Originally Posted by
Asturias56
I agree up to a point - anyone invoking Beaverbrook needs a history lesson
The problem is this is in the centre of the Times - it's not some weird website in Texas. These are opinion setting articles - especially as elsewhere there are stories of the Treasury getting pretty sniffy about more money for the MoD.
It wouldn't be so bad if the overall news picture was positive but with problems with everything from Carriers to ACV's and from pilot training to horribly stretched infantry and supply metrics the Uk doesn't seem to be working here.
The Times has been blotting its copybook with some fairly blatant stretching of the truth recently - not just with defence but with some interestingly partisan political positioning as well.
Last I looked, QNLZ was about to embark f/w and is bombing up in Scotland, PWLS is progressing well, Ajax has passed its latest trials. Pilot training is still an issue - although I have some sympathy for Wigston who was confronted by Tubster with an argument that went something along the lines of "I've talked to two people on 617 who waited a long time to get to an operational seat, you've told me an average duration which is different so you're a liar". Sadly Wigston was unable to call the pompous little tw@t a pompous little tw@t, or a gobsh1te or indeed offer him out for that matter.....Interestingly, it appears that the majority of QFI on 207 are dark blue, so the perennial cry doesn't seem to stand up (pre-emption).
As for horribly stretched infantry, I'm assuming you're not talking a bunch of Peter Crouch-alikes, so where exactly is the pressing demand for these infantry units (of which we seem to have 33 regular infantry battalions)?
It's almost as if there's a sustained lobbying campaign being conducted through the pages of a once august newspaper.......