Mind The Gap
Mind The Gap
I know there are an awful lot of back seat drivers on this forum but if you read the link posted below, you will be in a good position to make a much more useful contribution to any discussion concerning the retiring of the Nimrod Mk2 and the scrapping of the MRA4.
RUSI - Mind the Gap: Strategic Risk in the UK’s Anti-Submarine Warfare Capability
Thank You
1771
RUSI - Mind the Gap: Strategic Risk in the UK’s Anti-Submarine Warfare Capability
Thank You
1771
Nice article.
Doesn't mention money though.
You can have anything and provide as many layers of defence as you require, as long as you have a bottomless Exchequer. Perhaps the chaps at RUSI could do an article on how to stick to budgets and provide value for money instead ?
Doesn't mention money though.
You can have anything and provide as many layers of defence as you require, as long as you have a bottomless Exchequer. Perhaps the chaps at RUSI could do an article on how to stick to budgets and provide value for money instead ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sticking to budget etc - I couldn't agree more.
However, even if you are resigned to waste and overruns etc so that you automatically assume everything will cost more, you can still sit down and decide what to spend an inadequate (compared to the ideal case) amount of cash on.
Defence is a misnomer - because it actually covers defence and offense, and what came out of the SDSR - in my view - was a recipe for the armed forces that sought to preserve an offensive capability whilst 'gapping' some critical defence capabilities. There is NO point at all in having an SSBN force that you cannot guarantee to preserve in wartime, at least until the launch has occurred. A deterrent that an enemy figures they have a good chance of neutralising is not a deterrent.
I still fail to understand why we are apparently seeking to maintaint he ability to intervene in the middle east when we are now unable to defend our own coastline.
Actually I don't understand why Cameron hasn't told BWoS to simply **** off, and don't expect the cheque in the post anytime soon - if the government told them they were taking the P and weren't playing any more what would they do - sue us? (Cameron calls in attorney general, explains the new law that needs passing, end of argument). A bit naive, but then so is buying 2 big white elephants because the contract says so - grow some balls, tear the contract up and see who blinks first ya muppet!
I'm not entirely sure another Nimrod thread is what Pprune actually needs right now, 1771 delete (famous keying sequence of this parish), but I expect it'll be an amusing little extra for the usual suspects to hash out the same old arguments in
***
Dave
*** edited to add - me first!
However, even if you are resigned to waste and overruns etc so that you automatically assume everything will cost more, you can still sit down and decide what to spend an inadequate (compared to the ideal case) amount of cash on.
Defence is a misnomer - because it actually covers defence and offense, and what came out of the SDSR - in my view - was a recipe for the armed forces that sought to preserve an offensive capability whilst 'gapping' some critical defence capabilities. There is NO point at all in having an SSBN force that you cannot guarantee to preserve in wartime, at least until the launch has occurred. A deterrent that an enemy figures they have a good chance of neutralising is not a deterrent.
I still fail to understand why we are apparently seeking to maintaint he ability to intervene in the middle east when we are now unable to defend our own coastline.
Actually I don't understand why Cameron hasn't told BWoS to simply **** off, and don't expect the cheque in the post anytime soon - if the government told them they were taking the P and weren't playing any more what would they do - sue us? (Cameron calls in attorney general, explains the new law that needs passing, end of argument). A bit naive, but then so is buying 2 big white elephants because the contract says so - grow some balls, tear the contract up and see who blinks first ya muppet!
I'm not entirely sure another Nimrod thread is what Pprune actually needs right now, 1771 delete (famous keying sequence of this parish), but I expect it'll be an amusing little extra for the usual suspects to hash out the same old arguments in
***Dave
*** edited to add - me first!
Isn't the DS (PPRuNe) solution to the submarine threat Harrier GR9 (or better still SHAR / Harrier 2) but only if launched from a Carrier. Seems to be the 'solution' on pretty much every other thread (except perhaps the RAF Fitness Test threads....)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England formerly Great Britain
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
intervene in the middle east when we are now unable to defend our own coastline.
Could not agree with you more Dave, it wasn`t meant to be another Nimrod thread but rather to inform some of the idiots that post on here who have little on no knowledge of the subject matter. I thought the article explained rather well, that the MOD, politicians and senior officers really have F**KED up on this one.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave JB
"if the government told them they were taking the P and weren't playing any more what would they do - sue us"
You may not have not seen the BAe letter to the PM that was leaked. If you have, you know there was nothing to stop DC cancelling POW, the second carrier, provided HMG placed replacement surface ship orders to keep the Yards in work as per the terms of the Contract signed which reflected the MOD's own Strategic plan for consolidating the surface ship sector.
MOD planned to first build the carriers then move on to the next class of Frigates by maintaining a minimum but stable workforce to do the work over a fifteen year period. Note also that SDSR allowed for a seventh Astute boat to keep Barrow in work until the Trident replacement work starts as the PM pushed this back until after the next Election.
So yes in short had he just chopped POW they would have sued!
That's the plan for ships and boats. Our high level involvement in the F-35 programme reflects a similair plan for aircraft manufacture. If the F-35 is the only game in town for Western Nations, BAe has a big chunk of it even if we have changed from Dave B to C and watered down our initial order at least until our economy recovers.
"if the government told them they were taking the P and weren't playing any more what would they do - sue us"
You may not have not seen the BAe letter to the PM that was leaked. If you have, you know there was nothing to stop DC cancelling POW, the second carrier, provided HMG placed replacement surface ship orders to keep the Yards in work as per the terms of the Contract signed which reflected the MOD's own Strategic plan for consolidating the surface ship sector.
MOD planned to first build the carriers then move on to the next class of Frigates by maintaining a minimum but stable workforce to do the work over a fifteen year period. Note also that SDSR allowed for a seventh Astute boat to keep Barrow in work until the Trident replacement work starts as the PM pushed this back until after the next Election.
So yes in short had he just chopped POW they would have sued!
That's the plan for ships and boats. Our high level involvement in the F-35 programme reflects a similair plan for aircraft manufacture. If the F-35 is the only game in town for Western Nations, BAe has a big chunk of it even if we have changed from Dave B to C and watered down our initial order at least until our economy recovers.
