RN no longer rules the waves

[ORAC]

Greetings to the VMF support force......

The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-1847819,00.html): Admirals sink Navy to float Versatile Maritime Force
By Michael Evans

Modern warfare will force the Senior Service to yield mastery of the seas for a supporting role

THE Royal Navy of the future will not rule the waves but will be there largely to support soldiers in land wars, admirals said yesterday. In an attempt to keep the Senior Service modern and relevant for the next 20 years they have come up with an alternative new name — the Versatile Maritime Force or VMF.

After the bicentenary celebrations of Britain’s most famous sea battle and the death of the Navy’s most illustrious admiral, Lord Nelson’s 21st-century counterparts acknowledged yesterday that in future the role of Her Majesty’s warships would be to support the Army and RAF in operations ashore. A huge investment programme is under way to produce bigger aircraft carriers, multi-role destroyers and stealthier submarines to improve Britain’s capability to fight enemies on land. The new concept was outlined yesterday by Rear-Admiral Alan Massey, assistant chief of naval staff. He said that the Navy would remain a global force, but would not act in “splendid maritime isolation”.

“We perfectly understand that our efforts will normally be part of a joint effort. The bulk of what we do will be linked principally to delivering effects on land, alongside our Army and Air Force colleagues,” he said. “To keep modern and relevant we are developing the Versatile Maritime Force. This is a broad description of the type of Navy we are aiming for in the next 20 years or so.”

There is a battle inside the Ministry of Defence for resources to fund new equipment programmes. And two of the biggest — for two large carriers (£3 billion for the ships and £10 billion for the aircraft), and the RAF’s Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft (£20 billion) — are weighing heavily on the procurement budget.

The Royal Navy is remodelling itself as a flexible service for every eventuality, to help to justify the investment. New Astute-class nuclear-powered submarines, now being built for service from 2008, “will carry more weapons, have much better communications and information systems and will be much stealthier”. Their main weapon will be the Tomahawk “land-attack” cruise missile. No one is predicting that a Royal Navy submarine will be required in the next decade to sink an enemy warship. The last time that happened was in 1982 in the Falklands War, when HMS Conqueror hit the Argentine battle cruiser General Belgrano.

The two proposed aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth II and HMS Prince of Wales, intended for delivery in the middle of the next decade, would be capable of switching roles, from launching large-scale air assaults on land targets to carrying special forces and attack helicopters, Admiral Massey said. Also in the pipeline are eight Type 45 destroyers and four Royal Fleet Auxiliary landing ships.

In its Military Balance report published this week, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, based in London, said that it was difficult to make a case any longer for a “blue-water” Navy. Britain was facing a future of “complex irregular warfare” with new-era enemies. “Armies, marines, special forces and their supporting air and maritime elements will be heavily committed while strategic air forces and navies will remain largely irrelevant,” the institute said.

After years of cutbacks, the newly styled VMF currently contains 32 warships, 15 submarines, 97 frontline aircraft, one Royal Marine Commando brigade and 36,000 staff.

[16 blades]

Finally, what we have know for years is now policy......

"And so say all of us,..........."

:E

16B

[Jimlad]

errr, I fail to see the story here. We're seeing the RN show that in addition to carrying out its usual peacetime taskings, its primary wartime role in the current environment will be to support joint operations through the use of effects based targetting. It's hardly news really is it?

Now if someone could teach the RAF the meaning of the word "jointery" - that would be a start.

[Tigs2]

Jimlad

Now if someone could teach the RAF the meaning of the word "jointery" - that would be a start.

With a quote like that clearly you dont understand the meaning of the word jointery. It takes two (or in this case three) to Tango!

[Zoom]

Wow, 97 aircraft, eh? Seven more than the USS Nimitz. HM Government really values our Navy.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Jimlad

The previous VCDS was so purple that light blue did not come into the equation.

There are only 2 shades of purple, the green shade and the dark blue shade.

[Green Flash]

Maybe the Senior Service have decided to play the Govt at it's own buzz-word spin game?:E

[tablet_eraser]

Have to confess, I don't understand the comment about teaching the RAF jointery. Since we've shared more of our assets with the other 2 Services for decades, and since we have more contact with the RN and Army than either of them has contact with the other, I think we're doing pretty well.

As for the RN, I happen to believe that a strong Navy is still relevant. It has lesser depedency upon bases than the RAF and Army, and has a survivable long-reach capability. Parking a carrier in international waters enables us to project air power at range without relying upon fragile diplomacy.

