A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January. “The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled “for official use only.” The test pilot’s report is the latest evidence of fundamental problems with the design of the F-35 — which, at a total program cost of more than a trillion dollars, is history’s most expensive weapon.
I do have concerns about the F35 actually. Unfortunately, it's far too late to turn back now.
So throwing good money after bad; and in all probability a waste of highly trained airmen's lives. (Edit)
Based on an anonymous, unsourced and unverified conspiracy theory?
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
The argument that our allies are already taking action therefore we don't need to is like saying that your friends have gone to the bar to buy a round so you have no need to buy any drinks.
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
Be patient, Mr. Caporeal. That nice Mr Cameron has promised to tell us his comprehensive strategy for defeating ISIS. He will give us the details on Thursday, until then we must just wait for speculation is pointless.
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
The argument that our allies are already taking action therefore we don't need to is like saying that your friends have gone to the bar to buy a round so you have no need to buy any drinks.
We used to intern conscientious objectors Mr Thompson, if we'd all rolled over in 1939 where would the liberals be now?
Update from TrotDom (I.e. A safe place for talking garbage on or near my Facebook timeline)
They are shocked. SHOCKED. That the defence review involves spending money on, you know, defence stuff.
What about health, education and handouts, they say.
Absolutely hilarious.
Labour at 20% in 2020?
I have had a little play on Electoral Calculus. At 20% Labour would be on circa 150 seats, depending a little on how you reallocate their votes. To go below 100 they need to be polling about 16%.
So even after a disastrous electoral performance they would be the official opposition, all on UNS of course.
Rubio is just not making the breakthrough. Pity, he could have been a winner.
He certainly needs to be in the top 2 in Iowa or NH to have a chance yes but now looks like Cruz could be Trump's main rival in latest polling, Rubio will need a good performance in New Hampshire to counter Cruz's likely strong performance in Iowa
£2 billion to the house-builders to deliver starter homes to be announced tomorrow apparently. Osborne has bet the UK economy on house price growth. Arguably no Government has ever had as much exposure to housing - he is (with starter homes) price setting about a third of the new build market, subsidising a large proportion of mortgages through Help to Buy, holding alot of the mortgages through the banks that the Treasury owns, and Housing Association debt is now nationalised as well. Very very iffy strategy.
Saw her berthed at Greenwich a couple of years ago. Impressive sight.
snip
Another casualty of the ridiculous, bloated Supercarrier vanity project.
Why use a cheap, inexpensive, effective ship like Ocean when you can roll in a hideously expensive Supercarrier.
Grossadmiral Dairnitz hat gesprochen.
.. he cleaned the windows and he swept the floor, and he polished up the handle of the big front door.
I take it your drooling personal attacks reflect the complete paucity of any argument in favour of the Supercarriers.
I am not an expert in the field, so I probably shouldn't comment as such.
snip
I never really understood the argument people wanting to build old US carriers were making. It seemed to be that the US were retiring carriers early as they wanted regular heartbeats of new ones made to keep the shipyards in business. But that still doesn't mean the ships we'd buy had enough life in them to make it worth the massive expense in training, maintenance and crewing.
Do we even have a graving dock big enough for a Nimitz-class, particularly now King George V at Southampton is out of commission?
(BTW, thanks for your posts last night - very illuminating. Unfortunately they'll also be heavy on my wallet, as I've ordered a couple of books).
Ocean will be at the end of it's life in 2018. Having rattled it's way around the world for 2 decades it's getting worn out. The balance of warships gets thrown out by the additional layers of paint slapped on over their lifetimes too.
Same reason no one of sound mind would buy an old US ship. Plus they're nuclear, which the RN don't want, since there are restrictions on where they can tie up. And there are weight and balancing limitations. The new CVF's will have generators sited in much better areas relative to the architecture of the vessel, which are then cabled up to the propulsion units in the bowels of the ships.
A Nimitz would never fit into the dock at Portsmouth. If you ever get the chance, go and watch when one of the new vessels does move into its berth from the Solent. It will be jaw dropping.
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
The argument that our allies are already taking action therefore we don't need to is like saying that your friends have gone to the bar to buy a round so you have no need to buy any drinks.
We used to intern conscientious objectors Mr Thompson, if we'd all rolled over in 1939 where would the liberals be now?
I am not sure we ever did intern CO's.
There were some imprisoned in WW1 for refusing conscription, and some prisoners taken to France where they would be subject to death threats under military regulations, but most were put in other roles. Some as farm workers some in ambulance units, some as merchant seamen etc.
By the WW2 the rules were better laid out. I was chatting at Church on Sunday to a former Conchie who spent the war in the merchant navy as engineering officer. He was even excused serving on munitions ships, though being on a tanker was no laughing matter.
Donald Trump leads PPP's newest poll by a wide margin...on which candidate Americans think would be the most likely to say something inappropriate at the table and ruin Thanksgiving Dinner. 46% say they think Trump would be the candidate most likely to ruin Thanksgiving, as much as all the rest of the candidates combined. Hillary Clinton at 22%, Bernie Sanders at 7%, Jeb Bush and Ben Carson at 6%, Ted Cruz at 4%, and Marco Rubio at 1% round out the standings on who people think would be most likely to wreck the holiday.
By a 27 point margin Republicans say they disapprove of the President's executive order last year pardoning two Thanksgiving turkeys (Macaroni and Cheese) instead of the customary one. Only 11% of Republicans support the President's executive order last year to 38% who are opposed- that's a pretty clear sign that if you put Obama's name on something GOP voters are going to oppose it pretty much no matter what. Overall there's 35/22 support for the pardon of Macaroni and Cheese thanks to 59/11 support from Democrats and 28/21 from independents.
£2 billion to the house-builders to deliver starter homes to be announced tomorrow apparently. Osborne has bet the UK economy on house price growth. Arguably no Government has ever had as much exposure to housing - he is (with starter homes) price setting about a third of the new build market, subsidising a large proportion of mortgages through Help to Buy, holding alot of the mortgages through the banks that the Treasury owns, and Housing Association debt is now nationalised as well. Very very iffy strategy.
Osborne becomes more like Brown every day. Always sticking his oar in with little schemes, always making life more complex and introducing new regulations for civil servants to administer. Where does he keep getting money from? He keeps telling us we are skint but it seems like every week he finds another wedge for a pet project.
A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January. “The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled “for official use only.” The test pilot’s report is the latest evidence of fundamental problems with the design of the F-35 — which, at a total program cost of more than a trillion dollars, is history’s most expensive weapon.
Random and totally non provable article from unnamed 'pilot', that can be found on any number of conspiracy websites. Why bother?
You're better off picking your way through all 401 pages on this thread, with contributions from people who might actually know what they're talking about.
That report, by the way, was a garbled version of one from an early test where the engine had only been cleared for 85% of full thrust and the airframe had only been cleared to 5g, by the way.
Unlike Mr Jarvis I think we need to be much more realistic about what we can do and influence. In answer to his 5 points: 1. We simply cannot say what British involvement might or might not do to accelerate the defeat of ISIL. It does give the coalition a little more flexibility and a useful missile for harder targets but the only sensible answer is that our contribution is at the margins. 2.It is clearly a British objective that Assad is removed but it is equally clearly not something that is within the gift of the British PM and it is stupid to pretend otherwise. 3. Economic sanctions against people we don't even trade with is frankly silly. 4. It is completely beyond the power of the British PM to promise to rebuild Syria. That is a matter for the Syrians and if that is a precondition we should perhaps see how Daash is getting on in 30 years. 5.To the extent meaning can be given to a phrase like "strengthen community cohesion" the government is already doing it.
A much more realistic approach is to ask: does the existence of Daash and safe territory for them to train and send out terrorists affect our safety? If so, do we want to help a coalition which might prevent that? If we take part in such a coalition will we be better listened to in working out what comes next? As the answer to all 3 of these questions is yes we should get on with it.
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
The argument that our allies are already taking action therefore we don't need to is like saying that your friends have gone to the bar to buy a round so you have no need to buy any drinks.
I think that it applies as much to our allies decision to act as ours.
Or we could place the metaphor as just because my friends go to the pub doesn't mean I have to.
£2 billion to the house-builders to deliver starter homes to be announced tomorrow apparently. Osborne has bet the UK economy on house price growth. Arguably no Government has ever had as much exposure to housing - he is (with starter homes) price setting about a third of the new build market, subsidising a large proportion of mortgages through Help to Buy, holding alot of the mortgages through the banks that the Treasury owns, and Housing Association debt is now nationalised as well. Very very iffy strategy.
Osborne becomes more like Brown every day. Always sticking his oar in with little schemes, always making life more complex and introducing new regulations for civil servants to administer. Where does he keep getting money from? He keeps telling us we are skint but it seems like every week he finds another wedge for a pet project.
Where does he keep getting money from ?
Surely you've worked that out HL.
From the magic money tree of course.
