Tories Pinpoint 3 Projects for Cuts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Tories Pinpoint 3 Projects for Cuts
Tories pinpoint three defence projects for cuts in 'snap Budget'
Three of Britain’s biggest defence projects, with a combined value of nearly £30 billion, could face the axe if the Conservatives win next year’s general election.
George Osborne today said that a Conservative government would hold a Budget within weeks of an election victory and hinted that early casualties could be defence projects — £20 billion for the Eurofighter/Typhoon, £4 billion for 60,000-tonne aircraft carriers and £2.7 billion for A400M transport aircraft.
The Shadow Chancellor admitted that he did not know what the “break clauses” in the contracts would involve, if they were scrapped. However, the RAF already has 55 Eurofighter/Typhoons costing £3.8 billion and the Ministry of Defence has spent about £1 billion on early work on the two aircraft carriers. More than £500 million has been spent on the programme to buy 24 A400Ms, a replacement for ageing C130K Hercules planes.
As Mr Osborne was putting defence in the forefront of anticipated cuts, Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, exposed a potential Cabinet clash over the fate of the Trident replacement programme which could cost £20 billion. Speaking at King’s College, London, Mr Ainsworth insisted: “There is no intention on this Government’s part of moving away from our position on Trident.”
The Government declared in a White Paper published in December 2006 that it intended to replace the existing Trident ballistic-missile deterrent by 2024. Mr Ainsworth said that the only decision still to be taken was whether the Government would order three or four submarines to carry the deterrent.
However, Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, revealed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme yesterday that no final decision had been made about the Trident replacement and emphasised that nothing had been ruled out. Mr Ainsworth did not seem to be aware of Lord Mandelson’s comments and maintained that a replacement for Trident would not be included in next year’s post-election strategic defence review.
Conservative sources said that a Tory government would look at the deterrent question because of the cost of replacing Trident.
Mr Ainsworth, however, admitted that tough decisions were going to have to be made next year and revealed that there appeared to be no appetite in the country for bigger defence spending.“Quite the reverse,” he said.
Mr Osborne revealed the Tory plans for a snap Budget after insisting that cutting public spending would not choke off a recovery.
Mr Osborne told a conference organised by the Spectator magazine that Gordon Brown’s admission that cuts were inevitable amounted to a “white flag” and claimed the Tories had “comprehensively won the spending argument”. But, anticipating the next front in the election battle, he said it was important that Britain’s economic policy did not repeat the mistakes of the past. Unless spending and debt were brought down rapidly any recovery would be short-lived and illusory, he said, adding that a Conservative administration was determined not to “pump up the bubble again”.
He cited the three defence projects when asked to identify specific savings for a Budget, although he added: “There are some things we do not know. I do not know the details of some of the major defence projects which have been the subject of speculation in the newspapers. I simply do not know what the break clauses are in the Eurofighter programme or the A400M or the aircraft carriers. We do have those limitations.”
Mr Osborne will know that naming the programmes will encourage speculation he plans to cut them. The Times revealed earlier this year that the Shadow Chancellor was looking at ditching the Airbus A400M aircraft, which has been dogged by technical problems and is several years behind schedule.
In his speech Mr Osborne dismissed the Government’s VAT cut — which was opposed by the Tories — as having had little effect in bringing Britain to the brink of recovery, claiming that low interest rates had been the key to limiting the recession. Ensuring that interest rates are kept low would be an over-riding policy objective of an incoming Tory administration, he said.
Three of Britain’s biggest defence projects, with a combined value of nearly £30 billion, could face the axe if the Conservatives win next year’s general election.
George Osborne today said that a Conservative government would hold a Budget within weeks of an election victory and hinted that early casualties could be defence projects — £20 billion for the Eurofighter/Typhoon, £4 billion for 60,000-tonne aircraft carriers and £2.7 billion for A400M transport aircraft.
The Shadow Chancellor admitted that he did not know what the “break clauses” in the contracts would involve, if they were scrapped. However, the RAF already has 55 Eurofighter/Typhoons costing £3.8 billion and the Ministry of Defence has spent about £1 billion on early work on the two aircraft carriers. More than £500 million has been spent on the programme to buy 24 A400Ms, a replacement for ageing C130K Hercules planes.
