JonesyYou see Jonesy, that’s assault. Or maybe, ahem, a-salt.
A salt and batter-y quite!. We can only hope this is the end of the story and her roach wont exceed her means next time eh?.
JonesyAnd reading your email too. And they know what websites you look at (oo-er) and what you watched on TV last night….
That reminds me….I need to buy shares in a tinfoil company somewhere….much appreciated.
JonesyWe need the referendum as a stick to beat the EU with in order to help get the concessions we want. A vigorous, well informed and well reported pro- and anti- campaign would also go some way to influencing minds on the continent that we are genuine in our intention to re-evaluate our relationship with the EU.
Ultimately it makes not a whit of difference whether we say we’re staying in or opting out as we’ll still need to trade with the EU and, whether thats through the EEA/EFTA structures or some Swiss-style accommodation, it still means we have to follow EU rules if we want to trade with them. Suppose it’ll make a lot of work for the legislators, political media outlets and leaflet printers/poster makers though.
JonesyIf she has made a payment she may have de facto admited liability for the debt, but, if the loan shark has provided no official means to track or record payments…ie a paying-in book etc…then he may be on shaky ground trying to prove the existence of the debt in the first place let alone her payments towards it. If he cant prove the debt exists then this is covered under the Theft Act 1978
“21. Blackmail”. —
(1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
(2) The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.
(3) A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
If he can prove the debt is owed then he can use the ‘reasonable grounds’ defence, but, then he falls foul of the below:
Administration of Justice Act 1970
“Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.â€
1. A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing a person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract he:
– harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency, the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation.
– falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay for it utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character, or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not
2. A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of sub-section (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such actions as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.
…simple as that. Its just a case of getting someone to enforce the law.
JonesyI don’t find that offensive at all, I quite like that they’re showing a sense of humour, almost laughing at themselves. But then what do I know.
I dont find it offensive either, but, if someone chose to attempt to reinforce the message I may feel it necessary to point out the alternate interpretation of the sign which is:
‘if you dont do as I say my invisible friend will get you’
…which may in fact cause offense!
JonesyJohn
Your propensity for meaningless drivel hasn’t abated in 2 years I see?. Still using whole paragraphs to say nothing and then contradicting that!. At least there recognisable continuity.
In one breath you foretell the imminent demise of the EU with no small degree of smugness and then, with the skill of a politician, you reverse your position to say that trading will continue undiminished. Bright observation that one.
Then you fall back on the old hackneyed line about control….as if the first action the Govt actually took hadn’t been to crystalise the current bank of EU laws into UK law. Then we come on to ‘freedom’ – that clarion call of the clueless!.Perhaps like the freedom that the homeless guy in the soup kitchen line has…does he have the bread roll today or not….how he must savour his freedom to make that decision?.
Then you, sagely, state that none of these problems are existant anyway. Carry on shouting into the wind John you’ll get there one day old boy!.
JonesyStill not realised that the EU is the largest market we sell in to John and that the thing you are laughing up your sleeve about is actually going to hurt us as a direct consequence?.
I take it you have your blustering defence already prepared about how the financial hit we ultimately take is all the Europeans fault when the reality is that, first sign of an iceberg, you were happy to jump in the lifeboat and, smugly, watch the lot sink heedless of the consequences..
JonesyBAE had nothing to do with the engine choice or the intercooler design of WR21. That was MoD specified. I’m not sure how you get to an objection to BAE doing the remediation work at a UK yard skilled in ship repair?.
If I was MoD I might look at RR for compensation for needing to undertake this work and, in turn, RR might want to talk to Northrop Grumman about their intercooler design. That’s about the extent of it though.
JonesyPossibly so, but, I’d doubt it to be honest. I’ve not seen details of this version, but, proper ASW hulls are designed as such. Slapping in a bit of rafting under the diesels and a couple of electric motors does not suddenly make for a discrete hull. It seems that the efforts to make Huitfeld something different was not entirely enough to convince the Aussies.
The Canadians are more ASW focused than the Aussies. Unless that has changed recently a hull rejected by the Aussies is unlikely to appeal to the Canadians. T26 is hull-up ASW. In reality now, not as part of fantasy fleet, T26, with its mission bay and hull optimisation, is the better single-type fit.
