Liger30, before you shut yourself off in your ‘Us poor Europe, us defenceless, our interests wawoo’ mentality just remember these two points. I have nothing more to say beyond it.

–‘Welfare’ in Western terms means unemployment allowances, social security and subsidised healthcare. In third-world terms like these don’t even exist in the common man’s dreams. Here welfare means providing just enough food and shelter to countless homeless(or slum-dwelling), penniless and starving folk to enable them to continue surviving.

-The aid you give to Pakistan(Which, btw includes billions in economic aid given via the IMF and World Bank; want to cut that too since it doesn’t serve your idea of ‘British interests’?) does no more than to maybe reduce their casualties from perpetual anti-terror operations that will likely go on indefinitely. Their nations is no great threat of being conquered by ill-equipped gorillas.

BTW those funds which are according to you meant to privide anti-terror equipment are more often spent on AWACS and fighter planes for conventional war on India. I see you have no problem with letting a few thousand indian villagers die of starvation starve to buy more Eurofighters but will absolutely refuse to consider slashing a few of Pakistan’s 40 new freebie F-16s and 3 E-2C Hawkeyes. Ever wonder what they, an even poorer country, need with all that expensive hardware?

And no, my post is not intended to be anti-Pakistan. I’m clearing Liger’s moral pretentions on his views(which, of course, he’s welcome to, so long as he isn’t fooling anyone). Denying aid to the neediest on such flimsy and inconsistent grounds is not rational.

You are a bit of an arrogant, my friend. You believe to know so much of the world, and you assume that others don’t.
I’m utterly in favour of cutting aid on India, yes. We have better uses for that money, either in helping someone else who’s not getting ready to send men on the Moon, or to help the budget crisis at home. Or even to ensure we have the proper balance of force needed.
Indian villagers are a responsibility of India, and India definitely has the possibility to look after its own people. It does not have the will , this is the difference. If less aid comes from abroad, they may finally consider taking care of their own people. Because, even accepting your flawed vision of Pakistan being such a massive threat to India, i must point out that India already has the force to erase Pakistan ten times over. The fact is that India’s ambitions go far beyond that. And we have no real interest in shouldering the burden of their own population to allow them to become all the faster a global, and no more regional, superpower.

Pakistan is in no risks about Talibans? Tell that to Pakistan, which is still struggling to gain control of the northern valleys and regions at the border with Afghanistan. Talibans are a problem for US, UK and NATO, and not for Pakistan in your mind? Man, you have a weird vision of the world.

As to aid money use, it is perfectly possible that Pakistan uses that for more expensive and not directly counterterror-related kit for its armed forces. Possible, but not certain. Probable, undoubtedly.
But that is a politic matter: adequate control and pressure is in the US and UK’s interests to make sure that Pakistan pays the needed attention to the crisis at the northern border.

As to “poor” nations buying billions-worth of weapons (we could easily include Venezuela too), this is just a proof of how flawed concepts like “poor” and “international aid” are.
Give them money and see it spent on weaponry it is not just a waste of taxpayer’s money: it represents a direct threat to national security and interests.

Other than this, i can’t say. You’ll keep loving the Guardian and its dreams anyway. And this is NOT, as people already said many times over, the correct post for this phylosophy. Here we should be talking of the CVFs. And that’s what i’ll try to do from now on.

How old are you? You’re seriously deluded if you think military might and defence budgets have any bearing on the economic well-being of a nation’s people.

And determining a multi-billion political bribe as more important than a quarter-billion of poverty aid further shows how illogical your idea of money well-spent is. Hack 250 million of the UK defence budget and at most the RAF will lose 3 Eurofighters. Hack 250 million off Pakistan’s large economic and military aid and it’ll make no great difference to their economy. Withhold all the aid you’re giving to India and thousands at least will die. The Indian government isn’t immediately going to substitute funds to the various programmes and NGOs affected. That’s how it is in the third world.