As Mr Osborne was putting defence in the forefront of anticipated cuts, Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, exposed a potential Cabinet clash over the fate of the Trident replacement programme which could cost £20 billion. Speaking at King’s College, London, Mr Ainsworth insisted: “There is no intention on this Government’s part of moving away from our position on Trident.”
The Government declared in a White Paper published in December 2006 that it intended to replace the existing Trident ballistic-missile deterrent by 2024. Mr Ainsworth said that the only decision still to be taken was whether the Government would order three or four submarines to carry the deterrent.
However, Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, revealed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme yesterday that no final decision had been made about the Trident replacement and emphasised that nothing had been ruled out. Mr Ainsworth did not seem to be aware of Lord Mandelson’s comments and maintained that a replacement for Trident would not be included in next year’s post-election strategic defence review.
Conservative sources said that a Tory government would look at the deterrent question because of the cost of replacing Trident.
Mr Ainsworth, however, admitted that tough decisions were going to have to be made next year and revealed that there appeared to be no appetite in the country for bigger defence spending.“Quite the reverse,” he said.
Mr Osborne revealed the Tory plans for a snap Budget after insisting that cutting public spending would not choke off a recovery.
Mr Osborne told a conference organised by the Spectator magazine that Gordon Brown’s admission that cuts were inevitable amounted to a “white flag” and claimed the Tories had “comprehensively won the spending argument”. But, anticipating the next front in the election battle, he said it was important that Britain’s economic policy did not repeat the mistakes of the past. Unless spending and debt were brought down rapidly any recovery would be short-lived and illusory, he said, adding that a Conservative administration was determined not to “pump up the bubble again”.
He cited the three defence projects when asked to identify specific savings for a Budget, although he added: “There are some things we do not know. I do not know the details of some of the major defence projects which have been the subject of speculation in the newspapers. I simply do not know what the break clauses are in the Eurofighter programme or the A400M or the aircraft carriers. We do have those limitations.”
Mr Osborne will know that naming the programmes will encourage speculation he plans to cut them. The Times revealed earlier this year that the Shadow Chancellor was looking at ditching the Airbus A400M aircraft, which has been dogged by technical problems and is several years behind schedule.
In his speech Mr Osborne dismissed the Government’s VAT cut — which was opposed by the Tories — as having had little effect in bringing Britain to the brink of recovery, claiming that low interest rates had been the key to limiting the recession. Ensuring that interest rates are kept low would be an over-riding policy objective of an incoming Tory administration, he said.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The morons in charge have made the Beast with 2 Backs with the economy for over a decade, building in the hard work and foundations of their predecessors. The next election win is the most poisoned chalice in a long time.
Whoever wins it will be sodomised (as has the whole country) for many generations.
Something has gotta give - but with it must be the acceptance of risk which the removal of the capability leaves. The Tories might be happy without carriers and accept that Brazil will out gun us.
Oddly enough maybe we should give someone else a go - someone who has not been responsible for the last 30 years of insult to the services.
Whoever wins it will be sodomised (as has the whole country) for many generations.
Something has gotta give - but with it must be the acceptance of risk which the removal of the capability leaves. The Tories might be happy without carriers and accept that Brazil will out gun us.
Oddly enough maybe we should give someone else a go - someone who has not been responsible for the last 30 years of insult to the services.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,818 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
I will give you some savings,
scrap the whole dept that deals with motor vehicle excise and throw it on fuel, at a swipe you have probably recouped the costs and made a fairer system, more miles you do more you pay. If you want a disc in the Windscreen, make it an Insurance one.
Scrap the Welsh and Scottish and Irish assemblies as how the hell can four departments be costing less than one centralised Government.
Failing that remove all standing MP's that are not representing English posts and change Westiminster the the English Parliament, I find it odd that you can stand as an MP in England if you are Scottish or Welsh, but not the other way round........
Then get rid of all of these damn managers the NHS has in abundance for wards etc, promote Senior nurses to the post of Ward Matrons and give them the power back.......
All immigrants arriving in the UK and claiming Asylum should be deported back to the country they came from immediately........... you are not fleeing persecution if you have arrived from France! The Swiss do it, if you have not arrived from a country direct that is persecuting you, you are deported back to the country.......
Unemployment benefit will be paid for the first 2 years and after that will cease..... America did it and some 65 percent went back to work.
Make it a requirement as in the USA that elected parties can only stay 2 terms in office....... that way you do net get these barking ideas they come out with to spend money.