Borrow and bribe Borrow and bribe Borrow and bribe Borrow and bribe Borrow and bribe Borrow and bribe Borrow and bribe
Repeat half a TRILLION times
and then keep going
Borrow and bribe Borrow and bribe Borrow and bribe Borrow and bribe Borrow and bribe
Donald Trump leads PPP's newest poll by a wide margin...on which candidate Americans think would be the most likely to say something inappropriate at the table and ruin Thanksgiving Dinner. 46% say they think Trump would be the candidate most likely to ruin Thanksgiving, as much as all the rest of the candidates combined. Hillary Clinton at 22%, Bernie Sanders at 7%, Jeb Bush and Ben Carson at 6%, Ted Cruz at 4%, and Marco Rubio at 1% round out the standings on who people think would be most likely to wreck the holiday.
By a 27 point margin Republicans say they disapprove of the President's executive order last year pardoning two Thanksgiving turkeys (Macaroni and Cheese) instead of the customary one. Only 11% of Republicans support the President's executive order last year to 38% who are opposed- that's a pretty clear sign that if you put Obama's name on something GOP voters are going to oppose it pretty much no matter what. Overall there's 35/22 support for the pardon of Macaroni and Cheese thanks to 59/11 support from Democrats and 28/21 from independents.
£2 billion to the house-builders to deliver starter homes to be announced tomorrow apparently. Osborne has bet the UK economy on house price growth. Arguably no Government has ever had as much exposure to housing - he is (with starter homes) price setting about a third of the new build market, subsidising a large proportion of mortgages through Help to Buy, holding alot of the mortgages through the banks that the Treasury owns, and Housing Association debt is now nationalised as well. Very very iffy strategy.
£2bn for 10,000 houses is frankly just tinkering. it needs massive funding ideally through banks to the small builders to provide circa 100,000 houses every year from them.
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
The argument that our allies are already taking action therefore we don't need to is like saying that your friends have gone to the bar to buy a round so you have no need to buy any drinks.
I think that it applies as much to our allies decision to act as ours.
Or we could place the metaphor as just because my friends go to the pub doesn't mean I have to.
Not to mention that Mr Turkey has just knocked over the round of drinks Mr Russia was getting in.
And with Mr USA, Mr Iran , Mr France, Mr Saudi Arabia, Mr Israel, Mr Iraq all in the pub is it really a party we want to join.
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
The argument that our allies are already taking action therefore we don't need to is like saying that your friends have gone to the bar to buy a round so you have no need to buy any drinks.
We used to intern conscientious objectors Mr Thompson, if we'd all rolled over in 1939 where would the liberals be now?
I am not sure we ever did intern CO's.
There were some imprisoned in WW1 for refusing conscription, and some prisoners taken to France where they would be subject to death threats under military regulations, but most were put in other roles. Some as farm workers some in ambulance units, some as merchant seamen etc.
By the WW2 the rules were better laid out. I was chatting at Church on Sunday to a former Conchie who spent the war in the merchant navy as engineering officer. He was even excused serving on munitions ships, though being on a tanker was no laughing matter.
I'm not sure either tbh I might have over egged the pudding but my point remains. This time last year I was absolutely against military intervention but things have changed dramatically.
And before anybody gets excited yes I did see the monocled mutineer
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
The argument that our allies are already taking action therefore we don't need to is like saying that your friends have gone to the bar to buy a round so you have no need to buy any drinks.
I think that it applies as much to our allies decision to act as ours.
Or we could place the metaphor as just because my friends go to the pub doesn't mean I have to.
No but if you don't and don't buy your round you have no say on where the kebabs are bought.
Donald Trump leads PPP's newest poll by a wide margin...on which candidate Americans think would be the most likely to say something inappropriate at the table and ruin Thanksgiving Dinner. 46% say they think Trump would be the candidate most likely to ruin Thanksgiving, as much as all the rest of the candidates combined. Hillary Clinton at 22%, Bernie Sanders at 7%, Jeb Bush and Ben Carson at 6%, Ted Cruz at 4%, and Marco Rubio at 1% round out the standings on who people think would be most likely to wreck the holiday.
By a 27 point margin Republicans say they disapprove of the President's executive order last year pardoning two Thanksgiving turkeys (Macaroni and Cheese) instead of the customary one. Only 11% of Republicans support the President's executive order last year to 38% who are opposed- that's a pretty clear sign that if you put Obama's name on something GOP voters are going to oppose it pretty much no matter what. Overall there's 35/22 support for the pardon of Macaroni and Cheese thanks to 59/11 support from Democrats and 28/21 from independents.
Genuine I have no doubt, but definitely tongue in cheek and not at all serious. It's Thanksgiving!
Think Panorama and their feature on the spaghetti tree on April 1 many years ago.
Indeed, if you are interested they have further polling on macaroni cheese and cranberry sauce as suitable sides for thanksgiving dinner and more besides
£2 billion to the house-builders to deliver starter homes to be announced tomorrow apparently. Osborne has bet the UK economy on house price growth. Arguably no Government has ever had as much exposure to housing - he is (with starter homes) price setting about a third of the new build market, subsidising a large proportion of mortgages through Help to Buy, holding alot of the mortgages through the banks that the Treasury owns, and Housing Association debt is now nationalised as well. Very very iffy strategy.
Osborne becomes more like Brown every day. Always sticking his oar in with little schemes, always making life more complex and introducing new regulations for civil servants to administer. Where does he keep getting money from? He keeps telling us we are skint but it seems like every week he finds another wedge for a pet project.
Where does he keep getting money from ?
Surely you've worked that out HL.
From the magic money tree of course.
Borrow and bribe
snip
Borrow and bribe
What services and benefits would you cut into extinction?
Saw her berthed at Greenwich a couple of years ago. Impressive sight.
The Devonport-based helicopter carrier and assault ship, which is Britain's biggest warship, underwent a £65m upgrade in 2014.
Another casualty of the ridiculous, bloated Supercarrier vanity project.
Why use a cheap, inexpensive, effective ship like Ocean when you can roll in a hideously expensive Supercarrier.
Grossadmiral Dairnitz hat gesprochen.
.. he cleaned the windows and he swept the floor, and he polished up the handle of the big front door.
I take it your drooling personal attacks reflect the complete paucity of any argument in favour of the Supercarriers.
I am not an expert in the field, so I probably shouldn't comment as such.
HMS Ocean is on the down cycle of her lifespan - part of the effect of building her to commercial spec. At 20 years a ship in the commercial sector is considered old and is flogged to a rust-bucket line, generally.
Beyond a certain point the maintenance bills really mount up. Bit like the silly idea of trying to buy an ex US Navy carrier - a ship which would be worn out from end to end (including the nuclear power plant!) and needs a vast crew (double what a modern design would need).
I never really understood the argument people wanting to build old US carriers were making. It seemed to be that the US were retiring carriers early as they wanted regular heartbeats of new ones made to keep the shipyards in business. But that still doesn't mean the ships we'd buy had enough life in them to make it worth the massive expense in training, maintenance and crewing.
Do we even have a graving dock big enough for a Nimitz-class, particularly now King George V at Southampton is out of commission?
(BTW, thanks for your posts last night - very illuminating. Unfortunately they'll also be heavy on my wallet, as I've ordered a couple of books).
The American carriers are constrained by the docks as well - in fact the hull form is compromised from a pure "speed" form (wider) to have the displacement on a shorter hull.
£2 billion to the house-builders to deliver starter homes to be announced tomorrow apparently. Osborne has bet the UK economy on house price growth. Arguably no Government has ever had as much exposure to housing - he is (with starter homes) price setting about a third of the new build market, subsidising a large proportion of mortgages through Help to Buy, holding alot of the mortgages through the banks that the Treasury owns, and Housing Association debt is now nationalised as well. Very very iffy strategy.
Osborne becomes more like Brown every day. Always sticking his oar in with little schemes, always making life more complex and introducing new regulations for civil servants to administer. Where does he keep getting money from? He keeps telling us we are skint but it seems like every week he finds another wedge for a pet project.
I wonder if it's a case of being in the job too long, leading them to try and control too much.
Saw her berthed at Greenwich a couple of years ago. Impressive sight.
snip
Another casualty of the ridiculous, bloated Supercarrier vanity project.
Why use a cheap, inexpensive, effective ship like Ocean when you can roll in a hideously expensive Supercarrier.
Grossadmiral Dairnitz hat gesprochen.
.. he cleaned the windows and he swept the floor, and he polished up the handle of the big front door.
I take it your drooling personal attacks reflect the complete paucity of any argument in favour of the Supercarriers.
I am not an expert in the field, so I probably shouldn't comment as such.
snip
I never really understood the argument people wanting to build old US carriers were making. It seemed to be that the US were retiring carriers early as they wanted regular heartbeats of new ones made to keep the shipyards in business. But that still doesn't mean the ships we'd buy had enough life in them to make it worth the massive expense in training, maintenance and crewing.
Do we even have a graving dock big enough for a Nimitz-class, particularly now King George V at Southampton is out of commission?
(BTW, thanks for your posts last night - very illuminating. Unfortunately they'll also be heavy on my wallet, as I've ordered a couple of books).
