... And the Fairey Swordfish was the original TSR 2!;):eek::ok::E:p

Initials meaning - what ?
 

Bit of a nit-pick ... Sorry !
Didn't the Fairey TSRs' "T" stand for TORPEDO, while for the (much regretted) English Electric one's stood for TACTICAL ...

Fox warns of more cuts to armed forces - The Independent, 7 Jun 11

:uhoh: If we thought last October was bad, it looks like the worst is yet to come!

...and another thread is discussing the possible UK purchase of 5 P-8s...!


Not for quite a few years I think - if ever! :{

On the P8 issue it could be 5 of these Ryman Address Labels P8 Universal 99x68mm 8 per A4 Sheet 25 sheets

So then they could post the redundancy letters instead of face to face :ugh::ugh::ugh:

That'd mean they'd need to stump up 31.45, there goes the other carrier.

In his parting message to Tory MPs and party supporters worried about defence cuts, Mr Fox said: "If you want to spend more on defence, tell me which taxes you want to raise or which cuts you want to make to other programmes. It's a tough message but it's one Britain has to face."

Well Mr Fox if that is the case perhaps we now need to face up to the fact that Trident is really a foreign policy tool with the liklehood of the UK ever needing to contemplate its use in isolation from our Allies about as remote as can be imagined. So is it now time to give up the pretence that it serves any real defence purpose rather than ending up with conventional forces that are that small they are no longer fit for purpose?

Off to put my tin hat on now.:*

Would the honourable gentleman care to answer why we have less combat aircraft than we have MPs, MSPs, MEPs and the membership of the National Assemblies of Wales and Northern Island? Why they earn £60k+ a year with a very generous allowance package and accrue a final salary pension of 1/40th for every year they work, when the Armed Forces are being told to take huge allowance and likely pension reductions plus reductions in equipment?

Somebody has their "snout in the trough" don't they SoS? And it isn't the Queen's most loyal servants that risk life and limb for their country...

:mad:

LJ

In his parting message to Tory MPs and party supporters worried about defence cuts, Mr Fox said: "If you want to spend more on defence, tell me which taxes you want to raise or which cuts you want to make to other programmes. It's a tough message but it's one Britain has to face."

Not a tough at all you stupid politian...... :rolleyes:

Transfer the whole of the ludicrous foreign aid budget to Defense for starters .... simples.

I disagree. Foreign aid, when properly targeted, builds stable, democratic countries. Stable, democratic countries very rarely start wars (one of the few exceptions being the US/UK invasion of Iraq). Even rarer is for two democratic countries to go to war with each other.

We would quite possibly not be at war in Afghanistan right now if foreign aid there had been used to build a functioning society rather than propping up various friendly autocrats.

The last time was all of 3 years ago. Georgia vs Russia (doesn't matter what we may think about the 'style' of their democracies; they were - and still are - democratic states).

Russia and Georgia are not regarded as democracies by Economist Intelligence Unit - they are regarded as hybrid regimes - Georgia at 103, Russia at 107.

Democracy Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hence my qoute about what we (or in this case a western magazine) think about their style of democracy. Their government's are elected by the population - hence they are democracies in its basic form.



Nice to see that the UK ranks higher than France (a 'flawed democracy') though. :ok:

... ahhh, but if we didn't have Trident, then that nice Irishman (sic) Barry O'Bama wouldn't come round to No 10 for a barbie ......;)

£10bn 'black hole' means new defence cuts loom - The Telegraph 24 Jun 11

Surely a black hole within a black hole is impossible.......

Would it be hopelessly uncharitable to suggest that the actual amount of money being applied (being large in world terms) is not actually the problem?

I appreciate that there are practical limits, but isn't the defence spending issue really more about not giving BAE the PIN code to the MoD's metaphorical credit card account, and similar situations?

My, what an outburst, I do apologise...

I'm sure Cameron will turn this double negative into a positive :hmm:

I bet black Barrie doesn't attend too many BBQ's down Alabama way.

Come on gents,let's get real. You all know we need these cuts, after all, where do you think the compensation for our unfortuantes in prison is going to come from..........

I see that according to the Sunday Times, having axed pilots at the training stage, the government is now offering £100,000 to 'senior pilots' to sign on for another 5 years.