And let's not forget, we were having the same discussions about the relevance of the RN in the late 1970s. Had the Argies not attacked the Falklands we'd have lost a massive chunk of capability - we'd probably have no aircraft carriers and our attack subs might have been retired. No-one knows what's around the corner, and with much of the world in turmoil I think we need to stop cutting our forces immediately.

[Jimlad]

Having worked in a previous life on many "purple" bases and also now working in a purple environment, my view on the RAF is that it is the least willing to embrace joint ops, that it always tries to push its interests first and that it is too short sighted to see that 2 new CVF's mean 2 new airfields for joint ops, rather than 2 new admirals bath toys. We've been here before (1918. 1966 and so on) and the RAF always claims to be the sole war winner (the bomber will always get through and now Airpower Rules!) rather than a joint asset to work in coinjunction with the other forces.

Admittedly my views may be coloured by the attrocious experience I've had of stuck up, inflexble RAF movers this week though to be be fair :)

[Tigs2]

Jimlad
RAF Movers make life hard for crabs, Pongos and Fisheads alike.

When you start talking about attitudes to CVF's you are not talking about the 'normal' guys and gals that make the armed forces work. That issue is way over their payscale and so too are the politics involved. For years and years , whenever we have faced cutbacks, the Generals fight for their tanks and regiments, the Admirals fight for their ships and the Air Marshals will fight for Aircraft. ALL of them try and put their respective interests at the top of the agenda at the expence of the other armed forces. This is when Purple breaks down, the rest of the folks just seem to crack on and get the job done as far as i have seen.

As a crab, maybe i'm more purple than others you have met, and i dont agree with your statement

and the RAF always claims to be the sole war winner

You need airpower to take ground, but you needs fleets and armour to hold it and these days with the manning levels neither of the three services are worth a toss without the others (how purple is that!).

That said, being purple should not mean that the three services should not retain their own clear cut identity. Inter-Service differences and banter is a great thing long may it continue, anything more is destructive and pointless.

[buoy15]

Surprising the article didn't mention re-fits

Type 23 in dry dock for 2 years at a cost of £80-120m - extend the quarter-deck and fit new awnings to host bigger cocktail parties - 2 weeks work-up, then on to a world tour to show the flag

Hopefully, if it doesn't run aground, or hit rocks in well chartered waters, it could be back in time for it's next re-fit

This obscene outlay of taxpayers money could be better spent on purchasing 3 more Nimrods, which are presently doing overland ops in support of the army in areas where the RN can't even get close - 'choosing' to stand-off - as they are considered valuable assets

The days of sending a Gunboat to keep the natives quiet are long gone

Air Power has longer legs, gets there quicker and delivers a bigger punch

I expect some flak from the Carrier PC brigade who think mobile airfields are the best thing since sliced bread

"England expects" - but Bliar and Bush do!

Nelson must be turning in his grave

MVF - more corporate spin - however, in fairness, it does coincide with the new RAF Ethos video and morale booster Cr*p, which means "jointery" is possibly working, even at Northwood! Ha! Ha!

[snafu]

So the duty FF/DD in the Northern Gulf is just 'choosing' to stand off from Iraq and would otherwise be able to join the fun in Basrah, Al Amarah or elsewhere in the Maysan province? Last time I checked, overland ops were a bit of a tricky manoeuvre for the grey funnel line!!:rolleyes:

[Green Flash]

Snafu

Exactly! Hoist by your own petard or horses for courses. take your pick. Ultimatly, if you are Dark Blue, Light Blue or Brown, we live on the LAND. We take and hold LAND. Bums on seats. Boots on the ground. :confused:

[snafu]

Hoist by my own petard?...I didn't realise I'd brought one with me!:E

I agree with the need for Boots on the ground - preferably 40, 42 or 45 - normally with RN crews flying the helicopters! Sort of like they are at the moment in Basrah, alongside RAF and Army crews, as part of the Joint Helicopter Force, which I was proud to be part of a while ago, so please don't try to lecture me about jointery.:hmm:

[Daysleeper]

we live on the LAND. We take and hold LAND. Bums on seats. Boots on the ground.

Though a large majority of our food and other essentials is imported by SEA.

Anyhow a very large chunk of the Navy's budget is now amphib orientated.

OCEAN (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2000.html)
Albion (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/4347.html)
Bulwark (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/5064.html)
Bay Class x 4 (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/bay_class/)
Not to forget the 2 remaining carriers.

Which gives us the largest amphibious capability since the 1960s. Around 4000 troops before even considering merchant lift.