Scrap the ID card scheme, was a none starter in these eyes, the London Underground Bombers would have been legitimate carriers of them and anyone visiting the UK does not require them....... makes it all a farce really, especially when the first one is forged.
scrap the whole dept that deals with motor vehicle excise and throw it on fuel, at a swipe you have probably recouped the costs and made a fairer system, more miles you do more you pay. If you want a disc in the Windscreen, make it an Insurance one.
Scrap the Welsh and Scottish and Irish assemblies as how the hell can four departments be costing less than one centralised Government.
Failing that remove all standing MP's that are not representing English posts and change Westiminster the the English Parliament, I find it odd that you can stand as an MP in England if you are Scottish or Welsh, but not the other way round........
Then get rid of all of these damn managers the NHS has in abundance for wards etc, promote Senior nurses to the post of Ward Matrons and give them the power back.......
All immigrants arriving in the UK and claiming Asylum should be deported back to the country they came from immediately........... you are not fleeing persecution if you have arrived from France! The Swiss do it, if you have not arrived from a country direct that is persecuting you, you are deported back to the country.......
Unemployment benefit will be paid for the first 2 years and after that will cease..... America did it and some 65 percent went back to work.
Make it a requirement as in the USA that elected parties can only stay 2 terms in office....... that way you do net get these barking ideas they come out with to spend money.
Scrap the ID card scheme, was a none starter in these eyes, the London Underground Bombers would have been legitimate carriers of them and anyone visiting the UK does not require them....... makes it all a farce really, especially when the first one is forged.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pfffft
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got this far....
I would be very surprised if those behind the contracts at the beginning didn't guard them well against political sways.
Originally Posted by ORAC
The Shadow Chancellor admitted that he did not know what the “break clauses” in the contracts would involve, if they were scrapped.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
Some Home Truths:
We can't aford what we've got.
We've Lost Billions (Possibly Trillions but they'll never admit it) on backing Sh1te Banking practices.
We Don't actually 'Make' Anything anymore (Apart from Lattes)
We have a generally poor work ethic.
We have a poor State Education System, which has been shown recently, to be no more effective than the 1970s, only average students get better grades, and it costs 7 times as much.
We have a system that Pays peolple to be useless.
We invite other useless people to our country, and give them the aid we should be giving our own.
We have developed a culture, where grown adults cannot formally engage with any youngster, for fear of reprisal.
We have developed a culture, where every child in the land knows that no adult has any 'effective' control over them.
We have an un-elected PM.
We lose at most sport (Symptom, not cause).
On the rare occasions we win, we behave so badly, no one will invite us back.
We flim everyones closes motion, with the biggest and most comprehesive system of 'Security' (Spy) cameras of any country, but have a poorer conviction rate for basic street crime.
We can't have the traditional 'English' Summer Fete on the village green, because of Health and Safety.
Kids Can't play 'Conkers'
Men can't see their estrained kids, and become bankrupt, because their wife has an affair.
Young Mothers are bullied out of £170 to release their car from a clamp, which would normally have resulted in a £20 fine (later).
Firemen, who are freakin public servants, and get the same pension (today), Strike, so unqualified personel from the services, throw Health and saftey to the wind, and do their best.
So, all is well then. I hope Mr Cameron has a good manisfesto.
When it come to the Military, no doubt about it, we're not a bread-winner or a vote-winner........... we're FLIPPED
Advo
PS- Does Anybody think that the Researchers in 'Politics House' read this site? And if they do, are they so lame and stupid as to think all this 'advice' from experienced millitary types is useless? I presume they do.
Some Home Truths:
We can't aford what we've got.
We've Lost Billions (Possibly Trillions but they'll never admit it) on backing Sh1te Banking practices.
We Don't actually 'Make' Anything anymore (Apart from Lattes)
We have a generally poor work ethic.
We have a poor State Education System, which has been shown recently, to be no more effective than the 1970s, only average students get better grades, and it costs 7 times as much.
We have a system that Pays peolple to be useless.
We invite other useless people to our country, and give them the aid we should be giving our own.
We have developed a culture, where grown adults cannot formally engage with any youngster, for fear of reprisal.
We have developed a culture, where every child in the land knows that no adult has any 'effective' control over them.
We have an un-elected PM.
