Money and certain 'clubs'.

A NATO E-3 force probably stands more chance of being successful as it is mainly engaged in what your man in the street would regard as "non-offensive" work.

(please hold fire electronic warriors - I'm in the realms of public perception here)

So if all we expected an EU MPA force to do was observe - there might be some mileage.

Trouble is - when we want to drop something dangerous we would probably have to have an EU summit first - and still be prepared for some of the crew to conscientiously object when the time came, or be instructed that such action was not in their National interests. - they don't all think like we do.

And as far as supporting our deterrent - I'm not sure I want to share that with some conscript from another Country.

well right now there is NO MPA support fror our deterrent - you have to work in the realms of the possible

A major poll of the UK electorate didn't even have defence in the top 10 concerns this week............... and it went down to around 6% "concerned"

Foreign MPA (even non-existant NATO ones) don't meet the requirement.

"meet the requirement" -

we don't have anything - not even a moth-easten Trislander - doing marine patrols so obviously there is no "requirement" just an "aspiration" from our lords & masters

trying to resurrect the Nimrod means we never will :ugh::ugh::ugh:

How much of that is ignorance though?

I was speaking to a friend just yesterday who knows almost nothing about the military. He genuinely believed we had 'more than twenty, maybe thirty' front line fast jet squadrons, he almost fell out his chair when I told him there were only six.

Rakshasa,

Try telling him the truth. The actual number of frontline fast jet squadrons is 8: 5 Typhoon and 3 Tornado.

Have 12 Squadron and 2 Squadron untangled themselves then?

8 for a year or two proone, no longer than that.

and soon (perhaps very soon) there will be only 5, and that is not going to be enough.

Yes. Because 8 is so much better than 6 when you think the answer is 20+.

Pillock.

If you include the subject's ID when you quote them it would make every thread so much more easy to follow. You know how to do it?

Yes, but I can't be arsed.

try scrolling up half a dozen posts

Willard

Like! :ok: (the one above Courtney's)

Willard Whyte,


Fact is you were both wrong.

Ignoramus.

Ignorami, no?

well nothing much on defence in the Budget today -

"A further £75m from Libor fines to go to charities for regiments which fought in Afghanistan and government to contribute towards permanent memorial to those who died in Afghanistan and Iraq and help renovate Battle of Britain memorials

£25m to support army veterans, including nuclear test veterans"


Not exactly your 2% of GDP...................

HH
But very clever all the same as Osbourne is now using other peoples' money i.e. the fines, to help HMG make the 2% target, although I can't imagine that £75m will go very far in that respect. :rolleyes:

The other day the "Times" pointed out that as a rule of thumb any Budget change that doesn't make a difference of £ 500m in 2015 money is really just noise and don't really make any difference

Something like 80% of Osbourne's Budget changes over the years have been "noise" but he's made more changes than several previous Chancellors put togther

All noise and no trousers

I still don't see any commitment from Osborne to meeting the 2% NATO targets. Apparently all he has committed to is "keeping the country safe".

So if the PM is commited to no further cuts in the Regular forces whilst running a 1% increase in the equipment budget, that doesn't leave much wriggle room. The implication in the PM's statement would seem to point to either Reserves taking a hit, which then drives a proverbial tank through FF2020 assumptions or continued pay and pensions tinkering and ongoing long term pay restraint for the duration of the next Parliament.