PPRuNe Forums


Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 28th Apr 2017, 20:22   #21 (permalink)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 74
Posts: 14,673
Brian, I was considering only the RAF and the transfer of the Mk 2s to the RAF.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2017, 20:36   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South of Old Warden
Age: 80
Posts: 1,279
It was said at the time that the Mig29 pilot should give up smoking...It could endanger his heath!
goudie is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2017, 21:37   #23 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,633
Gauging which party is strongest on defence by types introduced on their watch is a pretty meaningless yardstick. A bit like saying how generous a mate is for ordering a huge round...who then left without paying for it
ShotOne is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2017, 22:43   #24 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 70
Posts: 3,061
Understandably this has all got a bit aviation centric. My original remarks concerned defence across the board - land, sea and air. Only a couple of days ago I was discussing the matter with my neighbour, a retired FAA Observer, and we were bemoaning the lack of naval air power. Even with the forthcoming arrival of the two new carriers, always assuming we have some aircraft to put on them, a huge problem is who is going to man them. Its not like opening a new branch of Tescos - you cant just advertise at the Job Centre for a thousand or more men and women of all trades - they just dont exist any more. The blame for that situation has to be laid at the door of both Conservative and Labour governments neither of whom will bite the bullet and admit that defence is an expensive business. But with the great British Public unable to see beyond the NHS and schools, who can blame politicians for pandering to their wishes.
Tankertrashnav is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 05:18   #25 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 58
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hangarshuffle View Post
UK would be 'unable to withstand' nuclear strike, Russian senator warns

I found a link about it. On MSN news whatever that really is. But I'm assuming the quotes are good and not false.
Some good points by the Russian I suppose. I don't really like Fallon, have to admit that and I wonder how long he will be in the post if PM May returns to office. Think he is playing a funny game. Should he even be commenting in this manner? It always seems to be better left unsaid.

IMHO, both (UK and Russian officials) showed very low level of professionalism. Whatever is chaotically circulating in their minds, they should not escalate the tension, especially talking publicly about "nuke exchange".
A_Van is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 06:33   #26 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,633
Agreed, both sides are diminished by such unnecessary comments. Let's hope those with the actual launch codes are more professional. For what it's worth, Mr Fallon's original statement was probably intended to highlight the UK Labour Party's disarray on the issue rather than send any message to Russia
ShotOne is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 06:39   #27 (permalink)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 74
Posts: 14,673
Shotone, accepting the cross Government time scale for many projects, the home grown ones, others might have been in the OR stage at the end of one party but substantially concluded by the next. Others, such as the C130K/J, F4, E3, C17 were wholly within one.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 07:23   #28 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 138
Defence Election Issues!

Maybe defence will be an election issue;

http://thetimes.co.uk/article/86a015...e-96f2194e0ac4

For those who can't read behind the paywall the essence of the article is;

Insufficient cash.
Another SDR needed.
Possible cuts unless more money, suggested cuts include slowing introduction or reducing buy of P8 among others.
Fallon unlikely to survive post election reshuffle.
Chinny Crewman is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 08:29   #29 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,633
Agreed, pontius but the point I was making is that we should credit the party that pays the bill rather than the one which simply placed the orders. The Blair/Brown years saw lots of shiny kit. But when they left office much of it wasn't paid for, nor even budgeted for. This unfortunate fact is behind some of the tough spending calls which would have had to be made whoever won the last election.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 09:04   #30 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 477
We can hardly expect Defence Spending to be a vote winner when Private Eye can publish at least one update a month on the latest MOD overspend/delay to a project which often does not work properly.

This week it's the RN Destroyer shambles which suggests the refurb of just the diesels will be so that the ship can spend most of the time cruising around on them rather than the RR gas turbine/electrical systems which keep failing/tripping.
Bigpants is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 09:20   #31 (permalink)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 74
Posts: 14,673
ShotOne, ah, the bare cupboard. At least Wilson bought the C130 and F4. Without starting a debate, the C130 buy was absolutely essential to replace the whole mishmash of trucks that we had gathered over the years.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 10:06   #32 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,633
No argument with you on their necessity Pontius...but that's not what the threads about
ShotOne is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 10:37   #33 (permalink)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 74
Posts: 14,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotOne View Post
No argument with you on their necessity Pontius...but that's not what the threads about
Which was party and aviation related?