Thing is there is a desperate need for escorts both to protect these assets and as indepenent bits of the UK able to carry out a variety of roles by themselves a long way from home.
From preventing piracy to escorting merchant ships, natural disaster relief, anti drug smuggling etc etc.

[Wyler]

I have spent 4 of the last 6 years in Joint arenas. Its nothing new, Normandy Landings were kind of joint don't you think? Todays problems are with single service culture, some good but a lot of it bad, and language. Its incredible how difficult it is to communicate with your own side sometimes.
What we need is a common language and not some senior twits coming up with new buzz words all the time. I also found the Army a little bit arrogant on occasions as they seemed to think everyone had to fall in line with their doctrine. I was lectured one way on deep ops, about 40 Km by their thinking. Personally, I have travelled further for a good curry.
Lets face it, no single service can survive without the other and that has always been the case. I hope the Navy gets the new carriers BUT with different names. I am sorry but the Prince of Wales and the Queen Elizabeth are not, IMHO, very apt.

[GeeRam]

I am sorry but the Prince of Wales and the Queen Elizabeth are not, IMHO, very apt.

Prince of Wales would be if it was going on a new Battleship:\

Queen Elizabeth 2 is the most bizarre suggestion I've heard in many a year for a HMS title, everyone will be expecting to see that Cunard liner...:*

Whats wrong with carrying on the names of past carriers......

Ooops..... forgot, that's history and tradition...we don't do that now do we, not very PC is it:{

[Climebear]

Green Flash

We take and hold LAND.

Whilst I understand what you mean, this is hardly in line with manoeuvrist approach is it?

JWP0-01 (http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/jdcc/publications/jwp0_01.pdf) see page 3-5.


While land (not necessarily Army) forces are key others play a decisive part. Offensive Land operations do not take place without, at least, a favourable air situation and a jt cdr would be foolish to embark on operations without secure LOCs (in these expeditionary days these are predoninatly sea and air LOCs).

JIMLAD

Your comment on the RAF fighting the programme is false.
Last time I was briefed by CAS he was fully supportive of the CVF programme.

As for names of Carriers - don't you think the chosen names are political - try cutting them now! We have had a Prince of Wales before, albeit it wasn't a carrier; however, I do recall it was sunk by (Japanese) air power.

[tablet_eraser]

I think the Government was very cautious about using past carriers' names. Naming the CVFs HMS INVINCIBLE or ILLUSTRIOUS would point out the fact that Labour are shamefully retiring these 2 ships much earlier than they should be retired in a massive cost-cutting exercise.

I think HMS HERMES and HMS FURIOUS would be better. HERMES was our carrier of choice during the Falklands conflict, and FURIOUS was the RN's first de facto aircraft carrier - Sqn Ldr Edwin Dunning landed his Sopwith Pup on her flat deck in 1917, the first-ever successful landing of an aircraft on a moving ship.

However, I can see that the PC brigade would hate both names. How dare we re-use the name of a ship used to wage war on another country? How dare we make reference to history? I'm surprised they even allowed Royal names.

[Archimedes]

<anorak on>

Technically speaking, the choice of the Queen Elizabeth name is entirely in keeping with tradition. The theory is that the first capital/major ship of a monarch's reign should be named after that monarch.

As a for instance, the King George V was named during KGV's reign; when the time came for George VI to have 'his' ship, he chose Duke of York to avoid confusion (HMS Bertie would probably not have gone down well with the Admiralty...).

CVA01 was, quite properly under this convention, to be named Queen Elizabeth ; CVA02 was to be named Duke of Edinburgh.

I assume that the PofW name is to give Charles 'his' ship (and William, for that matter), since at present it seems unlikely that any ship more notable than a carrier will enter service during Charles' reign. <anorak off>

Despite all that, I agree that Furious and probably Courageous or even Ark Royal would be more 'warry' and perhaps more appropriate names.

[lightningmate]

tablet-eraser,

A Squadron Leader landing his aircraft on a flat-deck during 1917?

Lieutenant Edwin Dunning was the man on the day - post 1 April 1918, he may well have held Sqn Ldr rank.

lm

[Archimedes]

I'd have to check, but I think Dunning was 'Sqn Cdr rather than Sqn Ldr.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

We have had a Prince of Wales before, albeit it wasn't a carrier; however, I do recall it was sunk by (Japanese) air power.