We lose at most sport (Symptom, not cause).
On the rare occasions we win, we behave so badly, no one will invite us back.
We flim everyones closes motion, with the biggest and most comprehesive system of 'Security' (Spy) cameras of any country, but have a poorer conviction rate for basic street crime.
We can't have the traditional 'English' Summer Fete on the village green, because of Health and Safety.
Kids Can't play 'Conkers'
Men can't see their estrained kids, and become bankrupt, because their wife has an affair.
Young Mothers are bullied out of £170 to release their car from a clamp, which would normally have resulted in a £20 fine (later).
Firemen, who are freakin public servants, and get the same pension (today), Strike, so unqualified personel from the services, throw Health and saftey to the wind, and do their best.
So, all is well then. I hope Mr Cameron has a good manisfesto.
When it come to the Military, no doubt about it, we're not a bread-winner or a vote-winner........... we're FLIPPED
Advo
PS- Does Anybody think that the Researchers in 'Politics House' read this site? And if they do, are they so lame and stupid as to think all this 'advice' from experienced millitary types is useless? I presume they do.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would they replace all 3 with?? Its not like we can do without the A400 or something similar? Its not like we don't need fast air for stuff - be it Afghanistan or UK air defence?
Carriers - OK, I'm not so convinced, but I bet if they did cut the carriers, the Navy wouldn't see any spending on any other ships, of which are arguably far more useful.
I'm also not seeing any mention of what support they would provide the military with? Only cuts?
Carriers - OK, I'm not so convinced, but I bet if they did cut the carriers, the Navy wouldn't see any spending on any other ships, of which are arguably far more useful.
I'm also not seeing any mention of what support they would provide the military with? Only cuts?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The home truths posted by advocatusDIABOLI just about sum up this sad remnant of our once glorious Great Britain.
But how did we get here? Was it forced on us or did we vote for it?
Before this thread goes to Jet Blast, let me suggest that we arrived here through the negligence of the electorate - and that's about all of us who should be reading this at this time of night.
Maybe it is about time that we put down the Sun, turned off Coro, left the tinnies unopened and paid more attention to who we vote for.
I sincerely hope that the next election produces a high turnout of well-informed voters.
I can but dream!
But how did we get here? Was it forced on us or did we vote for it?
Before this thread goes to Jet Blast, let me suggest that we arrived here through the negligence of the electorate - and that's about all of us who should be reading this at this time of night.
Maybe it is about time that we put down the Sun, turned off Coro, left the tinnies unopened and paid more attention to who we vote for.
I sincerely hope that the next election produces a high turnout of well-informed voters.
I can but dream!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chasing Dreams
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm stunned at the defense cuts, normally the get out clauses are more expensive than just taking the aircraft on, sell them on afterwards if needed. Taking money from the budgets just passes on the retrofit costs to the next government and are inherently more expensive to add something after the fact than to install/buy it new...Nimrod?
The only modification to Nutlooses suggestions are the unemployment benefits pay for the length of time that you were employed upto two years.
The only modification to Nutlooses suggestions are the unemployment benefits pay for the length of time that you were employed upto two years.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Jimmy Mc - I'm also agag at the proposed cuts, but as the man says, until they are in the hot seat and have full access to the ins and outs of the cancellation clauses its all really a bit pie in the sky. That said, if they can cancel these projects can you really blame them when you consider the mess the current holders of the purse have left the country, even after having an oft quoted "longest period of sustained economkc growth"? Once again Labour have ruined the country and the Tories will have to make the hard choices (though I'm a little annoyed they seem to have ruled out cuts to overseas aid), then no doubt down the line Tories will be voted out for a 'caring' Labour party and the whole sorry saga will start again.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find myself totally agreeing with Advo and Soddim.
But, in fairness and yes, I fully understand scope creep, etc, BAe and EADS have got away with far too much for far too long. Its about bloody time the tail stopped wagging the dog.
If this means cancelling A400M and buying another off the shelf solution instead, so be it. If it means cancelling the carriers, so be it.
We need to understand first and above all, what the hell we want our service personnel to do, what their role is, whether the UK still sees itself as the worlds PCSO, or not. THEN decide what you're going to need to fulfil that remit and budget accordingly.
