We don’t know where they have gone, or what they are doing! This is also why the info is so irrelevant in terms of OpSec, especially in comparison to the other sources.

The initial poster was attempting to find out PRECISELY where they were going and what they were doing!!!. That very much does impact OpSec if something credible did surface. Hence my reminder that perhaps its not a good idea to explore this too deeply in a public framework!. Can we stop labouring a point now ppp?.

Gents,

Can I be the miserable old git who makes the routine call to remember OpSec. If the boys and girls have had their phones whipped away and been told to give families the shtum routine its likely for a reason and speculation, even with as scant detail as we have here, may not be helpful.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/e-catalogue/#/solutions/maritime/40/video

With the spare room that is left, any idea’s what could be added to incress the fire power of a Type 23?

Dave

As has been said there is not an awful lot of space there. IAI have, though, just navalised their Jumper land-attack missile and made its VL pack ship deployable – presumeably in response to the US cancellation of NLOS.

As a 50km ranged precision light strike weapon you could conceive of uses for it in ops like ELLAMY or an opposed transit through Hormuz – especially where the vagueries of shell drop might collaterol limit the opportunity to use the big gun on the pointy end.

Hardly a priority fit, but, as a UOR option should we have to intevene somewhere just slightly to the east of Suez, in a few years time, could be a very useful system to occupy that extra space.

Think ‘Top Gun’ in reverse!. More details here:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=111010

Short answer is because of the Regimental system that the British Army has employed for hundreds of years. Individual regiments have a Royal charter not the service as a whole.

The senior service, the RN, has held a royal charter in its “current” form since the late 17th Century and records of ‘Kings ships’ go back to the 10th Century. That charter is as a single service hence the “Royal” prefix.

If you want to safeguard a core ship building capacity in the UK, then it would make more sense to support some research projects to get this industry back to the cutting edge of commercial technology.

If you want to safeguard shipuilding you build ships. Easy as that. Research does not employ skilled workers in large numbers. Skilled workers leave the industry, without replacement, and the industry dies….it really is that simple. UK yards will never compete for commercial hull building with SE Asia no matter how clever the technology gets as you just replace 10 shipfitters salaries with 3 maintainance guys salaries plus the guy who installs and programmes the technology who earns a potload!. Then you add the costs of developing the technology. The SE Asia cost base it just too low for us ever to compete on price.

We compete at the high-end leveraging expertise in electronics and engines to produce the whole capability package. For this to be the case we actually need to build those hulls and deploy them. T45 has, anecdotally, done a significant amount to showcase the industry….CVF takes this further. Just to reinforce the earlier point this is not supposition or extrapolation CVF is supporting the development of manufacturing all across the UK right NOW.

Or you could take the money to start the “new airport for London” project. I think that would safe guard many jobs in the aerospace industry as well as in others transport industries.

How many jobs and with what legacy?. Will the new airport for London lead to a demand for a travelling UK workforce to go and build airports elsewhere?. Will we be building CO2 neutral power plants for Brazil here and shipping them out to be assembled by teams of British workers onsite?. How about flood defences?. How does the Thames flood defence scheme you talk of promote industrial growth?. The intellectual property of the design can be marketed but the labour force is always going to be predominantly local wherever schemes are developed. In terms of return on investment its a poor comparison to the defence project isnt it?.

Infrastructure improvements reduce the cost of transportation, which is attracting business and it also is something that the average taxpayer at least profits from.

The average taxpayer profits from more taxpayers paying tax!. Again 10,000 employed by the CVF project, paying taxes and not claiming unemployment benefit is significant. Infrastructure alone is not enough to attract business and create opportunity. In my industry, comms, the current trend is a move away from primary city sites to hinterland/suburb centres and the fact that physical/logistic access is far worse is barely a consideration.

Shiny carriers, but a derelict train network around London? Not a good exchange imho.

Shiny carriers promote British industry and sustain jobs. Our last train manufacturer went under last year if memory serves. Updating the London Underground is scarely going to even increase passenger numbers let alone provide manufacturing opportunity.

Amiga,

In short, you can continue to believe ridiculous notions that building ships of war is of greater benefit to the economy than investing in infrastructure – I don’t particularly care. However, I would strongly advise you do not volunteer this viewpoint anytime it might matter (i.e. at a job interview) – otherwise you’ll be laughed at.

Likewise I’d recommend you not to mention your views on the wastefulness of defence expenditure in Glasgow, Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Derby, Bristol, Portsmouth, the Isle of White etc, etc basically all those places where precisely that expenditure is providing opportunity for real people right now. They may not laugh at you, in fact, they may not see the funny side of that kind of comment at all.

I hate having to spell things out. I expect posters to use a bit of wit to connect the dots… alas.

For ‘connect the dots’ I’m assuming you mean ‘stretch credibility wildly’?.

So… governments do not invest in research? Research into say, fuel cell powered vehicles, or lower rolling resistance vehicles, or lower drag vehicles? None of which would be leveraged by industry within the UK…Of course not.

Irrelevant spin. We are talking about direct return on investment not nebulous seed money in research. We are talking about purchases of needed equipment that actually generates and sustains an industry sector and communities throughout the length of the country. If you cant see the difference that’s your problem and I’d encourage you not to discuss wits too loudly.

So lowering the operating cost of private industries (through the things I mentioned) will not improve their competitiveness on the global market now?

Again nothing to do with the point raised. We arent talking about taxpayer handouts for R&D which will do little other than save private industry from having to fork out themselves for products they will get the benefit of. We ARE talking about real orders for needed products that sustain and enhance industry at the same time as delivering capability.

But of course, reducing journey times and cost between point A and point B has absolutely no impact on the commerce passing between the two.

Without something to stimulate that commerce no!. Cancel CVF but build a brand new motorway into Glasgow. Guess which way employment goes!!!.

You build a high speed line, the rail companies will put high speed stock on it.

IF there is a demand for a high speed line to service that location. Otherwise nope. See earlier point. Cancel CVF but run a high speed rail line into Glasgow. Does the railway offset the loss of the shipbuilding industry.

Yes… ‘cos absolutely no rail companies are interested in HS2. Nosireee.

Your point being what?. I’m saying that infrastructure alone does nothing to stimulate the economy in the same manner as a major defence project, invested nationally, does. How does a rail company interest in HS2 go anywhere near matching the level of money put back into local economies???.

Unless you are seriously suggesting no UK based company has ever built infrastructure abroad? No company like, say, Balfour Beatty or Mott McDonald for instance.

How many built with British workforces then?. How many British jobs created on these infrastructure projects abroad?. How many skilled British jobs does such a foreign project support?.