Ocean will be at the end of it's life in 2018. Having rattled it's way around the world for 2 decades it's getting worn out. The balance of warships gets thrown out by the additional layers of paint slapped on over their lifetimes too.
Same reason no one of sound mind would buy an old US ship. Plus they're nuclear, which the RN don't want, since there are restrictions on where they can tie up. And there are weight and balancing limitations. The new CVF's will have generators sited in much better areas relative to the architecture of the vessel, which are then cabled up to the propulsion units in the bowels of the ships.
A Nimitz would never fit into the dock at Portsmouth. If you ever get the chance, go and watch when one of the new vessels does move into its berth from the Solent. It will be jaw dropping.
My son served on Ocean I met her majesty aboard the ship
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
The argument that our allies are already taking action therefore we don't need to is like saying that your friends have gone to the bar to buy a round so you have no need to buy any drinks.
I think that it applies as much to our allies decision to act as ours.
Or we could place the metaphor as just because my friends go to the pub doesn't mean I have to.
No but if you don't and don't buy your round you have no say on where the kebabs are bought.
If you're drunk enough for late night kebabs then the answer is the place most within stumbling distance and no-one will really know where they are anyway.
£2 billion to the house-builders to deliver starter homes to be announced tomorrow apparently. Osborne has bet the UK economy on house price growth. Arguably no Government has ever had as much exposure to housing - he is (with starter homes) price setting about a third of the new build market, subsidising a large proportion of mortgages through Help to Buy, holding alot of the mortgages through the banks that the Treasury owns, and Housing Association debt is now nationalised as well. Very very iffy strategy.
£2bn for 10,000 houses is frankly just tinkering. it needs massive funding ideally through banks to the small builders to provide circa 100,000 houses every year from them.
Yes let's just keep building until the whole place is concreted over
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
The argument that our allies are already taking action therefore we don't need to is like saying that your friends have gone to the bar to buy a round so you have no need to buy any drinks.
I think that it applies as much to our allies decision to act as ours.
Or we could place the metaphor as just because my friends go to the pub doesn't mean I have to.
No but if you don't and don't buy your round you have no say on where the kebabs are bought.
If you're drunk enough for late night kebabs then the answer is the place most within stumbling distance and no-one will really know where they are anyway.
Yeah, you're right. This metaphor has gone far too far. When I was younger waking up with the grease of a kebab in my mouth was always a very bad sign.
£2 billion to the house-builders to deliver starter homes to be announced tomorrow apparently. Osborne has bet the UK economy on house price growth. Arguably no Government has ever had as much exposure to housing - he is (with starter homes) price setting about a third of the new build market, subsidising a large proportion of mortgages through Help to Buy, holding alot of the mortgages through the banks that the Treasury owns, and Housing Association debt is now nationalised as well. Very very iffy strategy.
Osborne becomes more like Brown every day. Always sticking his oar in with little schemes, always making life more complex and introducing new regulations for civil servants to administer. Where does he keep getting money from? He keeps telling us we are skint but it seems like every week he finds another wedge for a pet project.
I wonder if it's a case of being in the job too long, leading them to try and control too much.
I think Osborne, like Brown, has always been a 'political' CotE rather than an 'economic' one ie one interested in the minutae of economics and taxation.
Instead Osborne prefers to run economic policy as he sees political requirements demand. Either at a macro political level or at an internal Conservative level ie cutting the budgets of potential Conservative opponents and increasing them of Conservative allies.
Aside from the obvious exception of Israel, I really don't see any distinction between Jews and non-Jews in being targets for extreme Islamic radicalism.
Saw her berthed at Greenwich a couple of years ago. Impressive sight.
HMS Ocean, the "Flagship of the Royal Navy", is to be decommissioned after a multi-million pound refit.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed the move would happen in 2018, when HMS Ocean will have "reached the end of her life", despite no mention of it in Monday's Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The Devonport-based helicopter carrier and assault ship, which is Britain's biggest warship, underwent a £65m upgrade in 2014.
Another casualty of the ridiculous, bloated Supercarrier vanity project.
Why use a cheap, inexpensive, effective ship like Ocean when you can roll in a hideously expensive Supercarrier.
Grossadmiral Dairnitz hat gesprochen.
.. he cleaned the windows and he swept the floor, and he polished up the handle of the big front door.
I take it your drooling personal attacks reflect the complete paucity of any argument in favour of the Supercarriers.
I am not an expert in the field, so I probably shouldn't comment as such.
But you keep commenting. Not on the subject but on purely personal attacks. If you have a reason why spending all that money on ineffective, indefensible Supercarriers which cannot fulfil any reasonable role to which the UK could be called, then post it.
Saw her berthed at Greenwich a couple of years ago. Impressive.
HMS Ocean, the "Flagship of the Royal Navy", is to be decommissioned after a multi-million pound refit.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed the move would happen in 2018, when HMS Ocean will have "reached the end of her life", despite no mention of it in Monday's Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The Devonport-based helicopter carrier and assault ship, which is Britain's biggest warship, underwent a £65m upgrade in 2014.
Another casualty of the ridiculous, bloated Supercarrier vanity project.
Why use a cheap, inexpensive, effective ship like Ocean when you can roll in a hideously expensive Supercarrier.
Grossadmiral Dairnitz hat gesprochen.
.. he cleaned the windows and he swept the floor, and he polished up the handle of the big front door.
I take it your drooling personal attacks reflect the complete paucity of any argument in favour of the Supercarriers.
I am not an expert in the field, so I probably shouldn't comment as such.
HMS Ocean is on the down cycle of her lifespan - part of the effect of building her to commercial spec. At 20 years a ship in the commercial sector is considered old and is flogged to a rust-bucket line, generally.
Beyond a certain point the maintenance bills really mount up. Bit like the silly idea of trying to buy an ex US Navy carrier - a ship which would be worn out from end to end (including the nuclear power plant!) and needs a vast crew (double what a modern design would need).
I never really understood the argument people wanting to build old US carriers were making. It seemed to be that the US were retiring carriers early as they wanted regular heartbeats of new ones made to keep the shipyards in business. But that still doesn't mean the ships we'd buy had enough life in them to make it worth the massive expense in training, maintenance and crewing.
Do we even have a graving dock big enough for a Nimitz-class, particularly now King George V at Southampton is out of commission?
(BTW, thanks for your posts last night - very illuminating. Unfortunately they'll also be heavy on my wallet, as I've ordered a couple of books).
Back when she was a model, the crew of the USS Nimitz adopted my wife as their mascot - there was a rather fetching (fully clothed) photo of her festooning the ship
£2 billion to the house-builders to deliver starter homes to be announced tomorrow apparently. Osborne has bet the UK economy on house price growth. Arguably no Government has ever had as much exposure to housing - he is (with starter homes) price setting about a third of the new build market, subsidising a large proportion of mortgages through Help to Buy, holding alot of the mortgages through the banks that the Treasury owns, and Housing Association debt is now nationalised as well. Very very iffy strategy.
Osborne becomes more like Brown every day. Always sticking his oar in with little schemes, always making life more complex and introducing new regulations for civil servants to administer. Where does he keep getting money from? He keeps telling us we are skint but it seems like every week he finds another wedge for a pet project.
Where does he keep getting money from ?
Surely you've worked that out HL.
From the magic money tree of course.
Borrow and bribe
snip
Borrow and bribe
What services and benefits would you cut into extinction?
HS2 Overseas Aid Subsidising house prices Triple lock pensions Public sector fatcats OBR
Bit like the silly idea of trying to buy an ex US Navy carrier - a ship which would be worn out from end to end (including the nuclear power plant!) and needs a vast crew (double what a modern design would need).
If I may?
COST OF TWO BRAND NEW QE-CLASS CARRIERS ======================================= * The current projected cost of the two QE-class aircraft carriers is 6.2billion, so when they're both off the blocks in 2020 and fitted out, we'll be looking at 8billion. Say £4billion each * We crew it with approx 650 sailors at £25Kpa, that's salary cost of £16million per year * We can't use F/A18's (no catapults), so let's get STOVL F35Bs, they're about £70million each, so 50 of them is £3.5billion * So if we ignore fuel, food, missiles, etc, that's about 7.5billion down and oeprating costs of 16million per year * If we get two, that's 15billion down and operating costs of 30million per year. * Over 20 years, that's a total cost (ignoring net present value) of 15billion+20x30million, say 15.6 billion. so that's a total cost over 20 years of £15.6billion
COST OF TWO SECOND HAND NIMITZ CARRIERS ======================================= * The scrap value of a US nuclear aircraft carrier is one cent[1]. This is not a joke. They don't have a way of decommissioning nuclear safely, so they tie them up and wait for somebody else to solve it. * So, we take a second-hand Nimitz-class carrier for one cent. We crew it with approx 5K sailors at £25Kpa, that's salary cost of £125million pa. * A F/A18 Super-Hornet is about £40mill new, so call it £20mill second-hand. Let's get 50 of them, so that's £1billion worth of aircraft * So if we ignore fuel, food, missiles, etc, that's about 1billion down and oprating costs of 125million per year * If we get two, that's 2billion down and operating costs of 250million per year. * Over 20 years, that's a total cost (ignoring net present value) of 2billion+20x250million, say 7 billion * Since they're nuclear, we'll also have to spend about £2billion decommissioning them, so that's a total cost over 20 years of £9billion
COMPARISON OVER 20 YEARS ======================== * TWO SECOND-HAND NIMITZES WITH 50 F/A18S EACH: 9 BILLION GBP * TWO BRAND-NEW QUEEN ELIZABETHS WITH 50 F35Bs EACH: 15.6 BILLION GBP
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
The argument that our allies are already taking action therefore we don't need to is like saying that your friends have gone to the bar to buy a round so you have no need to buy any drinks.
