Defence Cuts

[ORAC]

The Sunday Times:

June 3 2001 BRITAIN

Ministers plan big new defence cuts
James Clark, Home Affairs Correspondent


MINISTERS are secretly planning swingeing cuts to flagship military projects after the election in an attempt to balance the defence budget.

Senior officers have been surprised to learn that new aircraft carriers, the joint strike fighter (JSF) replacement for the Harrier, several transport aircraft and at least one missile project may be abandoned.

Officials have to find savings of hundreds of millions of pounds from the £23 billion defence budget. Many important projects promised to the forces during Labour's 1998 strategic defence review are now under threat.

As well as the planned carrier fleet, JSF and the Tracer missile system, armoured regiments face cutbacks and mechanised infantry face "reorganisation".

Most of these projects secured the support of senior officers during the defence review, but any attempt to scrap them could lead to a breach with ministers and would be a stern first test for the new chief of defence staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce.

The review has been prompted by what a senior Ministry of Defence (MoD) source called "a cashflow crisis".

He said: "The problem is that we're procuring things so much faster than we used to and we suddenly find ourselves with lots of bills to pay earlier than expected - bulges in expenditure. That means looking again at our long-term acquisitions."

However, Tories claim the plans are evidence of the determination of the chancellor, Gordon Brown, to claw back cash from defence.

Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory defence spokesman, said: "This is armed forces on the cheap. Labour have been lying through their teeth about defence for four years and this will send our armed forces into a state of crisis."

The news of planned cuts comes as another report, by two senior figures at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies (RUSI), claims that £8 billion plans to introduce two new super-carriers in 2012 will never happen.

Sir Michael Alexander, former ambassador to Nato and chairman of the RUSI, and Sir Timothy Garden, former assistant chief of defence staff, said: "There can be little chance that the carriers envisaged will ever be built."

Meanwhile, Washington appears to be getting cold feet about the JSF aircraft, which is a joint project with Britain. The plane is planned to replace the ageing Harrier jump-jet and would fly from the new carrier fleet, but withdrawal of US cash would stop it.

Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, secured the first rise in the defence budget for more than a decade last year. An MoD source close to him insisted yesterday: "This will not be about great cuts. It is a sensible review of where we are going, a procurement health check if you like." But he refused to rule out the axeing of projects.




[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 03 June 2001).]

[Sonic Boozer]

Just as interesting is the Sunday Telegraph survey of issues likely to persuade a voters choice. Defence would influence the choice of only 1 - 2% of those questioned.

I'll get my coat.....

[This message has been edited by Sonic Boozer (edited 03 June 2001).]

[keepin it in trim]

It's tommy this and tommy that etc...

I honestly think that a large proportion of the public must believe that well trained armed forces can be magiced out of the ether at will when needed. It's either that or the mentality of 1938 (I think?) of small countries a long way away of which we no little..and care less. Except if something must be done, when of course there must be lots of military types sitting around, doing very little, who could just dash over and sort it out.. for a few years...

[Perky Penguin]

Perhaps the problem is that we don't really have a Defence Policy - what are the Armed forces for? In an ideal world the Government would set military tasks and objectives. Then the Service chiefs would say what and how much equipment was required to perform those tasks. Finally the Government would supply the funds to buy and maintain the equipment, and to recruit, employ AND retain the number of people needed to operate and service it

[Qwin T Senshall]

1. Tracer is not a missile programme.

2. Future carrier programme can by no means be called 'super carriers' - they will not be big enough and will (probably) not have capability for deep water ops. Their size is limited by, amongst many other things, the lack of dry dock facilities for anything 'super' size. (Even the US have problems with the big CVNs).

3. We do not need JSF - it will be very expensive and will give less bang per quid than a mixed wing of new build F18 (2 seat) and naval Hawk. There is a love affair with VSTOL/STOVL, probably because the Harrier mates are sharp guys who have got on well in the services. It is really only the marines who need it. (I know it helps launch and recovery rates a tad but not much).

This is only my opinion and I never flew carrier ops but I also think that asking govt. for expensive toys leaves us vulnerable to getting no toys.