I don’t get your point.
I did not say that people is rich because the nation spends billions on defence. But, if India was to spend a little less for defence, it could A LOT in terms of welfare. While the weapons they buy from US or Europe are paid in WESTERN costs, the life in India is incomparably cheaper than it is here. With a bunch of dollars in welfare to person, they could sustain millions of their poor people.

As to Pakistan, the aid is not targeted to the well being of people as it is targeted to ensure that Pakistan keeps working with the alliance for the Afghanistan crisis and to try and allow Pakistan to regain control of the border area, that’s a sanctuary for the talibans and a direct threat to Pakistan’s nuclear facilities as well. Months ago, the talibans were less than 50 miles away from a nuclear plant, and had to be URGENTLY fought backwards. In this scenario, that aid is strategically relevant to british interests first of all, and this is what matters the most.

And as to India having so urgently to rearm itself… Really? But people doesn’t keep saying that wars in the globalized world are a no-no by now? That we are not going to see state-on-state warfare?
Everyone is ramping up weapons production and acquisition, from Brasil to China to India to Russia which is launching all sorts of programs for new weaponry… Yet, the UK and Europe keep disarming. “There’s no risk!”, they say. We can spend that money on something else.

Which means, basically, saying “we are smart. That people spending so much on weapons is stupid.”

Can you see the flaw in the reasoning? It is a MASSIVE flaw.
Yet, we should burden the weight of India’s welfare, while we can’t bear the weight of our own massively inflated welfare bill, to allow India to lease Akula SSNs, build missiles, have a space program aiming for bringing men on the Moon, build two aircraft carriers and acquiring force-projection assets like landing ships and 10 C17.

Those as well are needed against Pakistan?
India is aiming to have the chance to rule over the Indian Ocean area and possibly beyond.
In a globalized world, this may one day clash with our own interests.

So, no wars in sight. No one needs weapons. But everyone buys them in stocks. Save for Europe.
Smart planning. The disarmed man in a room full of people with loaded guns. You know, if something bad happens, even not directly targeted at the disarmed man, he’s very likely to get injured at the very least.

I don’t get most of your argument with him and won’t step in, but if you believe that the UK’s aid package to India needs to be cut to facilitate defence purchases you’re dead wrong. What’s in a paltry 250 million being used to feed millions starving to death instead of paying for social security for a few thousand British retirees? If that’s your view you should be railing against the billions being gifted/loaned to Pakistan by the West as well.

250 millions aren’t paltry in time of budget cuts at home. But if tou want to spend them to help poor people, do NOT give them to India. India has by far an economic power and budget that can surely take care of its own population. I remind you their massive arms race and their space program for a fast example.

Money given to Pakistan makes already more sense because it has a strategical importance in ensuring Pakistan support in the Afghanistan effort. And it is meant to make the Pakistan government capable to get back in force in the currently uncontrollable area at the borders with Afghanistan.
Money given to India seems to be far less effective for helping british interests, and coupled to the might of India itself… They don’t need that money. The british overstretched budget would bless it.

I don’t know why this conversation has taken this turn, but:

Slavery in the Americas was chattel slavery involving ownership of people, “slavery” in Africa was temporary mandatory labor that never implied ownership of other persons and did not force people to give up their culture, language, names, and did not tear families apart – as was common practice in the West.

No there aren’t. Somalia, Sudan, and to a lesser extent the DRC are the only countries involved in conflict.

I suggest checking all the civil wars and tribe wars too. If they aren’t anymore 17, they may be even more. Or a little less. But definitely not as few as you say.
The fact that they don’t get space on the news does not mean they are not happening.

SO back to CVF what is the minimum numbers of aircraft that are required to provide a full airgroup for a CVF at all times while maintaining the usual training programs?

Richard Beedall’s Navy Matters website reports this table, indicative of what could possibly go around the ocean in the hangars of QE.