If that means the likes of Westlands finally biting the dust, BAe closing Woodford, etc, then sorry, but thats the price you pay. Deliver the shagging thing on time on budget or we go to someone who will. We should all be heartily sick of these companies taking the piss out of us.
Dunno if Osborne will actually be able to do anything about it... knowing Osborne, probably not. But thats not to say that he's not thinking along the right lines.
But, in fairness and yes, I fully understand scope creep, etc, BAe and EADS have got away with far too much for far too long. Its about bloody time the tail stopped wagging the dog.
If this means cancelling A400M and buying another off the shelf solution instead, so be it. If it means cancelling the carriers, so be it.
We need to understand first and above all, what the hell we want our service personnel to do, what their role is, whether the UK still sees itself as the worlds PCSO, or not. THEN decide what you're going to need to fulfil that remit and budget accordingly.
If that means the likes of Westlands finally biting the dust, BAe closing Woodford, etc, then sorry, but thats the price you pay. Deliver the shagging thing on time on budget or we go to someone who will. We should all be heartily sick of these companies taking the piss out of us.
Dunno if Osborne will actually be able to do anything about it... knowing Osborne, probably not. But thats not to say that he's not thinking along the right lines.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deliver the shagging thing on time
Tough Choices Ahead for Defence ? Ainsworth (edited excerpt)
Haven't seen any press releases from Osama Bin Sh&t 4 Brains and his merry men about cutting their budgets.....
Let's put the pollies on a one way trip to the two way rifle range and see what they say...
Haven't seen any press releases from Osama Bin Sh&t 4 Brains and his merry men about cutting their budgets.....
Let's put the pollies on a one way trip to the two way rifle range and see what they say...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have invited the Conservatives and the Liberals Democrats to take part. I hope they will participate in the spirit in which the offer was made. In my view, the defence of the nation should always come before party politics.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It would help if the RAF/RN/MoD "Requirements Manager" didn't change his or her mind every few months, and even more when the next in post didn't have a wholesale change of concept. I accept that we in industry don't do ourselves any favours, but the change of mind doesn't help us....."
Yes, I know that happens. I know the IPT's get too cosy with some of the suppliers. I know that sometimes they're wet behind the ears.
What I'm also saying is that exploiting it, whilst not illegal does leave a very sour taste. The only one who gets royally screwed is the poor sap at the end of the food chain who has to use the kit, quite possibly in anger to save his life. The supplier or the IPT dont give a toss, they've been paid, their boxes have been ticked... "Not my fault."
Show me an ethical defence supplier and I will show you an honest politician.
Yes, I know that happens. I know the IPT's get too cosy with some of the suppliers. I know that sometimes they're wet behind the ears.
What I'm also saying is that exploiting it, whilst not illegal does leave a very sour taste. The only one who gets royally screwed is the poor sap at the end of the food chain who has to use the kit, quite possibly in anger to save his life. The supplier or the IPT dont give a toss, they've been paid, their boxes have been ticked... "Not my fault."
Show me an ethical defence supplier and I will show you an honest politician.
Be interesting to see if any figures available for how much extra cost has been added for the treasury slowing down projects to save money in particular years? Also cost savings have probably made some projects totally unviable . Would the Nimrod 4 ever have gone ahead as a programme with the numbers now being procured ? I think not as it could never be cost effective as a programme . Looking at transport , ref the critisism of A400M , not that i disagree , but looking at the 'off the shelf'' options, how many years after first flight was C130J cleared to carry out everything that the C130 it replaced was. Although a good machine surely in the longer term the more modern machine has to deliver much reduced costs , after all the C17 is doing that as compared to the a/c it replaced.
Unlike the politicians, I have a memory and I well remember how Maggie and her cronies dealt with the last recession and I am sh1t scared of what they're gonna do when they get in again.
I was cushioned last time, being in the RAF. This time I'm out in a different world and worried about my job, my livelyhood and my home.
From what I've seen of the shadow chancellor, he's an idiot.
I'm fed up of noo labor coming on the box and the radio telling us scare stories about the Tories and nothing about their plans.
I'm heartily sick of the Tories coming on saying that Labour are now bankrupt of ideas and wo betide us if they get in again.
I'd like some of them to tell me exactly what they are planning to do to fix the situation we are in at the moment and not try ans merely frighten me off the "other lot", because I knw that whoever gets in is going to screw me, you and everyone else who works in order to give billions away to the unwashed, whilst starving front line services (civil and military) of cash.
