GDP compared with nearly 6% in 1989 tells a different story.;) Secondly I have never said the UK should slash the defence budget, simply that people need to know why it appears underfunded compared to their desires and that that is not apocalyptic in the way many here think it is.
I’m not suggesting you’re saying the defence budget should be slashed, I understand that but I think we are at a cross roads and the government has to go one way or the other. I also think we are arguing the same point but losing something in the crossfire. I think that a combination of smart ‘pragmatic’ procurement (not the ‘smart’ procurement the government tells they are already operating but real smart procurement) and an increase in GPD on defence spending would go a long way to ticking all of the boxes. What is needed is political will and in a funny old sort of way the ressesion might kick start that proccess.
Phil FosterWrong, you can operate far from land without carriers. You decide to have a carrier if you intend to take your fleet and put it near somebody elses land who has their own airforce and a large one at that. this is why the RN did not need fleet carriers in the late cold war period as its operational sphere was the GIUK line, it was not going to be leading the charge round the North Cape. Why on earth does Germany need allied air cover? I was not aware that you average failed state has access to a powerful AShM launching airforce?
Why is it so difficult for people to look at what individual navies do rather than just make broad sweeping statements about needing aircraft carriers?
I suppose I might have added the possible requirement for close air support of what has to be regarded as a robust British amphibious assault capability or are the Commandos’ going to rely purely on Apache gunships?
I think I get your point, though you might put a little more thought into the way you address people, your style tires after a while. You are thinking practically within the constraints of the defence budget and fair play it is a realistic train of thought but the government will listen to you no more than those touting the desire to cover all bases.
When sombody here on the forum says something like we need organic airpower at sea or more T45 destroyers and SSNs what they are saying is the British defence budget needs more investment and/or a complete management overhaul. Take future Lynx as an example. Why bother with it? Why not buy the Blackhawk, basic design, off the shelf, as is, but built here in the UK to support UK industry. It has the right capability and the the price would be just right as would the quantities required but no. The MoD can’t organise a p!ss up in a brewery so a handful of ‘Future Lynx’ helicopters it is at an extortionate cost. What little money is available is wasted. A more pragmatic approach would see that cash go a lot further than it actually does.
Sign In