JonesyAlex,
Short answer there is ‘mission’. The Danish ship is an adaptation of the Absalon design. Its a good basic CODAD hull thats large enough to support a useful AAW suite, and lots more besides, and it shares many logistics requirements with the Absalon. Its not an ASW ship though. There would need to be a distinct ASW frigate type capable of oceanic operation.
The Canadians have been proud of their ASW skills for a very long time and with plenty of justification. ASW is seen as a core mission for them. Type 26 has been carefully designed in terms of hull and machinery to be acoustically discrete thus maximising ownship sensor performance and minimising the target submarines chances at counter detection. Its a tier 1 ASW warfighter effectively. Adapting a ‘2nd batch’ of 4 T26’s with an enhanced AAW suite in place of the Huitfelds would be a possible solution to maintain single type, but, it would have to be designed for Canada specially and, like the AAW FREMM, would result in a compromised AAW capability.
In my view the Absalons make more sense for Canada’s expeditionary needs than an LSD or LPD so the Huitfelds logistics train could be streamed in to that which would need to be built for Absalon anyway. With Huitfeld and T26 you end up with superior AAW and ASW capability with the minimum of separate logistics demands.
JonesyThe first point would be that they, the Canadians, dont have $2.5bn a year for the next 10yrs for a naval capital spend program anyway. So that probably puts the rest of the topic into its proper perspective.
The key to the story i’ve written though is what the mission parameters would be for the putative fantasy Canadian fleet. Not necessarily what would be sought in the real world. My definition of the objective ‘good’ Canadian force mix, based off current real-world manning levels, would be for at least a modest, all aspect, sea control capacity in both oceans as well as limited forward-deployed OOTW capability. This is against a background narrative in the thread of LPD’s and SSN’s.
Essentially, instead of those kinds of units, I would suggest that the optimal mission capability, for Canadian requirements, would be better served with 8 destroyers and 8 frigates (albeit caveating the fact that 4 destroyers are effectively light fleet carriers). The Danish designs share common heritage and would, likely, be built in Canada at this point anyway. The same would go for the BMT MCMW hulls. So its fanciful, but, there is a few crumbs of sense there also.
Japan has little experience exporting in the defence sphere but does manage to export more than 4000 individual product lines to 200+ countries/territories worth $600mn+ a year. It is therefore not incapable of arranging export deals.
More importantly it has platforms that are a bit different than the rest of the marketplace. Can you think of another fast fleet light through-deck?. As you note the oceanic capable SSK designs from Europe are currently vapourware. Given that Japans are actually in the water and well proven I’d, personally, have accorded higher credit to than the Aussies did. For me the chance to negotiate the package of DDH and SSK together, and thus incentivise the Japanese to make accommodations inline with the size of order, would bring greater benefit than there would be trouble in having to work up a formal and structured relationship with the Japanese.
JonesySwerve,
For UNREP I’d agree with the earlier comment that the planned mod Berlins look like a solid buy. I’d not interfere with that. Thats already in train and funded to the best of my knowledge so it can sit outside of this plan.
The Hyuga’s would stay as DDH’s albeit with significant modification to machinery, weapons and sensors (as the big ticket items) to bring in the commonality that you rightly note as a key efficiency driver.
Weapons possibly represent the easiest common factor to implement. Unsurprisingly these are almost exclusively American. Launchers would be restricted to 3 types across all hulls – Mk41 strike length, ExLS 3 cell and Topside Launcher configuration for SSM.
MCG would be the 5″ Mk45 mod4 again across all frigate and destroyer classes barring the DDH. ASCG/CIWS and primary minor combatant mount would be Thales Rapid Sea Guardian 40mm. Missiles would be the familiar SM series for the AAW hulls, ESSM blk2 for all fleet hulls, VL/Topside LRASM for dual role land attack/antiship for the T26 and DDGs and VLA for T26.