That was the last time the RN put major surface units into harms way without air defence, a leson of history ignored by thoese who decided to prematurely retire the Sea Harrier many years before its replacement is ready. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152)

In Telic there wasn't any real impediment to the build up of forces, which mostly were transported by sea. Against an opponent with missile armed surface vessels, perhaps proper (sic) warships, submarines, aircraft, possibly mine or land based missil threats, being able to escort shipping (like these ones (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/roro.htm)) will be vital. The reduction of frigate/detroyer numbers is a serious risk. As is the reduction in SSN numbers. An several other cuts.

Also: less FF/DD means less possible NGS. Less SSNs means less TLAM platforms, less SF type stuff, and less ISTAR.

I could go on (and on :rolleyes: ) but......

See Maritime Contribution to Joint Operations. (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/163.html)

[dolphinops]

HMS Bliar & HMS Dubya.
Whatcha think?

[16 blades]

Can somebody please stop WEBF from mentioning the f**king Sea Harrier in every f**king post. "Ting!"

16B

[WE Branch Fanatic]

In the littoral, where the fleet will need to be...... Makes the issue relevent IMHO.

[Blacksheep]

Hasn't the history of the royal navy always been joint operations with the army?

Most of our major sea battles seem to have been fought to either keep the supply lines to our army open or prevent an enemy force establishing itself ashore. Even that scrap with the Spanish Armadillo was all about preventing the Spanish fleet embarking their army for a channel crossing. Had the weather not interved, the ensuing fight would no doubt have ended up as another joint operation.

[Irish Tempest]

The raison d entre for the HRH POW and QE2 names is a clever bit of manoeuvring by our lords and masters. The political ramifications of "chopping" a carrier therby chopping Prince Charles as a cost saving measure would be met with a furore of protest from joe public (who incidentally seems to be a major stakeholder in deciding the future of the RN!!)

[southside]

The sad things is that the VMF has only 36,000 people in it. To put that in a more common complex, Old Trafford has a capacity of 67,000.... The RN wouldn't even fit into the North stand....Thats sad.

[buoy15]

With the forecast delays and overspends, it could be "Queen Camilla I"
Would make a great horse transporter or tramp ship!

[The Green Scopie]

HMS Margret Thatcher - Now that would scare the cr@p out of any enemy! :\

[Blacksheep]

36,000! That's terrible!

As a six year old, I was taken to the coronation review and was right impressed with the huge armada. Dad was out there somewhere in HMS Zephyr amongst the something like 500 ships lined up off Spithead. That fleet included the battleship HMS Vanguard and a whole squadron of aircraft carriers.

How sad.

[Daysleeper]

Of course in the old days things like this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4394392.stm) would have paid for a whole new frigate. Perhaps a self financing Navy is the way forward.:p

[Data-Lynx]

Ahhh. Salvage and Prize Crews; those were the days. What price the ancient toast of "A bloody war or a sickly season" with 21 century conflicts and modern medicine? Just where are the job opportunities for young 'Jack'?

[pr00ne]

tablet eraser,

Invincible and Illustrious are not being retired “shamefully early in a massive cost cutting exercise!”

They are being retired when replaced by the two new CVF vessels, there has only ever been two of them in service at any one time and Invincible is going into reserve for the last time because by the time it comes round to rotating them again the first CVF will be coming into service. She is over 25 years old now and will remain in reserve until 2010!

It was the Tories who cancelled the third air group and introduced the two in service policy in 1981 when they were hell bent on dismantling the RN under the Thatcher/Nott cuts.

I do agree on the names though, historical precedence there may well be but the two current names in my opinion stink!
Hermes would be fine, along with any from Courageous, Glorious, Furious or how about Eagle?

As to your rant about the “PC brigade” and reference to waging war on another country and making reference to history, just who the hell are “they”?

[Bing]

It was the Tories who cancelled the third air group and introduced the two in service policy in 1981 when they were hell bent on dismantling the RN under the Thatcher/Nott cuts.

I thought the Nott cuts introduced more of a no air groups and we'll sell INVINCIBLE to the Australians policy in '81. Which was then revised in the face of operational experience in '82.

[Wyler]

How about HMS NIMBY?

[Lyneham Lad]

pr00ne - how does your Invincible and Illustrious are not being retired “shamefully early in a massive cost cutting exercise!”

tie-in with the letter from Admiral Sir John Woodward in yesterday's Daily Telegraph 'Letters', :-

Sir - Your article about the Jervis Bay (Arts, October 28) was not simply about the bravery of a single ship and a single man. It was about what I have called for many years the "Jervis Bay syndrome", which drove us all in the Royal Navy.