Sample CVF “Tailored” Air Groups (aka Carrier Strike Joint Force Air Groups)

Description Air Group [1] Likely Baseline TAG (“Peacetime”, minor exercises)

9 – 12 x Harrier GR.9 or F-35B STOVL Joint Strike Fighters;
4 x Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control
aircraft/helicopters/UAVs
6 x Merlin HM helicopters
Total = 22 – 25

Strike Configured TAG [2] (“Crisis”, major exercises)
18 – 24 Harrier GR9 or F-35B STOVL Joint Strike Fighters;
4 x Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control
aircraft/helicopters/UAV’s
6 x Merlin HM helicopters
Total = 28 – 34

Surge TAG (“Wartime”)

36 x Harrier GR9 or F-35B STOVL Joint Strike Fighters;
4 x Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control
aircraft/helicopters/UAV’s
Total = 40
Forward Aviation Support Ship (ASS) or Amphibious Helicopter Platform (LPH) [3]
18 x Medium lift transport helicopters (Merlin HC.3 / FRC);
6 x Heavy lift transport helicopters (Chinook HC.2 / FRC);
6 x WAH-64 attack helicopters;
4 x Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control
aircraft/helicopters/UAV’s
Total = 34

Notes:
1.In addition, CVF will probably often operate a Ship Flight of 1 or 2 helicopters of unknown type for SAR, COD and utility purposes.
2. Expected to be embarked for exercise every two years.
3. Speculative.

This depends largely on what the RAF will want to do with the F35: officially, it has been agreed that their main role should be as embarked planes, but the RAF may end up taking the planes for itself most of the time as it does with the Harriers.
However, it is likely that a Operational Conversion and Training unit for F35 would comprise 14 or so planes. Frontline F35 squadrons were expected to deploy 12 planes each, but later rumors talked of 9. 72 aircrafts would give 6 squadrons of 12 planes each, theorically enough to fill up completely a carrier and still give RAF something to use elsewhere, or a second airgroup for PoW. All squadrons active would mean wartime, though.
84 planes considering the 14 for the OCTU wouldn’t be a bad deal.

He did it too miss!

It was like that when I got here!

They did it first miss!

Well you can’t blame me miss, i’m not apologising it happened ages ago and they should be like sooo over it by now, god, its like sooo old….

Well it was their fault, i mean look at them….their different, if they had been more like us miss we wouldn’t have done it.

See miss, I mean they were asking for it really.

And then they had the cheek to fight back miss, they hit us so we kept hittin’ em back.

Well if we hadn’t done it miss they would have started and then my mum…..

Come on is this the best argument against “slavery guilt” you have?

What if I change the word slavery to “Holocaust” in all your phrases and African to Jew? is that more or less acceptable?

Man, get it over with already.
If you want to cry and claim that it is your fault for all the problems of the world, do it, but don’t call in the rest of the nation and of the taxpayers.
And avoid being offensive.

I pointed out facts. Why Turkey is not repaying Europe for the hundred thousands of babies kidnapped and turned into soldiers? Why arabs and Turkey aren’t giving money in exchange for the hundred thousands of slaves taken all over Europe when they were expanding well into Ungary and sieging Vienna? Slavery is not UK’s fault. It was a global

What use does Africa of the money we give them?
Algeria bought Su30 fighters from Russia. Morocco even planned FREMM frigates. Egypt is one of the most armed countries on earth.
There are 17 wars in Africa, between africans, and they never run short of AK47. Do you think that Russia and China give them all out for free? A china-built AK47 is 40/50 US dollars. You make your counts.

Someone in Africa has the money.

Africa is the most resource-rich area of the world. Ancient Egypt was a global power, ahead of everyone else. Far ahead of Europe.
Yet, something happened, and their development halted well before Europe got back to Africa for getting its resources.
Man, had they developed half as much of Europeans, with all the resources of their land, they’d rule the world.

Doesn’t it cause questions to arise in your mind?
And not your pathetic mockery of my previous post, something serious.

