Grim901I meant Chinooks!
You could just have edited your post.
As long as they don’t cut MRA4 numbers, we couldn’t expect much better.
I think we may have gotten off fairly lightly in terms of cuts to defence. We aren’t losing many capabilities, and no key ones are going.
Grim901One disturbing point from the BBC article. It says that some Nimrods will be cut? How the hell can they justify cutting the tiny number of Nimrods we have?
On the bright side, at least the fleet isn’t seeing anymore cuts and the Chinooks are being ordered. The C17 wil ave to come from the core budget which is a shame though.
They really do need to start funding more of the war from extra funding, might relieve a little more pressue on the RAF. But we all knew their numbers would be dropping, it’s just happening earlier now.
Grim901Some info about the flight at the airbus site:
Is it just me or does that info indicate a max. payload of 31 tons? Wasn’t it meant to be more like 40?
Grim901whatever where Boeing sub contractors are, design is Boeing on each aircrafts, as Airbus !
And Airbus can’t be considered to simply be “Franco-German” as you said, it’s a multinational consortium. Airbus military is actually headquartered in Spain.
Grim901Weeks of bombing with what? If you slash the JSF buy, what do you think will be left?
The US fighter fleet is aging rapidly. We have kids flying airplanes that are older than they are. The Quadrennial Defense Review is not about what assets the US will have to fight with next year. It’s about what assets will be available for the next twenty years. Ten years from now, the USAF will be putting all of its budget into its next strategic bomber. It will be twenty years before the next fighter platform – beyond JSF – could possibly be fielded. By then most of the F-15s, F-16s and F-18s that are carrying out the strike missions in Iraq and Afghanistan today will be either retired, or will be standing on the edge of the scrap pile. These airframes are not intended to last forever.
Although I’m not surprised to see this coming (the Obama Administration had to pay for its bailout plans somehow), I am surprised that they came out with this so early. We are talking about an erosion in US force projection capability that, once it starts, will be difficult to reverse.
Also not discussed was what the impact this cut in procurement will have on the F-35 unit price. Something that a lot of JSF partner nations (including the UK) will be keen to know. There are major ramifications for what is being proposed here.
Well I assume the strategic bomber force could be used for some of this bombing I was talking about. And keep in mind that 1000’s of JSFs will still be purchased, so the US should be able to scrape together enough planes to spend a few weeks bombing a country. 10 CVNs and their airgroups still equates to more planes than the UK and France could field in total.
Unit price is a good point though, but i’m now leaning towards a reduced buy for the UK anyway, so it might help the argument (and increase competitor sales like Typhoon).
Grim901I remember hearing the same line of thinking after the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union. I recall politicians telling us that “peace is breaking out all over the world.” Then came Iraq’s invasion of Iraq, the war in Bosnia, and then the attack on the World Trade Center.
Some people can go on believing that there will be no more crises requiring military intervention if they want. Those of us who have lived long enough (and perhaps remember a little more) know better.
The point of the article was that there is not likely to be 2 major wars going on at the same time in which the US has to face 2 large, well armed enemies. That seems fair enough to me. Who can really compete with the US now, or could be considered a major adversary in conventional war? China…I’m struggling to think of others. Most other conflicts are likely to be smaller or less needing lots of high tech gear such as stealth jets and carrier groups such as Afghanistan. In most cases where an enemy could put up some sort of fight, such as N. Korea or Iran, a few weeks/months of bombing is going to be more likely than a massive insertion of troops by the US.
Grim901Looks like capable nations are now producing to sell it to others. I see proliferation in nearer time than in future. Nations don’t have the luxury of captive consumption any more.
Sorry what are you talking about?
Grim901Do you know what the nature of the failures was?
I;d guess they’re still assessing that for the most recent failure (well they were at article publication anyway). But the article is a little vague, could mean anything from a miss to a launch failure to one of the missiles having a mid-life crisis and buying a sports car.
Grim901Actually it does not. But a self serving motive clearly takes away your bragging rights ‘We helped India’ thats all. Tell the Iraqis that Iraq is a far better place now than it is under Saddam Hussein, they are prisoners in their own country now.
The sort of enemies you are dealing with now just don’t require you to up your budget but rather divert it to different areas.
I am talking Geographically thats all. I am not comparing my country to Nazi Germany, we are good friends with the Jewish people.
You mistake my meaning, Iraq is still coming out of a civil war, but give it time and a few more years for democracy to take hold and I think that it’ll be a better place than it was under Saddam, for the vast majority anyway.
And the argument that we need to divert all our resources to fight only the fight we’re in now (a very narrow and specialised kind of warfare) is incredibly short sighted and not supported by history, even over the short term.
Grim901What makes you think Iraq became a better place? At least it was stable earlier. Using your own logic of positive outcome regardless of means, who cares if there was a dictator before, at least the fear of the dictator kept two factions from fighting each other and destabilizing it.
The rest is all propaganda as to how it is better now.For the sake of bringing back this thread ot its subject, would request the mod to delete all posts starting from #39.
He said eventually, in the future.
Yep, thanks.
Looks like we’ve experienced some significant thread-creep! 🙂
Indeed we have, but i’m not going to stop posting off topic and let them carry on bashing the UK for no good reason.