I think that it applies as much to our allies decision to act as ours.
Or we could place the metaphor as just because my friends go to the pub doesn't mean I have to.
No but if you don't and don't buy your round you have no say on where the kebabs are bought.
If you're drunk enough for late night kebabs then the answer is the place most within stumbling distance and no-one will really know where they are anyway.
Yeah, you're right. This metaphor has gone far too far. When I was younger waking up with the grease of a kebab in my mouth was always a very bad sign.
Honestly for me it was always a good sign since it meant I'd survived until closing time with enough awareness to make it to food.
Your fire insurance is useless against terrorism (often literally - excluded in your policy). have you cancelled it yet?
I get fed up with people saying "what do nuclear weapons do against the IRA/Al Queda/ISIS/Women's Institute?", it is just about the stupidest argument against them.
If we only used defence spending on defeating ISIS we'd be up the proverbial creek when it kicks off wherever the next big threat is going to come from.
My suspicion is that we could be more effective without Trident if we spent our 2% on more conventional weapons but it is not clear cut.
Has there been an equipment limitation in our response against Al-Q or ISIL that not funding Trident would have solved?
As far as I can see, the problem has been the very slow adaptability of the procurement process in providing equipment that responds to rapidly evolving guerilla warfare.
We don't have nearly enough aircraft nor do we have the money to make useful Brown's idiotic carriers. If we diverted the money from our trident program we could fix that. Not overnight but over a period of time.
They are not idiotic. When - and, yes it has taken way too long - they are operational they will be amongst the most potent weapons systems in the world.
This is not yet proven. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning has been a disappointment to the US army, it cant dogfight even with missiles and it's stealth ability is also suspect. Britain may be buying a a load of dead parrots if it isn't careful.
"The Joint Strike Fighter is the most expensive weapons system ever developed. It is plagued by design flaws and cost overruns. It flies only in good weather. The computers that run it lack the software they need for combat. No one can say for certain when the plane will work as advertised. Until recently, the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, was operating with a free hand—paid handsomely for its own mistakes. Looking back, even the general now in charge of the program can’t believe how we got to this point. In sum: all systems go!"
Saw her berthed at Greenwich a couple of years ago. Impressive sight.
HMS Ocean, the "Flagship of the Royal Navy", is to be decommissioned after a multi-million pound refit.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed the move would happen in 2018, when HMS Ocean will have "reached the end of her life", despite no mention of it in Monday's Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The Devonport-based helicopter carrier and assault ship, which is Britain's biggest warship, underwent a £65m upgrade in 2014.
Another casualty of the ridiculous, bloated Supercarrier vanity project.
Why use a cheap, inexpensive, effective ship like Ocean when you can roll in a hideously expensive Supercarrier.
Grossadmiral Dairnitz hat gesprochen.
.. he cleaned the windows and he swept the floor, and he polished up the handle of the big front door.
I take it your drooling personal attacks reflect the complete paucity of any argument in favour of the Supercarriers.
Because, thanks to the f**king stupid contract Labour negotiated it was going to be as expensive to cancel the useless hulks as to commision them?
That's just not true. The hulks might have been tied in to pay to completion. But there is no requirement to commission them, indeed they could have been sold off on the cheap to India, China, Brazil, perhaps even persuaded NATO to create joint carrier groups.
But no. He EXPANDED the Labour "plan" of one active and one mothballed Supercarrier, with 16 planes, to two active boats with 24 Lightning 2s a piece. A huge commitment which cannot be afforded... unless you cut hugely into our effective military assets like HMS Ocean.
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
The argument that our allies are already taking action therefore we don't need to is like saying that your friends have gone to the bar to buy a round so you have no need to buy any drinks.
I think that it applies as much to our allies decision to act as ours.
Or we could place the metaphor as just because my friends go to the pub doesn't mean I have to.
Not to mention that Mr Turkey has just knocked over the round of drinks Mr Russia was getting in.
And with Mr USA, Mr Iran , Mr France, Mr Saudi Arabia, Mr Israel, Mr Iraq all in the pub is it really a party we want to join.
Bit like the silly idea of trying to buy an ex US Navy carrier - a ship which would be worn out from end to end (including the nuclear power plant!) and needs a vast crew (double what a modern design would need).
If I may?
COST OF TWO BRAND NEW QE-CLASS CARRIERS ======================================= * The current projected cost of the two QE-class aircraft carriers is 6.2billion, so when they're both off the blocks in 2020 and fitted out, we'll be looking at 8billion. Say £4billion each * We crew it with approx 650 sailors at £25Kpa, that's salary cost of £16million per year * We can't use F/A18's (no catapults), so let's get STOVL F35Bs, they're about £70million each, so 50 of them is £3.5billion * So if we ignore fuel, food, missiles, etc, that's about 7.5billion down and oeprating costs of 16million per year * If we get two, that's 15billion down and operating costs of 30million per year. * Over 20 years, that's a total cost (ignoring net present value) of 15billion+20x30million, say 15.6 billion. so that's a total cost over 20 years of £15.6billion
COST OF TWO SECOND HAND NIMITZ CARRIERS ======================================= * The scrap value of a US nuclear aircraft carrier is one cent[1]. This is not a joke. They don't have a way of decommissioning nuclear safely, so they tie them up and wait for somebody else to solve it. * So, we take a second-hand Nimitz-class carrier for one cent. We crew it with approx 5K sailors at £25Kpa, that's salary cost of £125million pa. * A F/A18 Super-Hornet is about £40mill new, so call it £20mill second-hand. Let's get 50 of them, so that's £1billion worth of aircraft * So if we ignore fuel, food, missiles, etc, that's about 1billion down and oprating costs of 125million per year * If we get two, that's 2billion down and operating costs of 250million per year. * Over 20 years, that's a total cost (ignoring net present value) of 2billion+20x250million, say 7 billion * Since they're nuclear, we'll also have to spend about £2billion decommissioning them, so that's a total cost over 20 years of £9billion
COMPARISON OVER 20 YEARS ======================== * TWO SECOND-HAND NIMITZES WITH 50 F/A18S EACH: 9 BILLION GBP * TWO BRAND-NEW QUEEN ELIZABETHS WITH 50 F35Bs EACH: 15.6 BILLION GBP
I'd've gone for the two Nimitzes. YMMV.
You've forgotten initial refit costs, and those to refuel the reactors. Fitting new electronics. (The Yanks will strip them out before selling them on). Plus the money that will need to be poured into the ships to deal with 20 years of existing wear and tear.
Second hand ones are turkeys. Ditto knackered out Hornets with 1000's of flying hours on the clock.
£2 billion to the house-builders to deliver starter homes to be announced tomorrow apparently. Osborne has bet the UK economy on house price growth. Arguably no Government has ever had as much exposure to housing - he is (with starter homes) price setting about a third of the new build market, subsidising a large proportion of mortgages through Help to Buy, holding alot of the mortgages through the banks that the Treasury owns, and Housing Association debt is now nationalised as well. Very very iffy strategy.
Osborne becomes more like Brown every day. Always sticking his oar in with little schemes, always making life more complex and introducing new regulations for civil servants to administer. Where does he keep getting money from? He keeps telling us we are skint but it seems like every week he finds another wedge for a pet project.
I wonder if it's a case of being in the job too long, leading them to try and control too much.
I think Osborne, like Brown, has always been a 'political' CotE rather than an 'economic' one ie one interested in the minutae of economics and taxation.
Instead Osborne prefers to run economic policy as he sees political requirements demand. Either at a macro political level or at an internal Conservative level ie cutting the budgets of potential Conservative opponents and increasing them of Conservative allies.
You are probably correct, but it is an awful way to run a government let alone a country. It almost guarantees bad decisions are made and for the wrong reasons. One can only hope that Cameron's successor will appoint a proper chancellor who will do a chancellor's job well and be content with that.
£2 billion to the house-builders to deliver starter homes to be announced tomorrow apparently. Osborne has bet the UK economy on house price growth. Arguably no Government has ever had as much exposure to housing - he is (with starter homes) price setting about a third of the new build market, subsidising a large proportion of mortgages through Help to Buy, holding alot of the mortgages through the banks that the Treasury owns, and Housing Association debt is now nationalised as well. Very very iffy strategy.
Osborne becomes more like Brown every day. Always sticking his oar in with little schemes, always making life more complex and introducing new regulations for civil servants to administer. Where does he keep getting money from? He keeps telling us we are skint but it seems like every week he finds another wedge for a pet project.
