dark light

FAR

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 170 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Aircraft With Weird-Looking Modifications #2541366
    FAR
    Participant

    If there had been cameras back then Elmer The Flying Monk would have made an interesting sight!

    http://www.robertlacey.com/elmer_monk.html

    in reply to: Aircraft With Weird-Looking Modifications #2541367
    FAR
    Participant

    Don’t forget the flying bedstead!

    in reply to: Aircraft With Weird-Looking Modifications #2541374
    FAR
    Participant

    Meteor F8 Prone. A Meteor with dual controls to test the idea of a pilot flying on his stomach.

    in reply to: CVF News #2063759
    FAR
    Participant

    But dammit, when are we going to get the definitive answer? I can’t stand the suspense any more!!!

    There was an article in the Times last week which said that the MoD probably will not now make an announcement until mid May. The reason is the Scottish elections. As the lion’s share of the construction work will go to Scotland the government is bound by law to not make any announcements which may be seen as a bribe close to the election date.

    in reply to: Iranian Navy pics and Questions #2064259
    FAR
    Participant

    They have a few ex Royal Navy rigids!

    in reply to: TSR2s anywhere? #2514378
    FAR
    Participant

    Does anyone now a philanthropic billionaire? Find one, call BAE and get a reverse engineering project!!!

    If only 😀 :diablo:

    Yep I knoe one who wants to help. It’s me. Ah rats I just woke up! Shame it would have been a nice dream!

    in reply to: RN 801sqdn – the video #2067568
    FAR
    Participant

    Perhaps the dig at the Bush/Blair relationship didn’t help! Funny though!

    in reply to: CVF News #2067709
    FAR
    Participant

    Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty’s Government:

    When the Royal Navy future carrier demonstration phase is expected to complete, and when the main investment decision is expected to be taken.

    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): My Lords, I have made clear to the Aircraft Carrier Alliance that time is now critical. I am looking to get a robust, affordable deal negotiated quickly to allow a main investment decision to be taken as soon as possible.

    Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, will the Minister quash strong rumours coming out of the MoD that these continual delays in signing a full contract are just the first step towards cancelling the carriers? Despite the Prime Minister’s commitment to spend more on defence, we heard at Question Time yesterday that he is only one of a number of contributors to the debate on the Comprehensive Spending Review. As the Chancellor is no friend of the Armed Forces and we are fighting two wars on a peace-time budget, will the Minister give those serving in the Royal Navy some hope that the carriers will not be sacrificed to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Lord that assurance. He should consider the rumours quashed.

    Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it is now two years or more since the Royal Navy Sea Harrier force was withdrawn. The date of introduction of the new carriers looks like slipping even further to the right. Is the Minister satisfied that the Royal Navy will have air crew and engineers in sufficient numbers and of sufficient expertise to man aircraft for these new aircraft carriers?

    Lord Drayson: Yes, my Lords; I am happy to give the noble and gallant Lord that assurance. I do not accept that the dates for the introduction of the new aircraft carriers have moved to the right. I am happy to reiterate the central importance of the carrier strike capability—the combination of the aircraft and the ships—to the country’s future defence posture. It is set out clearly in the Strategic Defence Review and it remains the case.

    Lord Garden: My Lords, can the Minister tell us roughly what proportion of the cost of the overall carrier programme he expects to be committed at the main gate? Might it be prudent—I choose my words carefully—perhaps to accept that we have had so much slippage already that he may want to wait until a new Prime Minister is in the chair?

    18 Jan 2007 : Column 777
    Transcript of House Of Lords debate 18th Jan 2007

    Lord Drayson: My Lords, I think I can be absolutely clear to the House on this point. As I said, the aircraft carriers are central to the defence posture. In the defence budget as a whole there is a budget for the replacement of the aircraft carriers. The key issue now is reaching agreement with industry on the price and the delivery of the carriers. As I said in my Answer, I am pushing very hard to reach an agreement that will deliver the carriers to cost and to time. For that to happen there needs to be consolidation in the industry. I am very pleased to see that that is now starting to happen. I am pleased also to see the progress we have made in the collaboration with France. We now have a common design for both the French and the British aircraft carriers which has been agreed and has involved no delay to the British aircraft carrier project, and at no increase in cost. That is an important achievement.

    FAR
    Participant
    FAR
    Participant

    If you want to keep a level head don’t look at this article:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2535312_2,00.html

    FAR
    Participant

    http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/savethenavy

    Go here and sign up – make sure to give your address details, etc (don’t worry, it’s .gov.uk). Pass it on!

    You can also email your MP. See http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/l/

    in reply to: Other CVF Partners? #2070740
    FAR
    Participant

    http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2440622&C=europe

    One wonders where the cost savings mentioned in this article have been allocated to?

    in reply to: Other CVF Partners? #2070742
    FAR
    Participant

    I don’t want to move the thread away from the CVF and towards politics but these views in todays Telegraph are I think important in the overall debate as to why decisions that are needed on projects like CVF are not being made. A bit of positioning and interservice rivalry no doubt, but we are hearing this more an more.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/24/narmy24.xml

    Thanks for the post SN.

    The real decisions that the government needs to make is what does it want the armed forces to do and is it willing to pay for what it wants.

    It is sickening that the defence budget in real terms has hardly increased in the last five years and the costs of operations in Iraq and Afganistan seem to have largly been met from the existing defence budget. That means the government are paying for current operations by cutting back on future investment.

    I still don’t believe that CVF will be cut. To do so would put an end to the strtegic ship building programme effectively removing a major ship building capability from the UK. It would also remove the capability of the UK to act internationally unless in support of the US or France. The MoD has invested too much in CVF to let it go unless they provide soem other way of filling that capability gap.

    The more likely senerio is that the MoD will be forced to cut other procurement projects or existing forces to compensate. Put this against a recent comment from Des Browne that the army may have to increase in size. Recent comments have been that the seventh and eighth T45 may be retired and even the fifth and sixth sold to SA once built. The number of JSFs may be cut or Tornados retired early and their role taken over by Typhoons.

    Of course the correct course of action would be to invest more money in the armed forces. What’s the point of spending hugh amounts of money on education, health, social security etc if we can’t defend ourselves? It has got to that point, if the government continue to cut back on defence spending we will get to a point where we can’t defend ourselves.

    in reply to: Other CVF Partners? #2071000
    FAR
    Participant

    UK Royal Navy faces potentially swingeing frontline cuts

    Decisions to be taken by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in early 2007 will determine whether a number of UK Royal Navy (RN) and Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) vessels are withdrawn from frontline operations and placed in deep reserve.

    The MoD insists that “no decisions have been taken” on reducing the readiness level of selected RN and RFA ships. However, Jane’s understands that several options are being run by the MoD, as part of its biennial planning round, to assess the extent of the savings that could be realised by placing selected ships at extended readiness.

    The measures, if implemented, would take the operational fleet substantially below the levels laid down in the government’s 2004 defence White Paper. They could also signal the effective retirement of a number of RN ships with relatively limited lifespan remaining.

    http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jni/jni061212_1_n.shtml

    in reply to: Other CVF Partners? #2071034
    FAR
    Participant

    I see Beedall has just published his review of the RN for 2006, it makes very grim reading indeed and he is also now hinting at possible cancellation of CVF and the sale of some of the T45’s. I would suggest any Brits have a couple of very stiff drinks before reading it………… you will need them 😡 🙁

    http://navy-matters.beedall.com/index.html

    Just remember that it is only one person’s view!

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 170 total)