It is the force that made us put our main armament in the front of the ships, not the rear. It is the force that made us go forward when all our instincts were yelling to go back.

It is the force that makes our ships generally worth any two similar of our enemy's. And it is the force that gave rise to the British sailor's saying: "You shouldn't have joined if you can't take a joke."

This week's "joke" is the announcement of an indefinite delay in the ordering of the new aircraft carriers (and presumably their aircraft). When combined with the removal from service early in 2006 of this country's only operational all-weather interceptor, the Sea Harrier, deployment of a naval expeditionary force against any but the most basic opposition, with no aircraft of its own, becomes the worst kind of joke yet dreamed up by an incompetent government.

I personally could not ask the modern sailor to "go forward" in these circumstances, but no doubt the politicians of the day will do so - from plain ignorance or refusal to face the facts.

Admiral Sir John Woodward, Bosham, West Sussex

Are you saying that Invincible and Illustrious will somehow stay in service indefinitely?

[pr00ne]

Lyneham Lad,

No, two of them will stay in service until replaced by CVF, there are only ever two in service. How do you work that out as indefinite?

There is no massive cost cutting involved in the carrier decision, the things are going to be around 65 thousand tons, that's over three times the displacement of the current CVS.................

As to Woodward and his ships with guns on the front, I thought they had as many on the back as well, apart from the Rodney and Nelson, so what on earth is the man on about?

[pigfist]

Right!

Lets get a few things straight. Yes, eventually we will retire Ark and Lusty - Invincible decommisioned earlier this year. Why are we getting two new, very large carriers?

A. 3 parts of our commitment to JRRF:

1. Amphibious Group (Ocean, Bulwark, Albion etc)
2. Carrier Strike (CVF and JCA)
3. Can't remember the third (sorry).

B. Carrier strike doesn't just mean parking off somewhere and projecting power (having done the whole "Theatre Entry" thing - see I did read the FMOC). It also includes the JCA operating from ashore mit HNS.

C. Carrier Strike also includes massive LPH capability and operating an entire Spec Ops group from onboard - with a carrier where you can chuck a chinook in the hanger without taking the whirry pineapple things off - yes, it'll be that big.

Now for whichever grade 1 stimper said....

This obscene outlay of taxpayers money could be better spent on purchasing 3 more Nimrods, which are presently doing overland ops in support of the army in areas where the RN can't even get close - 'choosing' to stand-off - as they are considered valuable assets

He (or she if it is a Nimbat Queen) ought to check the going rate for the MRA4 - about a billion pounds a pop so far to the taxpayer. Value for money - don't talk arse. For that kind of cash you get both CVFs which have far more utility than 3 Nimrods. Yes the MR2 fleet are doing a fantastic job in suport of Ops in Iraq but lets not get too up ourselves. Its a 1950s airliner. With a camera. And more food for each sortie than most Iraqis get in a week.

And Jimlad speaks the truth about some of our light blue bretheren. But, if they had worked hard at school they could have joined the Navy (sorry cheap banter). Stop polishing your arse Jimlad and get strapped in.

[16 blades]

the removal from service early in 2006 of this country's only operational all-weather interceptor, the Sea Harrier

err......

How typical of Navy arrogance - despite being the smallest by far of the three services and being of not much relevance to current ops, they STILL think that they are the only show in town. Ever heard of the F3?

16B

[Widger]

Ever heard of the F3?


hahhahahahahahahahahh

hahahahahahahahahah




Foxhunter or Blue Vixen.....hmmmmmmmm let me think about that one.



despite being the smallest by far of the three services
Why on earth would I want to do a FJ crossover? I'm actually perfectly happy being a pie-eating truckie w@nker. And besides, MY willy's big enough.......

Did your mother not tell you that size is not what counts. The RAF is smaller than the Army and Boots the chemists, so by your logic you are also crap.

16 Blades, you do your highly professional truckie colleagues an injustice with your ignorance of wider military issues. You need to extract your head from your ar$e, read some more of those lovely glossy brochures the light blue keep churning out, and get yourself down the road to the school near Swindon. Then you might learn a little bit more about the BIG PICTURE.

:E :E :E :E :E :ok:

[The Helpful Stacker]

Then you might learn a little bit more about the BIG PICTURE.

Is that the same big picture in which it has been decided the Sea Harrier shouldn't feature but the F3 should?

Obviously its not always so 'picture perfect'.