I wonder if it's a case of being in the job too long, leading them to try and control too much.
I think Osborne, like Brown, has always been a 'political' CotE rather than an 'economic' one ie one interested in the minutae of economics and taxation.
Instead Osborne prefers to run economic policy as he sees political requirements demand. Either at a macro political level or at an internal Conservative level ie cutting the budgets of potential Conservative opponents and increasing them of Conservative allies.
I think that this is completely unfair. I think Osborne has handled a horrendously difficult macro-economic situation with exceptional skill and no small amount of luck. The pressures he has been and continues to be under in dealing with the deficit, spending and taxation are such that he has done less than a Nigel Lawson might have done in terms of economic reform but it is always easier to change things when there is money to play with.
So I would say that Osborne has been an economic Chancellor rather than a reforming one simply because the economic situation he inherited and had to deal with took all of his attention.
In relation to things like this latest housing scheme no one denies that this is one of the top problems facing the UK. Just because he cannot do enough to fix it does not mean he should do nothing at all.
Bit like the silly idea of trying to buy an ex US Navy carrier - a ship which would be worn out from end to end (including the nuclear power plant!) and needs a vast crew (double what a modern design would need).
If I may?
COST OF TWO BRAND NEW QE-CLASS CARRIERS ======================================= * The current projected cost of the two QE-class aircraft carriers is 6.2billion, so when they're both off the blocks in 2020 and fitted out, we'll be looking at 8billion. Say £4billion each * We crew it with approx 650 sailors at £25Kpa, that's salary cost of £16million per year * We can't use F/A18's (no catapults), so let's get STOVL F35Bs, they're about £70million each, so 50 of them is £3.5billion * So if we ignore fuel, food, missiles, etc, that's about 7.5billion down and oeprating costs of 16million per year * If we get two, that's 15billion down and operating costs of 30million per year. * Over 20 years, that's a total cost (ignoring net present value) of 15billion+20x30million, say 15.6 billion. so that's a total cost over 20 years of £15.6billion
COST OF TWO SECOND HAND NIMITZ CARRIERS ======================================= * The scrap value of a US nuclear aircraft carrier is one cent[1]. This is not a joke. They don't have a way of decommissioning nuclear safely, so they tie them up and wait for somebody else to solve it. * So, we take a second-hand Nimitz-class carrier for one cent. We crew it with approx 5K sailors at £25Kpa, that's salary cost of £125million pa. * A F/A18 Super-Hornet is about £40mill new, so call it £20mill second-hand. Let's get 50 of them, so that's £1billion worth of aircraft * So if we ignore fuel, food, missiles, etc, that's about 1billion down and oprating costs of 125million per year * If we get two, that's 2billion down and operating costs of 250million per year. * Over 20 years, that's a total cost (ignoring net present value) of 2billion+20x250million, say 7 billion * Since they're nuclear, we'll also have to spend about £2billion decommissioning them, so that's a total cost over 20 years of £9billion
COMPARISON OVER 20 YEARS ======================== * TWO SECOND-HAND NIMITZES WITH 50 F/A18S EACH: 9 BILLION GBP * TWO BRAND-NEW QUEEN ELIZABETHS WITH 50 F35Bs EACH: 15.6 BILLION GBP
I'd've gone for the two Nimitzes. YMMV.
You've forgotten initial refit costs, and those to refuel the reactors. Fitting new electronics. (The Yanks will strip them out before selling them on). Plus the money that will need to be poured into the ships to deal with 20 years of existing wear and tear.
Second hand ones are turkeys.
1 cent? Perhaps we could get one for PB and be the only blog with an aircraft carrier. See what politicshome have to say about that.
Saw her berthed at Greenwich a couple of years ago. Impressive sight.
HMS Ocean, the "Flagship of the Royal Navy", is to be decommissioned after a multi-million pound refit.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed the move would happen in 2018, when HMS Ocean will have "reached the end of her life", despite no mention of it in Monday's Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The Devonport-based helicopter carrier and assault ship, which is Britain's biggest warship, underwent a £65m upgrade in 2014.
Another casualty of the ridiculous, bloated Supercarrier vanity project.
Why use a cheap, inexpensive, effective ship like Ocean when you can roll in a hideously expensive Supercarrier.
Grossadmiral Dairnitz hat gesprochen.
.. he cleaned the windows and he swept the floor, and he polished up the handle of the big front door.
I take it your drooling personal attacks reflect the complete paucity of any argument in favour of the Supercarriers.
Because, thanks to the f**king stupid contract Labour negotiated it was going to be as expensive to cancel the useless hulks as to commision them?
That's just not true. The hulks might have been tied in to pay to completion. But there is no requirement to commission them, indeed they could have been sold off on the cheap to India, China, Brazil, perhaps even persuaded NATO to create joint carrier groups.
But no. He EXPANDED the Labour "plan" of one active and one mothballed Supercarrier, with 16 planes, to two active boats with 24 Lightning 2s a piece. A huge commitment which cannot be afforded... unless you cut hugely into our effective military assets like HMS Ocean.
Ocean will be at the end of it's life. How difficult is this to understand?
Amusingly, if Ocean didn't exist now, and someone suggested building it, you'd be in full on rant mode about the ridiculous expense, and 'why can't they build a dozen littoral patrol ships with the money'.
Saw her berthed at Greenwich a couple of years ago. Impressive sight.
HMS Ocean, the "Flagship of the Royal Navy", is to be decommissioned after a multi-million pound refit.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed the move would happen in 2018, when HMS Ocean will have "reached the end of her life", despite no mention of it in Monday's Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The Devonport-based helicopter carrier and assault ship, which is Britain's biggest warship, underwent a £65m upgrade in 2014.
Another casualty of the ridiculous, bloated Supercarrier vanity project.
Why use a cheap, inexpensive, effective ship like Ocean when you can roll in a hideously expensive Supercarrier.
Grossadmiral Dairnitz hat gesprochen.
.. he cleaned the windows and he swept the floor, and he polished up the handle of the big front door.
I take it your drooling personal attacks reflect the complete paucity of any argument in favour of the Supercarriers.
Because, thanks to the f**king stupid contract Labour negotiated it was going to be as expensive to cancel the useless hulks as to commision them?
That's just not true. The hulks might have been tied in to pay to completion. But there is no requirement to commission them, indeed they could have been sold off on the cheap to India, China, Brazil, perhaps even persuaded NATO to create joint carrier groups.
But no. He EXPANDED the Labour "plan" of one active and one mothballed Supercarrier, with 16 planes, to two active boats with 24 Lightning 2s a piece. A huge commitment which cannot be afforded... unless you cut hugely into our effective military assets like HMS Ocean.
How old are you Dair? You are obviously quite bright but it seems to me that you lack any experience about how the world actually works.
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
The argument that our allies are already taking action therefore we don't need to is like saying that your friends have gone to the bar to buy a round so you have no need to buy any drinks.
I think that it applies as much to our allies decision to act as ours.
Or we could place the metaphor as just because my friends go to the pub doesn't mean I have to.
No but if you don't and don't buy your round you have no say on where the kebabs are bought.
If you're drunk enough for late night kebabs then the answer is the place most within stumbling distance and no-one will really know where they are anyway.
Yeah, you're right. This metaphor has gone far too far. When I was younger waking up with the grease of a kebab in my mouth was always a very bad sign.
Honestly for me it was always a good sign since it meant I'd survived until closing time with enough awareness to make it to food.
I never ate one sober or even close to it. They are really disgusting unless you are seriously drunk.
A Nimitz would never fit into the dock at Portsmouth. If you ever get the chance, go and watch when one of the new vessels does move into its berth from the Solent. It will be jaw dropping.
Correct. It's not a case of they can't get into the *dock*, they can't even get into the *harbour*. You have to park them in the Solent
Bit like the silly idea of trying to buy an ex US Navy carrier - a ship which would be worn out from end to end (including the nuclear power plant!) and needs a vast crew (double what a modern design would need).
If I may?
COST OF TWO BRAND NEW QE-CLASS CARRIERS ======================================= * The current projected cost of the two QE-class aircraft carriers is 6.2billion, so when they're both off the blocks in 2020 and fitted out, we'll be looking at 8billion. Say £4billion each * We crew it with approx 650 sailors at £25Kpa, that's salary cost of £16million per year * We can't use F/A18's (no catapults), so let's get STOVL F35Bs, they're about £70million each, so 50 of them is £3.5billion * So if we ignore fuel, food, missiles, etc, that's about 7.5billion down and oeprating costs of 16million per year * If we get two, that's 15billion down and operating costs of 30million per year. * Over 20 years, that's a total cost (ignoring net present value) of 15billion+20x30million, say 15.6 billion. so that's a total cost over 20 years of £15.6billion
COST OF TWO SECOND HAND NIMITZ CARRIERS ======================================= * The scrap value of a US nuclear aircraft carrier is one cent[1]. This is not a joke. They don't have a way of decommissioning nuclear safely, so they tie them up and wait for somebody else to solve it. * So, we take a second-hand Nimitz-class carrier for one cent. We crew it with approx 5K sailors at £25Kpa, that's salary cost of £125million pa. * A F/A18 Super-Hornet is about £40mill new, so call it £20mill second-hand. Let's get 50 of them, so that's £1billion worth of aircraft * So if we ignore fuel, food, missiles, etc, that's about 1billion down and oprating costs of 125million per year * If we get two, that's 2billion down and operating costs of 250million per year. * Over 20 years, that's a total cost (ignoring net present value) of 2billion+20x250million, say 7 billion * Since they're nuclear, we'll also have to spend about £2billion decommissioning them, so that's a total cost over 20 years of £9billion
COMPARISON OVER 20 YEARS ======================== * TWO SECOND-HAND NIMITZES WITH 50 F/A18S EACH: 9 BILLION GBP * TWO BRAND-NEW QUEEN ELIZABETHS WITH 50 F35Bs EACH: 15.6 BILLION GBP
I'd've gone for the two Nimitzes. YMMV.
