pppLeon:
If you really think a Type 45 could be built in a year you are living in cloud cuckoo land. With the best will in the world, and no matter how much money you threw at it, it could not be done.
As to the British economy, we spend less than 2% of GDP on defence. The government would rather increase spending on foreiegn aid than spend the money on the defence of the realm. They think that “soft power” will give Britain influence, making her an “aid superpower”. I think that’s a load of nonsense, but the fact is that that is what the government thinks, and spends its wealth accordingly. The money is there, and that is how they prefer to spend it.
Going for aid is more to do with winning votes from Liberals than any benefit to Britain. Personally I think aid (charity) should be personal and should not involve the government, except for rescue forces, transport assistance ect.
Britain is one of the world’s biggest spenders on ‘defence’. Only the US, China and France spend more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Sure, but we don’t get all that much for the very large amount that we do spend.
Also, before someone does, there’s no need to list what we do get, I’m already aware 😉
pppRead what? “Not something we can rely on”
The fact that you make ridiculous sweeping statements, and used “LOL”, leads me to believe that you’re a child, adolescent at best 🙂
Go back to school 🙂
Ahhh resorting to personal insults, the last the resort of the man that has been proven wrong 😀
As for going back to Uni, I’m going to.
pppI was unaware it was taking place, the main interest in this country is football. Rugby is rarely played in states schools as far as I’m concerned its played by the toffs in their private schools and clubs.
I went to state school and we played rugby 🙂
pppI was unaware it was taking place, the main interest in this country is football. Rugby is rarely played in states schools as far as I’m concerned its played by the toffs in their private schools and clubs.
I went to state school and we played rugby 🙂
pppAre you suggesting that we should hoard arms that the country doesn’t actually require?
I hate to break it to you, but we no longer have a large empire that requires a huge navy. For the size/number of our overseas territories, our armed forces will be more than capable of defending our interests.
We also have a fairly formidable nuclear deterrent too, should the worst occur. Any larger scale conflict would no doubt involve NATO, and I’m yet to see any good reason why our alliances wouldn’t be honoured?!
We certainly don’t want to be investing much more in our Armed forces than we currently have planned, and I think recent problems highlight more urgent uses of our budget tbh (ie sorting our economy out, the Police and improving the state of our roads are just a few!)
LOL at you directing a massive long rant at me that is completely unrelated to what I actually wrote.
Remember, READ, then WRITE. If you write first, then you end up with a rant that is completely wrong. I have a much better idea of what the current force make up is than you, but thanks for the incomplete update, I’ll treasure it on my bonfire 😉
pppConsidering the size of our territory now, I’d guess our Navy will be a good size for any forseeable defence/offence. Our strength is really dependent on our alliances now, which I’m glad to say is something we should be able to rely on.
Not something we can rely on.
well both QEC covered by six type 45s seems ok, its just the cost/number of the future type 26 program seems a bit dodgy to me,they do need to be realativly cheap to run for the required numbers needed,more is always preferable than needed but…
Or the RN goes with the cheaper option based on having more of them, and the govt cuts the numbers anyway, then spends the difference on Africa to make the Lib Dems happy! In any case, cheap or expensive, we can be sure we will pay for the lot more ship than we will actually get.
pppWhat’s so big a deal about beefing up Typhoon’s undercarriage and structure, folding the wings and adding an arrestor hook? It was done in the case of the Hawk-to-Goshawk. Indeed many British aircraft have been converted to carrier versions over the years. This is not the cutting-edge technology area of design.
I believe the main issue is wing clearance with the deck. The additional weight from strengthening wouldn’t be that big an issue, and is often greatly exaggerated. The F35 is a much safer option though!
pppOh no! Look up MRAV/FRES/TRACER/etc. That sorry saga (£1 billion spent so far on not buying AFVs) has been hammered on the web over the years. Ditto almost everything else to do with AFV procurement, from premature scrappings of sound vehicles leading to the need for expensive rebuilds of worn-out AFVs, via failure to replace vehicles known to be inadequate, to hurried purchases of ‘replacements’ which are then found to be unsuitable & relegated to training. 🙁 Not forgetting the Phoenix fiasco, of course (a little more relevant to an aviation forum), & the failings of AAC helicopter procurement, And more. All discussed at length & in detail. Some of it even gets into the press & TV news, such as the SA80.
Lewis Page has ranted a few times about Watchkeeper, BTW – which is army.
There’s no need to use the P word 😮 😮 😮
pppImpressive 😀
pppI agree with that statement.
STS flew every flight with negative structural margins. It was a calamity of single point failures waiting to happen. It was luck that only two shuttles were lost.
Many orbiter systems were under-designed and required a complete overhaul after every flight – engines, reaction control system, orbital maneuvering system, ammonia boilers, Etc. The silica tiles and heat blankets alone required 200,000 manhours of work between every flight.
In 1997 dollars, it took $500 million and 7-8 months to rebuild a shuttle to make it ready for the next flight. That cost did not include the payload or unique payload support systems added to the payload bay for each flight.
STS was a jobs program for NASA bureaucrats.
NASA= Not About Space Anymore
Oh, and FGA!
It’s unpopular, but I agree. Jobs programme. If they want to be a space agency, perhaps they could consider doing more things in space? By that I mean not in areas of the Earth’s atmosphere.
pppWatching a programme on 9/11 is states that there were only FOUR fighter jets covering a huge number of states and around 130 million people :eek:…….How many do we, in the UK have and what type are they, and……….where are they based…….
4 in QRA North, 4 in QRA South and 4 in the Falklands. I believe if any of the QRA North or South aircraft go then there are aircraft ready to replace them with a longer period of notice. Keeping a large force of aircraft on QRA is massively expensive and is unlikely to be much benefit to us, since a small number of aircraft is already sufficient for air policing.
As for 9/11, the USAF could have quite easily covered the area with lots of QRA aircraft on a daily basis, they certainly had the jets and the money, they just didnt, for some reason 🙂
pppI think the optics are probably a better route for identifying the aircraft than the airframe, since changing the airframe is fairly simple. It’s possible that its just upscaled and reshaped version of something like the Lockheed UAV in Tay’s post, the optics certainly look similar. If it is American and used where it perhaps shouldn’t be, then they are most likely to just make a UAV, not tell anyone, and deny it’s theirs 🙂
Here you go, mrmalaya :
Good thing some of us are members of Pakistani forums:D
German company, civilian drone.
A U.S. company produces a smaller ( 16 cms ) one too.
Darpa has on-going research on them too and a French
company has one in development.Good day all, Tay.
P.S. 🙂 Hey ppp old mate!:cool:
Greetings Tay 😀
pppPROTOCOL (No 7) ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO POLAND AND TO THE UNITED KINGDOM
Article 1
1. The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.
2. In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.
Article 2
To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and practices, it shall only apply to Poland or the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principles that it contains are recognised in the law or practices of Poland or of the United Kingdom.
😀
http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00002re01en.pdf
pppPROTOCOL (No 7) ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO POLAND AND TO THE UNITED KINGDOM
Article 1
1. The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.
2. In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.
Article 2
To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and practices, it shall only apply to Poland or the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principles that it contains are recognised in the law or practices of Poland or of the United Kingdom.
😀
http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00002re01en.pdf
pppCould just as easily be a Pakistani system 🙂
At that size, it could belong to just about anyone!
Sign In
