Randy like the rest of ’em got his privileged backside powdered in the Officers Academy…why weren’t any of the Royal parasites thrown in the deep end with the grunts…too dangerous

‘H’ was flying operational missions from one of the two highest value targets in the South Atlantic. He is due the same respect, as a man, as any other member of the fleet.

I dunno peter…most of the people who support the UK royals probably have absolutely no idea just how much land the royals actually control here,and I think I am right in saying that if the land was owned before a certain date then it does not have to be declared publically.I have no time for most of them…I know some of them make a token effort,and of course Flying Officer Wales has been treated exactly the same as all other RAF trainee pilots :rolleyes:

regards baz

Now do you want to check and see where the revenue generated from the Royal Estates goes to?.

If the Royals were to forgo their state handouts in favour of keeping the revenues from the estates we have granted them they would be considerably wealthier than they are today….might even be able to fix up a few of the palaces properly!.

As for the outrageous handouts that the Royals ‘mooch’ off us poor UK taxpayers. The Civil List in 2006, as representative figure, was £12.2mn net. So thats ballpark 50p per working person per year for the upkeep of long standing tradition that is intrinsically linked with our national identity. Compare that with the UK social security budget and you’ll easily see which drains on our society need removal.

After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.

Classic comedy!

There being no reason why you would want an anti-TBM capability in standard littoral operations?!. Perhaps to protect a coastal installation or city, from TBM’s, from someone just the other side of the Gulf….oops…..Straits…….no sorry not that either!!! :rolleyes:

As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:

“The Navy’s reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren’t many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy…the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat.”

What data?. He’s suggesting that a weapon exists based on no more that the perceived reaction of the USN brass. People with no small interest in making sure that the ‘threat’ ranged against them is perceived as significant. Bomber-gap scaremongering of the worst kind – lets see any shred of clear proof that the PRC military is gearing up to take very long range, 300km+, antiship/anticarrier shots with any kind of missile system let alone this mythical AShBM!.

correction – imaging not SAR.

Only problem with that Defexpo is that you cant do it with antiship seeker technology.

You can do Range Profiling – as I’m sure you know – but the image is 2D and resolution there is measured in metres, at best, if you have absolutely fantastic range resolution in the seeker. Then, with range profiling, you have the issue of aspect and scintillation to overcome. So the one technique thats available to generate an ‘image’ with the type of seeker employed will give a very poor quality return and that only if the aspect of the shot can be guaranteed!.

Does look like we are back to square one on this doesnt it. Like you say the key phrase in the release is “We had wanted them to include another sensor (in the missile)” anyone who knows what they mean by this – especially after the comments made earlier that there wasnt any room for ‘a new sensor’ – earns a gold star!.

JB,

It all depends on what kind of Defence Analyst you intend to be. As Jason points out there are several grades of ‘Analyst’.

If you wish to make a living out of it usually you’ll need a specialist area and, often, it will be an area in which you’ve got detailed work experience or good contacts. You’ll only ever get so far doing op-ed pieces of news thats already in the marketplace.

If you want to get an ‘academic’ background then Kings College London has a Defence Studies graduate course within its Dept. of War Studies. Something like that may look good on a CV, but, articles published in respected trade journals like Armada or Janes or a list of books authored would likely serve as well!.

If it helps below is most of an old resume of a ‘real’ Defence Analyst who earned his living in a Washington beltway consultancy.

…currently employed as a senior aerospace and defense analyst at a US-based defense think tank covering both US and international projects. A particular feature of his work is the evaluation of the interplay between technical developments of warships, weapons and sensors and the effect of such developments on naval strategy and the associated operational arts.

In the civilian sectors he has covered, oil, natural gas and chemical industries, various aspects of the product transportation and trading network, national and international infrastructure programs and other relevant sectors.

Publications include;

Contributions to the book “Navies in the Nuclear Age” and
Authorship of “Multinational Naval Cooperation”
Authorship of “Littoral Warfare – From the Sea to the Land”.
Upcoming books include “Naval Aviation in the 21st Century” and “Futurtech – the navies of the next century”.
Over the last 25 years he has made innumerable contributions to a wide variety of professional journals and television programs. He has presented papers at numerous international conferences at such venues as Cannes and Bangkok and will be chairing an international naval conference on Littoral Warfare next year. During his career he has visited 43 countries, including long stays in SE Asia, and has been to sea on the warships of 21 navies.

Curriculum Vitae

1972 Graduated from University of London with a BSc in Chemical Engineering
1972 – 1978 Worked in a naval research establishment gaining endorsement to BSc for Marine Engineering.
1978-1982 Employed as an analyst on the world chemical and oil tanker industry,
1982-1988 Systems analyst specializing in defense and naval electronics.
1988 – 1990 Worked for Janes Information Group as defense market analyst.
1990 Emigrated to USA and took up current position.

Problem we have here boys and girls is that we are just starting to blur the boundaries between religion and politics.

The protesters here demonstrated against a political instruction which is being enacted by HM Forces. It is not a religious or racial act to demonstrate against those troops anymore than it was religious or racist to demonstrate against the poll tax.

If you were to demonstrate against ‘Muslims’ for their behaviour here you ARE being racist as you specify one religious and racial group as your target. That would, rightly, come under incitement laws. This isnt mindless nitpickery either on my part IMHO.

We absolutely have to make the correct distinction between legitimate protests and religious extremism otherwise we get hoisted on our own rules and values by those people we need our rules and values to be the unmoveable object in front of. We need to be able to point to the tolerance shown in these kinds of events and say ‘look what happens in a mature and stable democracy, you WANT this for your bretheren, so work with us’. Thats how we win this – not by showing them how right their prejudices are against us.

Bager

The Tactical Organic Sensing System is to be developed as a modular system, meaning you can use the Ospreys normally aboard, and just slide the module in when you want to fly an AEW mission… then slide it back out when you need that airframe for a troop/cargo mission.

Granted, but, you know what aircraft turnaround is like – does this sound realistic to you?. As I understand the USMC interest in our ASaC7’s it was more to do with the SAR imagery the radar can generate at useful standoff more than anything else. This fits with the TOSS concept much more than a fleet surveillance mission the way I see it.

You may be able to generate an airframe as stock cargo or as a surveillance platform with TOSS but its still going to tie down 3 airframes if there is an intent to keep up a permanent airborne sensor slot. One in regen from the last mission, one up and one prepping/lined up for relief/cover. If you are only starting with 12 airframes, without any ‘mundane’ systems casualty or battle damage attrition decreasing that further, splitting off 25% of that group isnt going to sit well with the land-force element commander who’s trying to support a lot of marines ashore!.

This brings me to the next point quite neatly. Isnt there a difference between an ESG and ARG tasking. For ESG, if the group is the LHA plus a couple of escorts, is there enough presence to support a full MEU for any period ashore?. For ARG with a full TF in support sure but ESG doesnt make sense to embark 1600 Marines?. Two infantry company’s, a weapons co. and a light HQ co. With logistics support whats that 800 troops embarked?. Doesnt need 12 Ospreys and all the -53’s. The AH-1Z’s could be dispensed with if there are Mariner’s embarked carrying Hellfire/SDB’s etc. So for ESG tasking you could easily see an optimised airgroup of something like 8 35B’s, 10 Mariner, 6 Osprey and a couple each of CH-53’s and UH-1/MH-60’s.