QT

[Low and Slow]

Qwin:-

1. Tracer not a missile program - Agreed.

2. What capability do you need for "deep water" operation? What criteria are you basing this statement on? The US NAVY do not own or write the book on modern Carrier Ops.
I suggest we are looking at a CV/CVN of 70,000 tons plus, with an embarked wing of 30-50 Aircraft.
We do have the dry dock capability for such a vessel. I am assured that there are at least 2 locations in the UK. Both civil yards but so what?

3. Yes we do need JSF or an aircraft of that equivalent capability. Look at the Payload/range, plus all the current technology. Why F-18? Why 2 seat? F-18's a dog in comparison to JSF, and it's a 25 yr old dog in Design terms. OK, the F-18E/F may have something, but JSF is still a better option. Buccaneer would be a better option than F-18C/D J.
Naval Hawk! Do you mean T-45? No weapons, No sensors, and no space or payload for them either, and an airplane already operating in it's useful margin. Unless you know something about the program I don't I suggest, this is a non-starter.

We have a Governmen, that knows precisely nothing about defense issues and cannot debate them. A CV is priority 450 on their horizon. If we don't ask we'll never get.

[Jackonicko]

In an era of ferocious over-stretch, carriers look like an increasingly poor, and non-cost-effective way of deploying a fast jet squadron to where it needs to be. Apart from the Falklands, land-based air power can usually get there, and if it can't then leave it to the French and the US. By not procuring these leviathans, we stand a chance of being able to acquire sufficient FJs, AHs, support helicopters, tankers and transports to do the bulk of our operational requirements properly. Who knows, maybe they could even by the tankers and C-17s instead of leasing them.

With four Trident submarines, national prestige does not rely on having, or not having, a pair of carriers - especially if acquiring them means that everything else has to be cut to the bone.

[Gainesy]

...and what use, exactly, are four bomber boats in this era/scenario?

[Chinese Vic]

Perhaps if we cancelled SSII we could afford a new engine for the Harrier, or GR4s that work properly, or......am I being too cynical?

[Grey Area]

Perhaps we are about see the cancellation of all the manned aircraft projects, destruction of jigs and plans paving the way for the age of UAVs and smart missiles.

Didn't a labour Govt do that before?

(Edited for grandma)

[This message has been edited by Grey Area (edited 04 June 2001).]

[Jackonicko]

Gainesy

None. But they are bought and paid for!

SSII????

JN

[Suit]

Grey Area,

I think your getting a litle muddled up with a certain TORY Government that cancelled all manned aircraft projects and announced that the future lay with the Guided Missile and decimated conventional forces and reserves.

The Labour administration that you are confusing with the above may well have cancelled TSR2/P1154 and HS681 but it did order hundreds of F-4's C-130's Harriers,Jaguars Buccaneers and Nimrods.

Gainesy/JN,

Those 4 bomber boats are the ONLY defence we have against the only serious threat that could be posed against this country, that of nuclear missile attack or ballistic missile attack with other 'nasties' replacing the instant sunshine.
The threat of retaliation is all that we have as we have no other way of stopping even a V2 type attack, with all the nutters in the world arming to the teeth with nasties would you feel safe without a 'bomber' or two?

My V force background in no way influences the above.



------------------
If the suit fits.........

[TL Thou]

....and just for the additional record it was a Labour Government that cancelled the last big carrier programme...see the corking
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/9452/sectcvf.htm

for info, and imagine just how different the Falklands could have been!

[Qwin T Senshall]

Lo and Slow

CVN would not be a starter in my opinion, for political and technical reasons unless we could buy US reactors off the shelf. Look at C de Gaulle with its multiple submarine originated reactors. I would bet money that CVF will have gas turbines and that, for lots of reasons, they will be the engines going into type 45.

70 000 tonnes is a very big ship which we could not afford or dock. We are looking at something similar to C de G in size. Dry docks for carriers need much greater floor strength than commercial ships because carriers are very dense with much machinery installed whilst commercials have cargoes (or pax) which can be offloaded before docking. There are draught issues in approach to the dock also.

Deep water ops require organic AEW and anti-sub as well as depth air defence, i.e. CAP. Conops for deep water is that the carrier is centre of the fleet. US CVNs carry fuel, weapons and supplies for their escorts and can rush off to a task, operate unsupported whilst escorts catch up. CVF will have organic AEW and anti-sub but not enough depth, I believe. With the limit on size there would not be enough air assets to mount deep AD and have offensive air capability unsupported from land. It is questionable whether there is a capability requirement for deep water anyway - who is the threat?