Grauniad: £25bn defence shortfall leaves Cameron and Osborne at odds

Exclusive: Chancellor holding back extra funding needed for modernisation, with MoD calling for PM to intervene

David Cameron is locked in a standoff with his chancellor over defence spending after a secret study concluded the government will need to find an extra £25bn to pay for its modernisation of the armed forces.

The Guardian has learned that a three-month internal analysis of the Ministry of Defence's chaotic budget has found the department will not be able to pay for the programmes agreed in last year's strategic defence and security review without a huge injection of cash – or a savage round of fresh cuts.

George Osborne has been refusing to give the defence secretary, Liam Fox, any promises about funding beyond 2014/15, even though many programmes need to be signed off in the coming months to have any chance of coming in on time and on budget. From private discussions with the MoD's most senior officials, the Guardian understands that the prime minister has also dug his heels in. He has refused to sanction any further cuts to defence capabilities before the next election, even though the department is already far over budget.

One senior Whitehall official said the Cameron and his chancellor appeared to be in a power struggle – and they needed to resolve the situation quickly. "We are going round in circles," said the source.

The three-month review began in the spring as the MoD tried to tackle an estimated £1bn overspend for last year, as well as determine costs for the contracts that need to be signed for the changes set out in the SDSR. Downing Street has already conceded that if the armed forces are to become Future Force 2020 the MoD will need real-term budget increases from 2014/15 onwards. But defence officials were not sure how much extra money would be needed.

In a series of secret meetings with top officials from the Treasury, Cabinet Office and No 10, the MoD argued it will need rises of inflation-plus-3% every year until 2020/21 to meet its targets. The Guardian understands the sums were not disputed. Without them the MoD will be unable to create Future Force 2020 within the timescale. If the MoD's budget remains constant between 2014/15 and 2020/21 the department will be £20bn short of what it needs – at current prices. Allowing for inflation that rises to £25bn over six years. The MoD believes it has convinced officials across Whitehall that its problems are as great as it says.

It [The Treasury] does not want to set a precedent that other departments might seek to follow, and it points to the MoD's well-earned reputation for mismanaging money as another reason not to make any commitments now.

"The essential underlying problem remains the same," said the source. "The chancellor doesn't want to give defence any more money because if he makes a special case then what will happen next? Every other department will be asking to be made a special case. But what the prime minister is not prepared to countenance is further cuts. Defence has been on this painful trajectory since the SDSR came out last year. The only way the Treasury will move is if David Cameron comes down on the side of defence. The prime minister recognises that the MoD will need real term increases to meet the SDSR commitments."

Until then the permanent secretary at the MoD, Ursula Brennan, is stalling on signing contracts until she is sure she will have the money to pay for them.

Professor Malcolm Chalmers, from the Royal United Services Institute thinktank, said there were "no easy choices left" and that the MoD needed to make decisions now about new tanks, submarines and aircraft.

"Without an explicit commitment soon to significant real terms growth in defence spending between 2014 and 2020, the SDSR vision for UK forces in 2020 is not affordable. Getting a commitment after the next election is too late unless the MoD is prepared to sign contracts without knowing whether it can afford to fund them. If the defence budget does not grow significantly in real terms after 2014/15, there could be a six-year funding gap – between what is needed to fund Future Force 2020 and what is available – of around £25bn. If decisions are not taken soon, either to approve significant real defence spending growth after 2014 or to make further cuts in capabilities, the MoD will become increasingly reluctant to approve new financial commitments."

Chalmers said the government had been "refreshingly frank" about the problems with the defence budget but if it could not commit to new spending "further difficult capability choices cannot be avoided".

The armed forces will have made redundant up to 17,000 servicemen and women by 2015, but further job losses are expected after the British mission in Afghanistan begins to wind down in the next parliament.

Now it is the public domain, you can add that to the 'why I decided to PVR' thread.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post6566666

If the 1998 SDR had been properly funded through the years of plenty, we wouldn't be in such a mess now. As it is, the Defence budget was virtually flat-lined and, as exposed to Gordon Brown's later embarrassment, even reduced in some years while the Education, Health and Social Security budgets doubled and even tripled.

In the meantime we have been fighting concurrent wars with all the extra wear and tear on ships, aircraft, vehicles and other equipment which isn't paid for out of Treasury contingency funds.

What's the point of conducting defence reviews constrained by financial considerations and then failing to fund them anyway?