Fluffy-huggy gone crazy
Thread Starter
Sorry but the EIS is quite clear on this... they will be slightly inconvenienced. It is only Gould's Petrel that will not be inconvenienced. This is an official Government document after all, and therefore contains only the truth (albeit in draft form).
If we lost 75% of our upper ranks, apart from being more efficient and saving a great deal of cash, we wouldn't notice the difference.
(BTW, I ain't in one of them!)
Here in the South of France we have regular visits from L'Armée de l'Air and mighty fine they are. But then, of course we don't have to live with burning, noisy, over-priced, non-op, Harrier replacements. Theirs are all very smart, sleek jets!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that the UK also had to pay for its share of the development of Typhoon, and purchase of a varying number (at least 150, perhaps as many as 225 if I remember aright).
Which cost the UK MORE than either the UK share of the F-35B program or the building of the RN's two floating bird farms (and possibly as much as both combined).
Which cost the UK MORE than either the UK share of the F-35B program or the building of the RN's two floating bird farms (and possibly as much as both combined).
I frequently complain about the use of the very silly term "huggy-fluffy" on this forum.
Simply reversing the order of the words does not make it any more excusable
Have to go and finish my muesli now - I have a lot of yoghurt to knit tonight!
Simply reversing the order of the words does not make it any more excusable
Have to go and finish my muesli now - I have a lot of yoghurt to knit tonight!
I was looking at a short advertising video which ranked the 5 largest Defence spenders on the planet by nation, the 5 top countries are, in reverse order;
5. France
4. Saudi Arabia
3. Russia
2. China
1. United States of America
FB
5. France
4. Saudi Arabia
3. Russia
2. China
1. United States of America
FB