Modern fighters are reaching limits in terms of structures and aerodynamics. I note that you do not advocate navalised Typhoon - you have probably seen it land at high AoA and questioned who wants to try to land on a ship he cannot see. Better engines and avionics, sensors etc. would make a new model F18 valuable & attractive. 2 crew because the challenge of the digitized battlespace is information overload.

I did not mean T45. Something a bit newer would make a punchy escort / air defender of Hawk. Also, there would be considerably less tech. risk with both. JSF is doing well but there are still a lot of engineering unknowns to iron out.

An air wing of around 40 would provide good capability, not great but good, at considerably less cost than JSF.

To those who advocate subs - we are not doing too well with them at the moment. By their very nature they cannot do something carriers can - show presence, or talk softly whilst carrying a big stick! They cannot carry troops, evacuate refugees, conduct AD and ASW ops, cross deck with other nations etc.

To those who think we can deploy FJ squadrons - think about how many C130s we have and how many trips they need to deploy and support a fighter squadron - and all the other elements that would be calling for transport. What about ground elements? We are not just providing a capability to do Kosovo again.

The politicians need to be advised by the military what is the best cost effective way to provide the means to do the things the country needs to do. We need to think and communicate in a joined up manner and understand the technical issues that drive the design of equipment in order to compel them to make sensible decisions. If they don't make the right decisions let it be because they are wrong, not because they act on poor advice.

Again, all above is mere opinion and I only know what I have thought for myself. I am no expert by any means - just interested in the technical issues and in the defence of the interests of this sceptred isle.

[Chinese Vic]

Sorry Jacko, Saif Sarrea II......
(still not sured if that's how you spell it)
Biggest deployment of UK forces since Gulf/WWII depending on who you listen to - must be costing a fortune......

[This message has been edited by Chinese Vic (edited 04 June 2001).]

[BEagle]

If they have any crews NOT PVR'ing after the penny-pinching concerning their accommodation during this ex., I'd be very surprised. Yes - our grunt chums may well live in field conditions in the field when they have to, but to accommodate peacetime aircrew in multi-man tents camped out on a very busy international airport in the heat of the Gulf summer because they don't want to spend money on the plentiful, high quality accommodation readily available is man mis-management of the most scandalous nature. From what some have said, there's every chance of all the air assets stopping flying very early on as everyone is only too well aware of CDT/CRP regulations and WILL be applying them very strictly.

[Hertz Van Rental]

Qwin,
I'm sorry, did you say that subs cannot conduct ASW Ops? You may want to think that one through me old'.

[Max R8]

Did anyone realy believe that B liar and co would build the two shiney new carriers the promised in SDR to placate the navy!

We're all doomed. Euro not-so-rapid non-reaction force here we come.

Is it time to take up the battle cry of the French throughout history...we are betrayed! Run away!

[Qwin T Senshall]

Hertz

Conduct as in control and coordinate.

Qwin

[Suit]

TL THOU,

Who was it who was voted back into power in 1969 and still did nothing to keep the carrier force going, yes you've got it, the Tories! CVA was cancelled in 1966, the Tory administration reduced the conventional carrier fleet by 50% when they scrapped Eagle in 1972.

More to the point I think that the RAF deserve more credit for canning CVA than the Labour Govt of the time. The Air Marshals fought tooth and nail to axe the fixed wing FAA and it was they who claimed it wasn't needed.
The Conservative Party are the friend of the military only when in opposition and unable to actually do anything, as soon as they are in power it's the same old same old.

They dithered and procastinated about the Sea Harrier until a LABOUR Government eventually ordered it! Who canned Bulwark in 1981? Maggie!

'Sharkey' Ward (ex-Lt Cdr) disagrees with you about the value of the conventional carrier in the Falklands by the way. He reckoned that the SHAR/CVS combination was superior to the Phantom/Buccaneer/conventional carrier in the context of South Atlantic ops, and he should know, he flew 'em both.

As I said earlier, the RAF is dying by it's own (very senior) hand!


------------------
If the suit fits.........