Or, given the probability of no contest, about nuclear deterrent policy?
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 12:42   #34 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,633
Fair point, Pontius; it began titled General Election 2017 but then meandered to which party is strongest on defence. If it's about cupboards being bare, they certainly were when Harold Wilson left office!
ShotOne is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 14:24   #35 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 56
Posts: 1,008
Just to jump in, F-111 was cancelled following a massive public spending programme by Labour (Wilson led) on top of a significant devaluation of sterling, leaving the RAF to accept Lord Mounbatten's offer of three for the price of one on Buccaneers against... well TSR2 at the time. Labour's cuts to defence always follow the need to scrape together more money for all the usual community related projects... NHS, Welfare, Housing etc. Not a bad endeavour, but never balanced properly, hence they always max the nation's unauthorised overdraft.

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 14:56   #36 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finningley Boy View Post
Just to jump in, F-111 was cancelled following a massive public spending programme by Labour (Wilson led) on top of a significant devaluation of sterling, leaving the RAF to accept Lord Mounbatten's offer of three for the price of one on Buccaneers against... well TSR2 at the time. Labour's cuts to defence always follow the need to scrape together more money for all the usual community related projects... NHS, Welfare, Housing etc. Not a bad endeavour, but never balanced properly, hence they always max the nation's unauthorised overdraft.

FB
And the Tories cuts are always to cut public spending, reduce the deficit and pay off debt. They never get that right either.
Sadly in today's political and economic situation I don't think either of the main parties are strong on defence and neither of them care.
Chinny Crewman is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 15:55   #37 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,147
What Chinny Crewman said.

The Tories talk the talk but regularly fail to walk the walk, preferring to take a business approach to Defence, leaving us with the absolute bare minimum to get the job done and with no redundancy when things change or go wrong. Invariably business being the only ones to benefit from their spending.

Labour try to walk the walk, not because they believe in Defence but because we get caught up in their general desire to grow the State. As a result their ideas are often lacking analytical rigour and nearly always aren't effectively funded.

Both could write what they understand about strategic thinking on a post-it note.
Melchett01 is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 17:17   #38 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 916
Still sign of any party manifestos yet, which actually surprises me. Got a flyer today from my sitting MP-no mention of defence at all. Her election is being fought on spending on schools/NHS/local hooligan issues. Its not a bad pitch actually, and she will walk it back in, I think. She is a good local MP-no mention of London /Westminster/ National politics at all (and I think that will eventually be a national strategy for her party).
To be fair to Labour post 1997 Melchett01, (with due help from a Conservative Govt in their previous Govt.) the Navy did sort of end up with a better Amphibious Force for a while under Labour. HMS Ocean, Albion, Bulwark plus the RFA Cardigan Bay, Lyme Bay and two others same type(I've actually forgotten both their names now - thanks BSE). That was a decent small expeditionary force which wasn't really sustained in upkeep, and is now much more fragmented in 2017. Maybe they tried to walk the walk for a while on a world stage......
Hangarshuffle is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 18:12   #39 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchett01 View Post
What Chinny Crewman said.

The Tories talk the talk but regularly fail to walk the walk, preferring to take a business approach to Defence, leaving us with the absolute bare minimum to get the job done and with no redundancy when things change or go wrong. Invariably business being the only ones to benefit from their spending.

Labour try to walk the walk, not because they believe in Defence but because we get caught up in their general desire to grow the State. As a result their ideas are often lacking analytical rigour and nearly always aren't effectively funded.

Both could write what they understand about strategic thinking on a post-it note.
Agree, the Tories business sense is to take risk and try and make everyone believe their bull****(Investment bankers and Journalists, two professions that would wind up most military men and filling rather large roles in our Government). Defence has nothing to do with this election anyway, it is how much people want a rough ride with Brexit or not. Good Defence at the end of the day depends on a good economy to pay for it.
Alber Ratman is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2017, 18:45   #40 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 340
Defence and defence spending is not a vote winner, so expect piecemeal reference to it between now and June.


It had only become an election issue as the Leader of HM Opposition categorically stated that he would NEVER use the nuclear deterrent-thus rendering it useless. Yet official Labour Party policy is to replace Trident.


This is now been used to smack him round the head repeatedly by his critics and to show that he's not fit to lead.


Perhaps he should have watched Dr Strangelove and find out the meaning of deterrence before he opened his mouth?
Treble one is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 00:35.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1