[Widger]

The F3 was designed for low-level interception - and it's good at it (second fastest aircraft in the world at low level) - it's just that we use it for something it wasn't really designed for because we have nothing else. Nothing to do with its age....


oohh that looks familiar!:E :E :E

[southside]

Well if we are starting a bit of Crab bashing, it was nice to see the Senior Service mentioned so heavily in this weeks press. The last time the RA Farce was in the press was when they refused to go to war.

Nice

[Data-Lynx]

southside (http://www.southsidepartnership.org.uk/). Are you a partner or perhaps an inmate? Meanwhile, the Joint Helo Force effort in Kashmir does seem to be more recent and mainly light blue.

[Widger]

Data Lynx.....very good.....:ok: :ok: :ok:

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Priceless Data, absolutely priceless:ok:

Perfect description of our resident shape shifting troll:yuk:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[southside]

Tee Hee, Data. Fantastic - well said, as broken said....priceless, absolutely priceless

[Irish Tempest]

We won't mention the amount of aircraft shot down by the RAF as opposed to the FAA since WW2. Note RAF aircraft shooting down their own as they had gone rogue does not count...tee hee.

[pr00ne]

Irish Tempest,

Also best not to mention how many of those FAA aircraft were being flown by RAF pilots...............................................

[Blacksheep]

Seems to me that the last time our armed forces were in this much trouble was in the thirties. Then we went to war with the Gladiator and Battle in front line service, HMS Hood was the pride of the navy despite being f*ck all good for anything and we had to 'borrow' 50 clapped out first world was destroyers just to save ourselves from slow starvation. Meanwhile the army still had horse drawn artillery in the field - admittedly with tractors to pull it instead of horses.

Our fluffy government must wake up to the fact that some of the 'terrorists' in this world are actually sovereign nations with an unstated intention to go nuclear and a stated intention to wipe other countries off the map. I smell trouble on the horizon and once again we aren't properly prepared for it.

You can't defend yourself with hospital consultants or improved school dinners. Its past time to see some proper muscle been given to the armed forces. Let the Royal Navy have two or three carrier battle groups and a couple of dozen Trident submarines, equip the RAF with 500 of the best long range strike aircraft that money can buy and reintroduce all the lost regiments. With three battalions each. Then we might be almost ready for what's to come.

Ooops! Fighting talk isn't fashionable these days. Sorry. :uhoh:

[buoy15]

Pigfist Bonny Lad

Touched a nerve did we?

"Nimrod a 50's airliner with a camera!" Ha!

New build in 1968, probably before your Dad was speaking to your Mom.

I suggest you organise a visit to ISK and get yo'self on a flight so you can see the vast potential of the only Multi Role ac in the RAF inventory.

Your sums don't add up either - " a billion pounds a pop"

Actually it was £2.1bn for the initial order of 23 ac, which was reduced to 12, to meet the overspend of BWoS, and to balance the dodgy ledgers of prudent Gordon, who is still throwing money at the war in Iraq, single mums and the benefit seekers who can't speak English!

If you have to talk arse, in the process of having a sh*te, can you please use quality paper!

Regards, Nimbat Queen!

[pr00ne]

Blacksheep,

500 strike aircraft, a couple of DOZEN Trident submarines? Are you a complete loon? That sort of spending would do a hundred times more damage to the stability of our nation and our economy than any possible threat you can whistle up from some vague “terrorist sovereign nation” in your imagination.

As for our “fluffy” Gov’t, this board consists of oodles of serving military folk complaining at having to go overseas to fight in “Tony B Liar’s” wars as they call them and when Blair actually mentioned that we may well have to consider doing something about Iran the reaction on here was apoplectic!

I think you’ll find that “fighting talk” and actual fighting, is a little more in fashion if you are serving in HM forces than it has been since 1945!

Get real.

[clicker]

Perhaps their Lordship's should remind HM Gov that unlike the days of old we cannot step up the manufacture of aircraft/ships/tanks in order to fight the next episode of "Blair and Bush's" war..

That we cannot ask the public to donate all their old pots and pans to be melted down and that we need a real reserve of equipment and manpower before they start rattling the sabre towards Iran.

It frightens me to see all this talk and still HMG cary out the disbandment of the armed forces or won't start the replacement of the equipment in time before the old is dumped on the rubbish heap.

OK I don't know the full story as I'm not in the services, I did try but eyesight was too cr&p even for a ground trade so I'll step back and await the flak.

[Blacksheep]

Not a bad day out. Just one hour and twelve minutes sitting on the bank before getting a good one for dinner. :)