[ORAC]

Suit,

Interesting. The official report on the Falklands stressed repeatedly that the lack of AEW was serious limitation. This lesson was emphasised repeatedly in "The Falklands Campaign - The Lessons" sent to parliament in Dec 82. The availability of an AEW such as an E-2C (or even a Gannet) might have proved invaluable and saved the Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyor and others. A single fixed wing AEW such as the E-2C has a radius of action of about 250nm and a horizon of over 200nm. A Sea King W has a vastly lower performance. Pending the development of a AEW variant of the V-22 a new VSTOL carrier would have the same limitations and vulnerabilities.

I also query the OS capabilities of the SHAR vs the Bucc in range, payload or operational capability.

Or perhaps he is quoted out of context and was only referring to AD/OAS roles?

[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 05 June 2001).]

[Suit]

ORAC,
Forget the capabilities of the F-4/Buc/Gannet versus SHAR, the main limitation would have been weather and Sea State. Look at where some of the SHAR's were recovering and refeulling, Assault ships etc. A Buc would have had to drop it in the drink assuming that it could have got off the deck in the first place.

No one would pretend that a SHAR has the range payload of a Buc or an F-4 but even the USN admitted that it would have had grave difficulty in operating in such wx.

I concede the point entirely on AEW, but a conventional carrier is not needed to get AEW into the air. An E-2 or Gannet would have been very handy IF it had been able to get off.



------------------
If the suit fits.........

[ORAC]

Suit,

Are you claiming the weather was such a factor in the Falklands war? If only it had been so bad the carriers would not have had to retreat so far east during the days and we would not have lost so many ships to enemy bombs. The enemy restricted his only radar equipped aircraft to the mainland to defend against possible Vulcan strikes; his offensive aircraft had only day visual capability except for the Super Etendards with exocet - and few of those. If we could not fly fly off a carrier - they could not attack. The ability to slow, follow flares in the water and land in just about zero vis strikes me as handy - but basically a party trick valauble in very rare situations and certainly not in any way off-setting the capabilities that would have been provided by F4/Bucc.

I might add that also seemed to be the mood on the carriers. If I might quote from the Falklands Air War. "The weather on June 2 and 3 consisted of low cloud and poor visibility and prevented fixed-wing flying from the carriers..........bad weather continued on 4 Jun...but it was not considered prudent to dispatch any Sea Harriers due to dense fog". Conducting SHAR Ops in such weather was also extremely hazardous, on 29 May the pilot had to eject from a SHAR (ZA174) when it fell over the side whilst taxying out for take-off in a high sea state and strong winds. The two SHARS lost on the 6th of May are thought to have either flown into the sea or collidied whilst trying to operate in low cloud/fog.

(If we had still had a CVA with a sqn of FG1s with a D44+8/AWG 11 capability would they even have considered an invasion?)

The only AEW presently available for the CVS is the SK-W. I do not wish to discuss performance, but to seek to compare it it any way with that of an E-2C is a joke and I regard it as a token gesture. I do not hold any great faith either in the idea of an AEW Merlin - with or without stub wings!!

Not, you understand, that I am in favour od a CVA. I am not, but for entirely different reasons set out on previous threads.



[This message has been edited by ORAC (edited 05 June 2001).]

[TL Thou]

Suit/ORAC - looks as though my throwaway comment started a facinating debate!

You guys know a million times more than me about the technical pros and cons of fixed wing operations in the South Atlantic, but fascinated to learn of Sharkey Ward's view. I am minded however to agree with ORAC's comments about the benefits of better AEW...and who knows, with Buccaneer and Phantom perhaps Maggie may have thought of bombing the Argies' mainland bases? Just playing devil's advocate ;)!

And, erm, to return to the cuts thread, 'only friends when in Opposition'? 'ang on what happened to the defence budget in the 80s? But then again don't mention the 90s!

[Qwin T Senshall]

Too right TL

I remember in the 70s we had officers on supplementary benefit. When the Tories came in we junior aircrew got a 27% pay rise the first year and about 29% the next. We went from pauper 3rd class to skint but content in 13 months.

To return to the point - this is about cuts and what we should do to prevent them. That is, present a case.

Also, vote. There is no doubt in my mind that a vote for Bliar will severely damage defence. Not because he does not believe in it but because he believes in nothing and can competently manage even less.

[Low and Slow]

Too much stuff here to deal with and remain concise, but here goes.