You've forgotten initial refit costs, and those to refuel the reactors. Fitting new electronics. (The Yanks will strip them out before selling them on). Plus the money that will need to be poured into the ships to deal with 20 years of existing wear and tear.
Second hand ones are turkeys. Ditto knackered out Hornets with 1000's of flying hours on the clock.
Buy defunct Nimitiz? Perhaps if Glasgow could be made a nuclear dump. What a ridiculous suggestion.
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
The argument that our allies are already taking action therefore we don't need to is like saying that your friends have gone to the bar to buy a round so you have no need to buy any drinks.
I think that it applies as much to our allies decision to act as ours.
Or we could place the metaphor as just because my friends go to the pub doesn't mean I have to.
No but if you don't and don't buy your round you have no say on where the kebabs are bought.
If you're drunk enough for late night kebabs then the answer is the place most within stumbling distance and no-one will really know where they are anyway.
Yeah, you're right. This metaphor has gone far too far. When I was younger waking up with the grease of a kebab in my mouth was always a very bad sign.
Honestly for me it was always a good sign since it meant I'd survived until closing time with enough awareness to make it to food.
I never ate one sober or even close to it. They are really disgusting unless you are seriously drunk.
I did once, was terrible. Although in fairness to turkish cuisine I'd reckon they'd be nicer if you went to somewhere that was aimed at good food and not just churning it out as cheap as possible to drinkers who can barely see it let alone taste it.
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
The argument that our allies are already taking action therefore we don't need to is like saying that your friends have gone to the bar to buy a round so you have no need to buy any drinks.
I think that it applies as much to our allies decision to act as ours.
Or we could place the metaphor as just because my friends go to the pub doesn't mean I have to.
Not to mention that Mr Turkey has just knocked over the round of drinks Mr Russia was getting in.
And with Mr USA, Mr Iran , Mr France, Mr Saudi Arabia, Mr Israel, Mr Iraq all in the pub is it really a party we want to join.
Mdme France, shurely?
Well the French national symbol is a cock ;-)
And the stereotype image of a French person is a bloke in a beret with onions around his neck.
Seriously has France ever had a female head of state ?
They had a very mediocre female PM briefly in the 1990s as I remember.
COST OF TWO BRAND NEW QE-CLASS CARRIERS ======================================= * The current projected cost of the two QE-class aircraft carriers is 6.2billion, so when they're both off the blocks in 2020 and fitted out, we'll be looking at 8billion. Say £4billion each * We crew it with approx 650 sailors at £25Kpa, that's salary cost of £16million per year * We can't use F/A18's (no catapults), so let's get STOVL F35Bs, they're about £70million each, so 50 of them is £3.5billion * So if we ignore fuel, food, missiles, etc, that's about 7.5billion down and oeprating costs of 16million per year * If we get two, that's 15billion down and operating costs of 30million per year. * Over 20 years, that's a total cost (ignoring net present value) of 15billion+20x30million, say 15.6 billion. so that's a total cost over 20 years of £15.6billion
COST OF TWO SECOND HAND NIMITZ CARRIERS ======================================= * The scrap value of a US nuclear aircraft carrier is one cent[1]. This is not a joke. They don't have a way of decommissioning nuclear safely, so they tie them up and wait for somebody else to solve it. * So, we take a second-hand Nimitz-class carrier for one cent. We crew it with approx 5K sailors at £25Kpa, that's salary cost of £125million pa. * A F/A18 Super-Hornet is about £40mill new, so call it £20mill second-hand. Let's get 50 of them, so that's £1billion worth of aircraft * So if we ignore fuel, food, missiles, etc, that's about 1billion down and oprating costs of 125million per year * If we get two, that's 2billion down and operating costs of 250million per year. * Over 20 years, that's a total cost (ignoring net present value) of 2billion+20x250million, say 7 billion * Since they're nuclear, we'll also have to spend about £2billion decommissioning them, so that's a total cost over 20 years of £9billion
COMPARISON OVER 20 YEARS ======================== * TWO SECOND-HAND NIMITZES WITH 50 F/A18S EACH: 9 BILLION GBP * TWO BRAND-NEW QUEEN ELIZABETHS WITH 50 F35Bs EACH: 15.6 BILLION GBP
I'd've gone for the two Nimitzes. YMMV.
You've forgotten initial refit costs, and those to refuel the reactors. Fitting new electronics. (The Yanks will strip them out before selling them on). Plus the money that will need to be poured into the ships to deal with 20 years of existing wear and tear.
Second hand ones are turkeys.
1 cent? Perhaps we could get one for PB and be the only blog with an aircraft carrier. See what politicshome have to say about that.
There is the £2bn decommissioning costs. Of course if OGH turns up a few more 50/1 bets that won't be a problem.
Bit like the silly idea of trying to buy an ex US Navy carrier - a ship which would be worn out from end to end (including the nuclear power plant!) and needs a vast crew (double what a modern design would need).
If I may?
COST OF TWO BRAND NEW QE-CLASS CARRIERS ======================================= * The current projected cost of the two QE-class aircraft carriers is 6.2billion, so when they're both off the blocks in 2020 and fitted out, we'll be looking at 8billion. Say £4billion each * We crew it with approx 650 sailors at £25Kpa, that's salary cost of £16million per year * We can't use F/A18's (no catapults), so let's get STOVL F35Bs, they're about £70million each, so 50 of them is £3.5billion * So if we ignore fuel, food, missiles, etc, that's about 7.5billion down and oeprating costs of 16million per year * If we get two, that's 15billion down and operating costs of 30million per year. * Over 20 years, that's a total cost (ignoring net present value) of 15billion+20x30million, say 15.6 billion. so that's a total cost over 20 years of £15.6billion
COST OF TWO SECOND HAND NIMITZ CARRIERS ======================================= * The scrap value of a US nuclear aircraft carrier is one cent[1]. This is not a joke. They don't have a way of decommissioning nuclear safely, so they tie them up and wait for somebody else to solve it. * So, we take a second-hand Nimitz-class carrier for one cent. We crew it with approx 5K sailors at £25Kpa, that's salary cost of £125million pa. * A F/A18 Super-Hornet is about £40mill new, so call it £20mill second-hand. Let's get 50 of them, so that's £1billion worth of aircraft * So if we ignore fuel, food, missiles, etc, that's about 1billion down and oprating costs of 125million per year * If
COMPARISON OVER 20 YEARS ======================== * TWO SECOND-HAND NIMITZES WITH 50 F/A18S EACH: 9 BILLION GBP * TWO BRAND-NEW QUEEN ELIZABETHS WITH 50 F35Bs EACH: 15.6 BILLION GBP
I'd've gone for the two Nimitzes. YMMV.
You've forgotten initial refit costs, and those to refuel the reactors. Fitting new electronics. (The Yanks will strip them out before selling them on). Plus the money that will need to be poured into the ships to deal with 20 years of existing wear and tear.
Second hand ones are turkeys.
1 cent? Perhaps we could get one for PB and be the only blog with an aircraft carrier. See what politicshome have to say about that.
Go the whole hog. We need a PB Death Star populated by enormo-haddock with trebuchets. Just don't put TSE in charge. He would convert it to a giant glitterball...
Donald Trump leads PPP's newest poll by a wide margin...on which candidate Americans think would be the most likely to say something inappropriate at the table and ruin Thanksgiving Dinner. 46% say they think Trump would be the candidate most likely to ruin Thanksgiving, as much as all the rest of the candidates combined. Hillary Clinton at 22%, Bernie Sanders at 7%, Jeb Bush and Ben Carson at 6%, Ted Cruz at 4%, and Marco Rubio at 1% round out the standings on who people think would be most likely to wreck the holiday.
By a 27 point margin Republicans say they disapprove of the President's executive order last year pardoning two Thanksgiving turkeys (Macaroni and Cheese) instead of the customary one. Only 11% of Republicans support the President's executive order last year to 38% who are opposed- that's a pretty clear sign that if you put Obama's name on something GOP voters are going to oppose it pretty much no matter what. Overall there's 35/22 support for the pardon of Macaroni and Cheese thanks to 59/11 support from Democrats and 28/21 from independents.