As to India, they may pay little their soldiers, but the life in there costs a lot less, man. Soldiers definitely aren’t poor and dying starving in India.
And the country, only on the military side is:

– Buying Gorshokov from Russia at a price higher than that of the Queen Elizabeth.
– a lot of Mig29K
-leasing as much as six Akula nuclear submarines
-Developing several advanced missiles
-planning to buy perhaps as much as 126 advanced fighters (that if we are lucky and good marketers will be Typhoons), on top of their indigenous LCA and of planned 230 Su30.
-they are building a 40.000 tons aircraft carrier at home
-buying 2 huge fleet replenisher ships from Fincantieri, Italy
-they recently bought a US landing ship
-Scorpene submarines
-Arjun tanks
-THOUSANDS of russian tanks

Am i forgetting something? Probably.

Oh, yeah! 10 and i say TEN C17, when the RAF struggled years to get 7.
And 6 EADS air tanker, even if the program got on hold.
And P8I Poseidon patrol planes from the US.
And new howitzers for the army.

They are buying more kit in the last three years than the UK did in the last 40.
And you talk about poor people…? They look like they are gearing up for WWIII, regardless of their own people.

And in times of internal economic crisis, aiding foreign nations should be damn low on the priority anyway. There’s plenty of people who lost the job that should be helped, CREATING new jobs with anything the government can do. But this is another matter.

And aiding Afghanistan would have avoided the war…? Not likely. Giving money to Stan’ would have been like giving it directly to Talibans. What do you think they would have used it for…?
I have ideas.
We would have faced better-armed talibans. And had even more drug coltivations blossoming all over the region.

Look how succesfull it is the Aid Program in Somalia. People of the UN died aiding. Ships loaded with aid get captured by pirates. Convoy of vehicles loaded with food get attacked, ambushed, raided pretty often.
What a success! Yeah, it definitely was the way to go at it!

SAo let me get this right, you think that mothballing in service kit in order to buy something new and expensive is a cut, jesus you must work for the MOD, the whole point of making cuts is to save money, not introduce new kit which not only costs money to procure but also needs crew conversion training. AS90 is VERY usefull, just because it hasn’t been deployed in the ‘Stan doesn’t mean it couldn’t do a job there (the germans have sent their pzh2000s and their doing fine). It’s the same with the C2s, the only reason they aren’t in Afghanistan is that others in our NATO battlegroup have their tanks in country instead.

You want to think about saving money, ask yourself why we’re buying ASCODs when new build upgraded Warrior chassis would be just as good and slot straight into the existing infrastructure.

I think you are the one who does not get the point. Besides, it is not possible to use Warrior instead of ASCOD simply because Warrior’s production line does not exist anymore, is closed from many years already and there’s no way in hell it gets reopened.

Cuts are made to save money. True. But i’m hoping we don’t just get cuts. On the short term, many regiments of AS90 are probably going to be cut. I don’t say it because i’m happy of it, but because it is very probable.
The Archer is a cheaper and more effective, more mobile (lighter, greater firing range, less costy to maintain) piece of self propelled artillery, similar to what had been thought for the (cut) requirement LIMAWS(G). Air mobile, easier to get in the area, cheaper. I think it fits into a new vision of the Royal Artillery for the future.

The L118 is awesome. The most strategically mobile gun available, light and agile. But it is not self propelled, and it is 105 mm only.
The Navy is studying the 155 mm conversion of MK8. Everyone in NATO has 155 mm artillery. It does make sense to think about switching to M777 as soon as possible. The savings will come in the long term from having a single stockpile of ammo.

Think about it. I’m not saying it will happen today, not tomorrow. But unless we want cuts to completely or almost completely erase entire capabilities (and mr. Fox correctly seems to rule this out) we’ll have to think about cheaper and possibly more effective ways to fill requirements.

AS90 did go to Stan’, anyway, i think, even if in little numbers. But only time i heard of them having fired, it was from well inside Camp Bastion’s walls. And you can imagine the logistic footprint of 50 tons sep howitzers deployed so far abroad. I know they do their job better. They would even better if the up-gunning to the 52 calibre barrels had gone ahead.
But there will have to be changes, no…? Well, i’m suggesting.

You, with all respect, instead, are suggesting something that’s impossible. Warrior’s production was closed, ultimately, and long ago.