Grim901MIG I agree with you completely bar your assessment of Tipu, which however is a contentious topic among historians. British did a lot of things that turned out to be beneficial to Indians, but in most cases they did it to help themselves (like western education would help them hire Indian’s at a cheaper price than importing Brits to do clerical work.)
————————————————————————————The UK do not have any enemies at this point, the Indian situation is totally different and is more akin to Germany of the past with hostile neighbors and not so good neutrals on all sides.
This is why India spends more on military budget. As for the space race, when space colonization starts, we just don’t want to be left behind 😀
Does motive really matter if it brings a positive outcome? Who really gives a damn if the Iraq War was for Oil if it eventually makes Iraq a better place? Yeah the British empire was pretty self serving but as a by-product it has brought about good things. If it hadn’t been for the empire and all it’s strengths what would Europe look like today? Would the German’s have won in either the first or second round?
And the UK does have enemies, they just aren’t neighbours anymore and don’t usually target the military, they go after innocent people commuting to work on the tube.
Just as a side note, probably not best to use Germany historically as a comparison to modern India = bad connotations for people in Europe, and Jews.
Grim901Indian business invest 10x that aid in the UK. You just give aid to make you look good in front of the world. We are a Sovereign state and may invest our money in defense or Space or whichever area we choose. If you give us aid it is like DJ said to propagate your interest and out of your guilt of looting us for centuries to fund your expansionism and Empire. The reason why most Indians did not have a golden age because you impoverished the country so much, still if you look at other banana republics with a British colonial past, we are doing very well.
And if you want us to reduce our emissions, then you should pay for it and it will not be legally binding. Period.
Why is it that Britain seems to be the only nation held to account when it comes to past history and empires? What about France, Spain etc?
As a British person I feel no guilt whatsoever towards the empire and if that is the attitude that Indians have of the situation then we should stop the aid and point out that your people wouldn’t be starving if you spent your money more wisely.
Oh and Britain invests in India too, it isn’t just us giving aid in return for investment. And if you were to compare the wealth gaps when Britain ruled compared to now, you’d see that your argument about it being our fault your people are still starving is complete crap.
And I don’t give a damn if you reduce your emissions to be honest, in the end if global warming s happening millions more Indians will suffer compared to Britain. You want to be your own nation, fine, sort it out yourself. (And it’s quite funny that India is now the ONLY major polluting nation not to make any kind of commitment, in fact most developing have been pushing for tougher limits because they’re the ones that will suffer most.)
Grim901Shallow minded comment by shallow minded person… British aid for 2009 to India is less than one billion pounds.. still might sound a lot .. until you examine where it actually goes. 70% of it is actually used to prop up British interests in India… for example companies that trade with UK or ogranisations that are of benefit to UK… it would be like USA saying look at the bilions of “Aid” we give to Saudi Arabia… when in fact it has nothing to do with aid but self serving economic and strategic interests.
Other 30% is actually used for charitable work, like health and enviromental help for locals… on total scale its peanuts… and it only serves to make British feel better for robbing that country blind for hundred years… or have we forgoten where the “crown jewels ” (like star of INDIA) came from and how were they stole.. i mean “acquired” me ol chap ???
In real terms India could give a toss what UK does with its aid.. though such public over-beat up of non issue might cause Indians to pause and rethink some of their procurement decisions in future… like Hawks.. or Typhoon chances in MMRCA….:rolleyes:
Not a fan of the UK then? And i’m confused, in one breath you were saying that the UK isn’t actually doing anything for India, then saying India have the right to demand that we carry on not helping them properly.
I know it’s nice and easy to blame Britain for the failings of the entire planet but the majority of the century since we left hasn’t exactly brought most Indians into a golden age has it? And there are other case studies if you prefer, my personal favourite is Zimbabwe, what a success story, eh?
Oh and the British weren’t always just butchering and thieving, my grandfather was stationed there.
Who asked you to? Is it really sought? How much it ends up being spent by pseudo-aid agencies on religious conversions tempting people with aid? How much of it is for PR purposes?
It is the most cost effective space program that generates $2 for every $1 spent. and lot of it is in weather forecasting and helping the farmers and fishermen. Besides it also generates revenues. When you spend in business it is investment not expenditure.
One department of government not doing its job right does not mean others(Space) should not be doing theirs.
The point wasn’t that they shouldn’t have a space program, just that if they can afford one (or if it is generating money) then they don’t need aid money at all and should just be put under pressure to spend money on helping the people that need it, rather than asking other nations to.
And I totally agree, we shouldn’t give money for “pseudo-aid agencies on religious conversions tempting people with aid? How much of it is for PR purposes?” We should take that money an use it for ourselves, but then the same people that said we are being useless would be screaming that we are monsters for cutting off aid.
Grim901I agree with Obi on this, I think it will be difficult to find savings in the Welfare and health budgets but the overseas aid budget needs a serious look at!
Frankly I am highly bemused about the amount of aid we give to India when they have a multi billion defence budget for example…
Not to mention a space program :S
Grim901Didn’t the Gray report say that if no new equipment is orderd now, the MOD books still won’t balance until 2028?
They REALLY need to increase defence spending, or turn the forces into a coastal defence force.
Sign In