Genuine I have no doubt, but definitely tongue in cheek and not at all serious. It's Thanksgiving!
Think Panorama and their feature on the spaghetti tree on April 1 many years ago.
Indeed, if you are interested they have further polling on macaroni cheese and cranberry sauce as suitable sides for thanksgiving dinner and more besides
Where I live mac 'n' cheese is a vegetable (it's on the list of sides on every restaurant menu). We're not having it this time. We are having cranberry jelly though with the turkey. My request was for peas. I haven't had peas in years. My daughter's request is for sweet potatoes. For dessert, what else - universal acclamation for apple pie a la mode.
The other Thanksgiving tradition is Football. For the 36 years I have lived here the 1pm game is always Detroit at home, and the 4.15pm game is always Dallas at home. The NFL Network also now has a game at 8.15pm, but it moves each year. Thursday it's Chicago at Green Bay. Dallas (3-7) favored by 1 over 10-0 Carolina - I still don't believe it.
Saw her berthed at Greenwich a couple of years ago. Impressive sight.
HMS Ocean, the "Flagship of the Royal Navy", is to be decommissioned after a multi-million pound refit.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed the move would happen in 2018, when HMS Ocean will have "reached the end of her life", despite no mention of it in Monday's Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The Devonport-based helicopter carrier and assault ship, which is Britain's biggest warship, underwent a £65m upgrade in 2014.
Another casualty of the ridiculous, bloated Supercarrier vanity project.
Why use a cheap, inexpensive, effective ship like Ocean when you can roll in a hideously expensive Supercarrier.
Grossadmiral Dairnitz hat gesprochen.
.. he cleaned the windows and he swept the floor, and he polished up the handle of the big front door.
I take it your drooling personal attacks reflect the complete paucity of any argument in favour of the Supercarriers.
Because, thanks to the f**king stupid contract Labour negotiated it was going to be as expensive to cancel the useless hulks as to commision them?
That's just not true. The hulks might have been tied in to pay to completion. But there is no requirement to commission them, indeed they could have been sold off on the cheap to India, China, Brazil, perhaps even persuaded NATO to create joint carrier groups.
But no. He EXPANDED the Labour "plan" of one active and one mothballed Supercarrier, with 16 planes, to two active boats with 24 Lightning 2s a piece. A huge commitment which cannot be afforded... unless you cut hugely into our effective military assets like HMS Ocean.
Dair, there is a very good web discussion site called Think Defence, you should go over there and air your views, you might learn a few things.
Saw her berthed at Greenwich a couple of years ago. Impressive sight.
HMS Ocean, the "Flagship of the Royal Navy", is to be decommissioned after a multi-million pound refit.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed the move would happen in 2018, when HMS Ocean will have "reached the end of her life", despite no mention of it in Monday's Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The Devonport-based helicopter carrier and assault ship, which is Britain's biggest warship, underwent a £65m upgrade in 2014.
Another casualty of the ridiculous, bloated Supercarrier vanity project.
Why use a cheap, inexpensive, effective ship like Ocean when you can roll in a hideously expensive Supercarrier.
Grossadmiral Dairnitz hat gesprochen.
.. he cleaned the windows and he swept the floor, and he polished up the handle of the big front door.
I take it your drooling personal attacks reflect the complete paucity of any argument in favour of the Supercarriers.
Because, thanks to the f**king stupid contract Labour negotiated it was going to be as expensive to cancel the useless hulks as to commision them?
That's just not true. The hulks might have been tied in to pay to completion. But there is no requirement to commission them, indeed they could have been sold off on the cheap to India, China, Brazil, perhaps even persuaded NATO to create joint carrier groups.
But no. He EXPANDED the Labour "plan" of one active and one mothballed Supercarrier, with 16 planes, to two active boats with 24 Lightning 2s a piece. A huge commitment which cannot be afforded... unless you cut hugely into our effective military assets like HMS Ocean.
Dair, there is a very good web discussion site called Think Defence, you should go over there and air your views, you might learn a few things.
You've forgotten initial refit costs, and those to refuel the reactors. Fitting new electronics. (The Yanks will strip them out before selling them on). Plus the money that will need to be poured into the ships to deal with 20 years of existing wear and tear.
Second hand ones are turkeys. Ditto knackered out Hornets with 1000's of flying hours on the clock.
Agreed, but these were broad-brush calculations, and I assume item X forgotten on the Nimitzes would be matched by item Y forgotten on the QEs.
Actually, I was surprised the gap was only 6 billion: I'd forgotten the huge difference in complements
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
The argument that our allies are already taking action therefore we don't need to is like saying that your friends have gone to the bar to buy a round so you have no need to buy any drinks.
I think that it applies as much to our allies decision to act as ours.
Or we could place the metaphor as just because my friends go to the pub doesn't mean I have to.
Not to mention that Mr Turkey has just knocked over the round of drinks Mr Russia was getting in.
And with Mr USA, Mr Iran , Mr France, Mr Saudi Arabia, Mr Israel, Mr Iraq all in the pub is it really a party we want to join.
Mdme France, shurely?
Well the French national symbol is a cock ;-)
And the stereotype image of a French person is a bloke in a beret with onions around his neck.
Seriously has France ever had a female head of state ?
They had a very mediocre female PM briefly in the 1990s as I remember.
They had Joan of Arc! Edith Cresson was the PM I believe
Your fire insurance is useless against terrorism (often literally - excluded in your policy). have you cancelled it yet?
I get fed up with people saying "what do nuclear weapons do against the IRA/Al Queda/ISIS/Women's Institute?", it is just about the stupidest argument against them.
If we only used defence spending on defeating ISIS we'd be up the proverbial creek when it kicks off wherever the next big threat is going to come from.
My suspicion is that we could be more effective without Trident if we spent our 2% on more conventional weapons but it is not clear cut.
Has there been an equipment limitation in our response against Al-Q or ISIL that not funding Trident would have solved?
As far as I can see, the problem has been the very slow adaptability of the procurement process in providing equipment that responds to rapidly evolving guerilla warfare.
We don't have nearly enough aircraft nor do we have the money to make useful Brown's idiotic carriers. If we diverted the money from our trident program we could fix that. Not overnight but over a period of time.
They are not idiotic. When - and, yes it has taken way too long - they are operational they will be amongst the most potent weapons systems in the world.
HAHAHHAHHA.
They are indefensible weapons platforms which are very no more effective than a boat like HMS Ocean in real world applications.
To be remotely effective, they require permanent accompaniment by two Type 45 destroyers, three type 26 Frigates and two Astute Class Submarines which ties up almost the ENTIRE capital inventory of the Royal Navy in two carrier groups which do NOTHING to defend the United Kingdom.
There is nothing "potent" about a Supercarrier, which is why Russia and China do not have them and have very limited plans to even consider them for the future. Supercarriers are a dead duck weapon system, completely outdated and with little practical application.
Donald Trump leads PPP's newest poll by a wide margin...on which candidate Americans think would be the most likely to say something inappropriate at the table and ruin Thanksgiving Dinner. 46% say they think Trump would be the candidate most likely to ruin Thanksgiving, as much as all the rest of the candidates combined. Hillary Clinton at 22%, Bernie Sanders at 7%, Jeb Bush and Ben Carson at 6%, Ted Cruz at 4%, and Marco Rubio at 1% round out the standings on who people think would be most likely to wreck the holiday.
By a 27 point margin Republicans say they disapprove of the President's executive order last year pardoning two Thanksgiving turkeys (Macaroni and Cheese) instead of the customary one. Only 11% of Republicans support the President's executive order last year to 38% who are opposed- that's a pretty clear sign that if you put Obama's name on something GOP voters are going to oppose it pretty much no matter what. Overall there's 35/22 support for the pardon of Macaroni and Cheese thanks to 59/11 support from Democrats and 28/21 from independents.
Genuine I have no doubt, but definitely tongue in cheek and not at all serious. It's Thanksgiving!
Think Panorama and their feature on the spaghetti tree on April 1 many years ago.
Indeed, if you are interested they have further polling on macaroni cheese and cranberry sauce as suitable sides for thanksgiving dinner and more besides
Where I live mac 'n' cheese is a vegetable (it's on the list of sides on every restaurant menu). We're not having it this time. We are having cranberry jelly though. My request was for peas. I haven't had peas in years. My daughter's request is for sweet potatoes. For dessert, what else - universal acclamation for apple pie a la mode.
The other Thanksgiving tradition is Football. For the 36 years I have lived here the 1pm game is always Detroit at home, and the 4.15pm game is always Dallas at home. The NFL Network also now has a game at 8.15pm, but it moves each year. Thursday it's Chicago at Green Bay. Dallas (3-7) favored by 1 over 10-0 Carolina - I still don't believe it.
A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January. “The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled “for official use only.” The test pilot’s report is the latest evidence of fundamental problems with the design of the F-35 — which, at a total program cost of more than a trillion dollars, is history’s most expensive weapon.
I do have concerns about the F35 actually. Unfortunately, it's far too late to turn back now.