I'm not a fan of Broon per se, he has no charisma on the box, but I doubt very much if Dave will be any better in the driving seat.
Just my personal thoughts and in no way meant to put down anyone elses'.
Doc C
I was cushioned last time, being in the RAF. This time I'm out in a different world and worried about my job, my livelyhood and my home.
From what I've seen of the shadow chancellor, he's an idiot.
I'm fed up of noo labor coming on the box and the radio telling us scare stories about the Tories and nothing about their plans.
I'm heartily sick of the Tories coming on saying that Labour are now bankrupt of ideas and wo betide us if they get in again.
I'd like some of them to tell me exactly what they are planning to do to fix the situation we are in at the moment and not try ans merely frighten me off the "other lot", because I knw that whoever gets in is going to screw me, you and everyone else who works in order to give billions away to the unwashed, whilst starving front line services (civil and military) of cash.
I'm not a fan of Broon per se, he has no charisma on the box, but I doubt very much if Dave will be any better in the driving seat.
Just my personal thoughts and in no way meant to put down anyone elses'.
Doc C
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Wilts
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line remains, if we want to be a third world country unable to project our influence around the world then cut spending on Defence to 1% of GDP and scrap all of the expensive programme in place or about to be put in place. If however, we still want to be a world player, and remain on the UN Security Council and be able to protect our interests around the world then retain the current plans - oh, this will also keep millions of hardworking britons in work and help feed the economic revival.
A few what ifs:
What if China starts to exercise its economic and military superiority against the west in order to expand its interests - particularly to gain natural resources (including water)
What is the Soviets simultaneously do the same.
What if Israel takes action against Iranian nuclear power assets and the result is Iranian agression and Iranian sponsored terrorism worldwide
What if N Korea invades S Korea
What if we find enormous reserves of oil off the Falklands (quite likely) but then we are unable to defend our interests against another Argentinian Invasion.
What if we need to protect essential assets such as the gas pipeline from Norway, North Sea Oil assets, and all other similar off-shore 'stuff' when our naval and maritime air assets have been decimated.
I could go on - we all know the muliple scenarios that could/may occur. We are heading towards being a military neuter and I do not like that! If all other friends do this, we will be poorly placed to defend ourselves and our interests at home or around the world.
A few what ifs:
What if China starts to exercise its economic and military superiority against the west in order to expand its interests - particularly to gain natural resources (including water)
What is the Soviets simultaneously do the same.
What if Israel takes action against Iranian nuclear power assets and the result is Iranian agression and Iranian sponsored terrorism worldwide
What if N Korea invades S Korea
What if we find enormous reserves of oil off the Falklands (quite likely) but then we are unable to defend our interests against another Argentinian Invasion.
What if we need to protect essential assets such as the gas pipeline from Norway, North Sea Oil assets, and all other similar off-shore 'stuff' when our naval and maritime air assets have been decimated.
I could go on - we all know the muliple scenarios that could/may occur. We are heading towards being a military neuter and I do not like that! If all other friends do this, we will be poorly placed to defend ourselves and our interests at home or around the world.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We no longer have the influence to be a global power, or have the subsidiary requirement to project that lack of influence: we do, however, have to acknowledge that we have interests in a variety of relatively inaccessible places, the FI being the most notable.
The case for 2 or 3 flat tops, with adequate air wings and marine support, is therefore perhaps more pressing than that of Trident replacement.
Perhaps and analysis of the benefit of smaller SSBN boats with the CVNs and joint RAF / RN fixed wing and joint RAF / RN / AAC rotary wing assets deployed on board would be a compromise solution. Compromise has to be the answer as we don't have any family silver left.
The expense of developing a smaller SSBN may be the stumbling block but Barrow does have a history of submarine building and it retains jobs in UK PLC.
The case for 2 or 3 flat tops, with adequate air wings and marine support, is therefore perhaps more pressing than that of Trident replacement.
Perhaps and analysis of the benefit of smaller SSBN boats with the CVNs and joint RAF / RN fixed wing and joint RAF / RN / AAC rotary wing assets deployed on board would be a compromise solution. Compromise has to be the answer as we don't have any family silver left.
The expense of developing a smaller SSBN may be the stumbling block but Barrow does have a history of submarine building and it retains jobs in UK PLC.