To all:-

1. Subs can and do co-ordinate and control ASW ops, when MRA or shore based ASHW are available. Done from periscope depth, (Yes I know about the thrermocline!) it works well against distant or range opening contacts. It's not as good as having subs and a CVH, but it does work.

2. A "Square deck" 35,000-ton vessel seems realistic. I agree that 70,000 ton is pointless and pretty silly, and we probably can't dry dock it.

3. CVF is the corner stone of SDR. Carriers are relatively CHEAP to build compared to other warships of a comparable tonnage. They are highly cost effective and flexible compared to other vessels. Steel costs little and air is free. A 35,000-ton vessel does not cost twice that of a 15,000-ton example.

4. There is a huge operational capability that the CVF provides that Land based aircraft just cannot achieve. A commando Brigade needs CAS available in 20 mins. Not 7 hours from aircraft that need 4 tankers to get 8 FJs on station. GR-9 good. SHAR, very limited and forget AH being able to deliver all the goods in the CAS role. 25mm chain gun and 2.75 HVR are OK, and a good start, but the fact that the RAF lacks a 500lb Iron bomb is major deficiency.

5. Stop plotting the politics into the argument. French and US capability is not an issue in this argument.

6. Nimrod 2000/STORM SHADOW and FTA will be key RAF contributions to the SDR. This is where the Land Based Aircraft argument comes from. My money is on Nimrod and Stormy for FOAS. GR-4 maybe an element in this as could Buffoon, but we would need international support for operating bases and this dimension is not a reliable one.

7. FCBA will be a JSF derivative. Range payload, and other technologies make anything else a huge backward step. E-2(X) will be the (digitised) AEW platform.

All this is just an opinion, but I'm happy to go into greater detail if anyone feels it might help. I'm also happy to admit I'm wrong, if someone can present supportable argument.

BTW. There was a full MOD Ops Analysis done on CVH versus CV(F) for the Falklands. As I remember the CV(F) won hands down. Maybe someone who has seen this document can confirm that.

[Jackonicko]

Carriers are expensive, vulnerable and inefficient. Land based air power can deploy quicker, cheaper, and usually with less support. OK, you may need basing (seldom difficult) and tankers, but you don't need air defence frigates, a protective SSN, oilers, RFAs, and all the other gubbins.

The one time it was claimed that land-based couldn't have done it was Sierra Leone, where a Sqn of Jags were held on the Azores instead of sending 'em on to Dakar, in order to let the carrier get there and appear to be the only solution. And the Falklands, where we gave Argentina a green light to invade by withdrawing Endurance.

There are times when only a carrier will do - just as there are times when Britain might need other unaffordable military capabilities. We can't have everything and paying for carriers might so distort the contents of the air power golf bag that we won't be able to do the routine ops.

[grodge]

Jackonicko,

Can't really let that one go. Held the Jags back to let the carrier look good off Sierra Leone? I can guess where that item of pure toss came from. There were reasons many to send the carrier, and they were weighed up via the normal MOD/Govt crisis management routine. Allegations that this was some sort of Navy plot to look good fail to acknowledge that we are, slowly but successfully, moving towards a JOINT approach to fighting our corner. J, get with the game.

The thread: I agree that 70,000 tonne carriers are not on, but I feel that around 45,000 would give us a very decent STOVL ship. The French have just proved that a 38,000 tonne CV is not a good bargain. The prospect of 50 odd JSFs on a very capable platform, able to project REAL offensive air power without host nation support must be attractive.

[Low and Slow]

OK Jacko, all good points but:-

Carriers are expensive? - Who says so and where does this idea come from? How is the conventional CV(F) ,as proposed, at 35,000 tons so expensive compared to, let us say TYPE 45. Please tell me where and what the expensive items are? Big does NOT means expensive when it comes to building ships.

Vulnerable? Since when and what post 1945 operational experience supports this. How is a CV more vulnerable than other Warships?

Inefficient? How. It’s the most versatile of all platforms and CV(F) will be more flexible than all it's predecessors.

Who will supply CAS for a Commando Brigade? No CV(F)? Disband the Marines?

[BEagle]

Low and Slow - Nimrod Y3K for FOAS?? Can you really see it surviving after the General Erection? Nope - I reckon it'll go, the Bungling Baron WasteofSpace will rightly take the government of whatever political persuasion to task about " 't jobs of 't lads in 't works", the A330K FSTA consortium will find it very hard to beat the Public Sector Comaparator - and those nice BA 767-300ERs will be converted by the ecky-thump aerospace folk as part of the BWoS/Boeing/SSM deal which will emphasise initial affordability plus down-the-road upgradeability....