Sensors/combat systems would be spllt between Thales and Saab for maximum packaged cost savings and commonality benefits. Machinery would be streamed similar. Classes would look as follows:
Hyuga
Machinery: COGAG 4 x RR MT30
Sensors: TACTICOS. Thales Artemis, Thales SeaMaster400, Thales APAR blk2
Armament: 6 x 3-cell ExLS (60 ESSM blk2, 12 Nulka), 3 x Rapid Sea Guardian
Huitfeldt
Machinery: CODAD 4 MTU 8000
Sensors: TACTICOS, Thales Artemis, Thales SMART-L MM, Thales APAR blk2
Armament: 4 x Mk41 (32 SM-x), 4 x ExLS (48 ESSM blk2), 1 x Mk45 mod 4, 2 x Rapid Sea Guardian
Absalon
Machinery: CODAD 2 MTU 8000
Sensors: SAAB 9LV, Sea Giraffe 4A, Ceros 200, Sagem EOMS-NG
Armament: 1 x Mk45 mod 4, 2 x Rapid Sea Guardian. FFBNW 4 x ExLS. 2-4 x 4 Topside LRASM
T26
Machinery: CODLAG 1 MT30 + MTU diesel gensets
Sensors: SAAB 9LV, Sea Giraffe 4A, Ceros 200. Sagem EOMS-NG. CAPTAS-4
Armament: 4 x ExLS (48 ESSM blk2) 3 x Mk41 (24 VL LRASM/VL ASROC) 1 x Mk45 mod 4, 2 x Rapid Sea Guardian.
Minor war vessels get the Rapid gun as main mount. Saab 9LV, Giraffe1X, Ceros and the Sagem EOMS
Minimum systems numbers across the fleet to maximise logistics and training efficiency advantages. Pull through of existing experience with ESSM, Mk41, 9LV etc. Maximum use of dual-role systems and transferable offboard effectors.
JonesyIf I’m writing the cheques I go shopping mainly in Japan, Denmark and the UK
6 Soryu class SSK
4 Hyuga Mod DDH
4 Absalon DD
4 Iver Huitfeldt DDG
8 Type 26 Mod FFG
6 BMT Venari-85 MCMW
4 Ulstein Discovery ice patrol vessels
4 Impeccable class research ships
SSN’s I dont have the infrastructure to support and, for Canada, I need it spread over two very widely separated coasts. To deploy nuclear then I need to build the infrastructure twice and it cant mutually support very easily. Thats a huge cost element right there and I dont get enough from SSN’s for the spend. The money I save there goes in to providing persistent ASW sensor coverage in the form of the Impeccable class SURTASS boats instead of with SSN tails. For the submarine service I leverage the skilled SSK operators I already have and give them proven Japanese kit to work with.
I have the UW space surveilled as much as I can with SURTASS so my attention needs to shift to AW. Conventional sea control is out as I’ve no interest in buying into CATOBAR naval air and dont get any real benefit from going the slow/LPH/F-35B route as I’m not really planning a forced entry capability over anyones beaches. I want a fast, Fleet manoeuvre capable, through-deck hull that can support ASW/ASuW/AEW&ASAC choppers, tilt-rotors and emerging ESTOL UAV’s. Japans Hyuga class is one of the very few fast through-decks tried and tested in the market. Its the right size and offers some familiar systems. 2 per coast gives me some continuity of operation.
The Hyugas are my Fleet taskgroup centres and around these I build-in AAW off the Huitfeldt DDGs and ASW/land attack/force protection/MCMW with the T26’s and their mission bays.
For forward-deployment MSO, peacekeeping support, SAR, MCMW and disaster assistance type missions I have the Absalons, Venari’s and Ulsteins in a separate Patrol command. UxV’s and operator teams are pit-crewed and shared between Patrol and Fleet commands as necessary for the individual mission profile. Best bang for buck and maybe a way to give a varied and interesting career path for the kind of highly skilled people I need to attract and retain to support the high-end kit.
Optimistically about a $25bn spend so about $2.5bn per year over a 10yr cycle.
Edit: Maths error counting £s as $s
JonesyFirst squadron that deploys to the ship is going to be a USMC F-35B mob isnt it?. Looks like pretty good interoperability to me!.
If they removed that monstrosity from the bow and installed a pair of ‘cats and arrestor cables, angled-deck markings etc, then we’d have a proper carrier.
….plus have the RN stand up a CATOBAR training program far larger than any its seen in 50 years, expand Culdrose or Yeovilton to accept at least 3 frontline squadrons and an OCU, purchase a CATOBAR type solely out of RN resources to fill out those squadrons……and forget about the Type26 or Type31 spend!
Damn those politicians for not letting us have a “proper” carrier!
JonesyThe Japanese ship is running on two shafts plus it looks like shes quite high in the water there and she has 10ft less draft to start with. I dont think theres anything strange in screws working harder, shallower in the water, leaving a more pronounced wake than a couple of larger 4-shafters alongside.
Sign In