[Low and Slow]

Beagle:

All good points and I really have to agree, much as I don't wnat to. I do think that a Long range Storm "thrower" is the key to FOAS though.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Whenever we get into this dark/light blue punch-up about the cost/effectiveness of carriers, we start trying to dredge up scenarios in which only carrier-based aircraft could do the business. In the mid-'60s we got into arguments about "vital interests" in the Indian Ocean (for Chr**t's sake!) and allegations that the "crabs" moved Australia 500 miles West to make the case for F111 stick. Let's face it, the only time since WWII when a strike carrier would have come in handy was Corporate. But Lord Shackleton (son of the explorer and Labour peer) had written a report in the '70s on the future of the Falklands in which he concluded that, if the islands were to have a future at all, an airport should be provided with a runway suitable for long-haul aircraft. If his report had been implemented the islands could have been reinforced quickly; there would have been a detachment of F4s and Buccs and some AD radars. This would have cost a fraction of a carrier task force and the Argentines would not have contemplated an invasion.

We need a political decision. Do we envisage needing to intervene somewhere beyond the radius of land-based aircraft? If so, some carriers are unavoidable together with their concomitant evisceration of any other capabilities that are far more likely to be useful. Sierra Leone? Do we need to be there? Or is it just a bit of posturing by our oh-so-ethical politicians?

------------------
presto digitate

[Archimedes]

Yep, agree there BEagle. How about these ideas to add to Nimrod being lost?

1. BVRAAM to ‘run into difficulties’, replace with further buy of AMRAAM (or, for Euro credentials, pointless buy of MICA).
2. Carrier programme to continue (too many dockyard jobs to cancel), but reduced year on year funding. Cancellation of JSF by Bush to lead to shrugging of shoulders and ‘as there’s nothing else to do the job, we’ll cancel and build more submarines/Type 45s with TLAM’. No cancellation of JSF – note that FCBA is now FJCA (future joint combat aircraft) – all mention of carriers has gone – see previous re: purchase of more TLAM. Instant long-term saving since no FAA units required to replace SHAR; in which case, Secretary of State, do we need JSF to replace Harrier, or should we buy more Eurofighters, since this will be more cost-effective?
3. Accelerated withdrawal of F3 and/or Jag on grounds ‘they are shortly to be replaced by the Eurofighter’. F3 particularly vulnerable since Joe Public largely believes that the type isn’t any use at all (if he/she knows anything about it at all) thanks to press ‘coverage’. Jag vulnerable, since if it goes, Colt can be shut now rather than later. Move 43 and 111 to Coningsby or split them between Leeming and Coningsby - on the grounds of ‘general rationalisation of defence estate in Scotland' - and then close Leuchars.
4. FOAS to be chopped – ‘programme will be replaced by a follow-on buy of Eurofighter/JSF’. Which never, in fact, happens.
5. Wholesale cutting of training units – almost all flying training to be put in hands of civilian contractors. Only omission from this to be training on Hawk and op conversion. Objections to lack of military-type training brushed aside with ‘most of the instructors are ex-RAF’. Even when proved that this isn't quite true or the point, everyone will be more interested in Big Brother 3, or David Beckham's latest hair style or won't understand, or both.
6. All Hawk based flying trg to be conducted abroad – retirement of most of Hawk fleet (‘the aircraft is suffering from fatigue and it is more economically viable to...’ ), plus base closure. Only Hawks left in UK with 100 and the Reds.
7. Introduction of special ‘Military Ethos and Concomitant Warm Cuddly Feeling Counsellors’ (salary circa. £90,000 p.a) to provide seminars, plenaries and symposia on the issue to overcome objections that new recruits will forget that they're joining a military service and not a civilian concern.

OK, so (7) isn’t a cut, but…

Although these were done straight off the top of my head, thus lacking any coherent thought, it's so easy to do. And if there's a need to plough £Lots into the NHS and the Police (where it will actually be wasted on 'initiatives')...

[This message has been edited by Archimedes (edited 07 June 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Archimedes (edited 07 June 2001).]