The F35 is the most advanced aircraft in the world. Apart from the septics we will have the most technologically advanced fast jet fleet in the world. And future-proofed so far as is possible. Way ahead of anything that the Russians or Chinese will be able to produce in the next 2 decades.
The United Kingdom has a total of ZERO F35s in operation and may never have any. There are also quite legitimate concerns about whether they actually work.
I do not understand why we want to send the RAF to Syria. It seems like a total basket case and there is plenty of work to do in Iraq.
The only reason is to show solidarity with our allies and have an influence on negotiating with Russia and be at the table with decisions that have a direct influence on our own security. Half a dozen or so aircraft will not be a game changer but being there is
We must do something, this is something, there fore we must do it.
The argument that our allies are already taking action therefore we don't need to is like saying that your friends have gone to the bar to buy a round so you have no need to buy any drinks.
We used to intern conscientious objectors Mr Thompson, if we'd all rolled over in 1939 where would the liberals be now?
A possible answer to that question, is that if the United Kingdom had not entered WW2, then we would be pretty much where we would be after Brexit - a peripheral nation, on the edge of Europe, hoping to trade with a European Superstate led by Germany.
Osborne becomes more like Brown every day. Always sticking his oar in with little schemes, always making life more complex and introducing new regulations for civil servants to administer. Where does he keep getting money from? He keeps telling us we are skint but it seems like every week he finds another wedge for a pet project.
I wonder if it's a case of being in the job too long, leading them to try and control too much.
I think Osborne, like Brown, has always been a 'political' CotE rather than an 'economic' one ie one interested in the minutae of economics and taxation.
Instead Osborne prefers to run economic policy as he sees political requirements demand. Either at a macro political level or at an internal Conservative level ie cutting the budgets of potential Conservative opponents and increasing them of Conservative allies.
I think that this is completely unfair. I think Osborne has handled a horrendously difficult macro-economic situation with exceptional skill and no small amount of luck. The pressures he has been and continues to be under in dealing with the deficit, spending and taxation are such that he has done less than a Nigel Lawson might have done in terms of economic reform but it is always easier to change things when there is money to play with.
So I would say that Osborne has been an economic Chancellor rather than a reforming one simply because the economic situation he inherited and had to deal with took all of his attention.
In relation to things like this latest housing scheme no one denies that this is one of the top problems facing the UK. Just because he cannot do enough to fix it does not mean he should do nothing at all.
Osborne's economic strategy has been nothing but 'borrow and bribe'.
Which is why his proclaimed 'March of the Makers' has been a march in reverse, borrowing is way beyond his predictions, productivity has been stagnant and the UK current account defiit is at record levels.
Still house prices are up. Even if home ownership is down. Those two facts are connected.
And I'm sure we're all amazed to discover that you're so impressed by Osborne.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us by how many hundreds of billions need Osborne exceed his borrowing predictions before you stop declaring that he has 'exceptional skill' ?
Eating in the USA can be an absolute joy - lobsters, chowders, fish dishes to die for and mouthwatering steaks the like of which cannot be obtained any where else in the world, you can even get really, really good burgers - but sometimes one has to wonder about the basis of their civilisation.
In the late 60s I was in Singapore where my dad was in the army. The USS Enterprise came into port for some R&R and we were lucky enough to get a guided tour. It was on a rotation from Nam and fully equipped. It probably had more fighter bombers on it than the RAF had available on an average day. As a weapon system capable of projecting power anywhere in the world it was unmatchable and super carriers remain so to this day which is why the Pacific remains an American lake.
We will have nothing like that but these carriers will give the UK government a range of options in the world's trouble spots that any government in the world other than the US will envy. You can argue about whether this is a good thing or not. But to suggest that this is not a major improvement on what we have right now and have had since our last carriers retired is just silly.
Saw her berthed at Greenwich a couple of years ago. Impressive.
HMS Ocean, the "Flagship of the Royal Navy", is to be decommissioned after a multi-million pound refit.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed the move would happen in 2018, when HMS Ocean will have "reached the end of her life", despite no mention of it in Monday's Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The Devonport-based helicopter carrier and assault ship, which is Britain's biggest warship, underwent a £65m upgrade in 2014.
Another casualty of the ridiculous, bloated Supercarrier vanity project.
Why use a cheap, inexpensive, effective ship like Ocean when you can roll in a hideously expensive Supercarrier.
Grossadmiral Dairnitz hat gesprochen.
.. he cleaned the windows and he swept the floor, and he polished up the handle of the big front door.
I take it your drooling personal attacks reflect the complete paucity of any argument in favour of the Supercarriers.
I am not an expert in the field, so I probably shouldn't comment as such.
HMS Ocean is on the down cycle of her lifespan - part of the effect of building her to commercial spec. At 20 years a ship in the commercial sector is considered old and is flogged to a rust-bucket line, generally. ... ...
Do we even have a graving dock big enough for a Nimitz-class, particularly now King George V at Southampton is out of commission?
....
Back when she was a model, the crew of the USS Nimitz adopted my wife as their mascot - there was a rather fetching (fully clothed) photo of her festooning the ship
An impressive piece of boasting there, Charles!
On the subject of supposed 'super carriers' The QE2's are not 'super carriers' They do not have nuclear power plants they do not have angled flight decks they do not have any catapults (let alone 4), they do not have 4 propeller shafts and they do not displace 100,000 tonnes. Nor do they have anything like a compliment of over 4000 sailors or the capacity to carry and fly off 90 conventional jets. Also they do not cost $10.5 billion (£7bn) . Nor has $5bn been spent on their research and development. They in fact cost left than half that - which makes them less than half a supercarrier.
A test pilot has some very, very bad news about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The pricey new stealth jet can’t turn or climb fast enough to hit an enemy plane during a dogfight or to dodge the enemy’s own gunfire, the pilot reported following a day of mock air battles back in January. “The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage,” the unnamed pilot wrote in a scathing five-page brief that War Is Boring has obtained. The brief is unclassified but is labeled “for official use only.” The test pilot’s report is the latest evidence of fundamental problems with the design of the F-35 — which, at a total program cost of more than a trillion dollars, is history’s most expensive weapon.
I do have concerns about the F35 actually. Unfortunately, it's far too late to turn back now.
The F35 is the most advanced aircraft in the world. Apart from the septics we will have the most technologically advanced fast jet fleet in the world. And future-proofed so far as is possible. Way ahead of anything that the Russians or Chinese will be able to produce in the next 2 decades.
The United Kingdom has a total of ZERO F35s in operation and may never have any. There are also quite legitimate concerns about whether they actually work.
The F35B is now operational with the US Marine Corp
on which candidate Americans think would be the most likely to say something inappropriate at the table and ruin Thanksgiving Dinner. 46% say they think Trump would be the candidate most likely to ruin Thanksgiving, as much as all the rest of the candidates combined. Hillary Clinton at 22%, Bernie Sanders at 7%, Jeb Bush and Ben Carson at 6%, Ted Cruz at 4%, and Marco Rubio at 1% round out the standings on who people think would be most likely to wreck the holiday.
By a 27 point margin Republicans say they disapprove of the President's executive order last year pardoning two Thanksgiving turkeys (Macaroni and Cheese) instead of the customary one. Only 11% of Republicans support the President's executive order last year to 38% who are opposed- that's a pretty clear sign that if you put Obama's name on something GOP voters are going to oppose it pretty much no matter what. Overall there's 35/22 support for the pardon of Macaroni and Cheese thanks to 59/11 support from Democrats and 28/21 from independents.
Genuine I have no doubt, but definitely tongue in cheek and not at all serious. It's Thanksgiving!
Think Panorama and their feature on the spaghetti tree on April 1 many years ago.
Indeed, if you are interested they have further polling on macaroni cheese and cranberry sauce as suitable sides for thanksgiving dinner and more besides
Where I live mac 'n' cheese is a vegetable (it's on the list of sides on every restaurant menu). We're not having it this time. We are having cranberry jelly though. My request was for peas. I haven't had peas in years. My daughter's request is for sweet potatoes. For dessert, what else - universal acclamation for apple pie a la mode.
The other Thanksgiving tradition is Football. For the 36 years I have lived here the 1pm game is always Detroit at home, and the 4.15pm game is always Dallas at home. The NFL Network also now has a game at 8.15pm, but it moves each year. Thursday it's Chicago at Green Bay. Dallas (3-7) favored by 1 over 10-0 Carolina - I still don't believe it.
But of course I'm not a fan.
Sounds like you are all sorted for Thursday!
Absolutely - the food will be great, the football will be great (Detroit and Dallas have done the short week for decades, so they can install a game plan in 2 days, and they get a 10 day break after). I might even wear my Aikman #8 shirt my daughter got my wife and I last Christmas. I returned the favor on her birthday. Or I might wear my E. Smith #22 shirt. There's a clue for you as to who my team is. America's Team.
Eating in the USA can be an absolute joy - lobsters, chowders, fish dishes to die for and mouthwatering steaks the like of which cannot be obtained any where else in the world, you can even get really, really good burgers - but sometimes one has to wonder about the basis of their civilisation.
Mr Llama, really. The basis of their civilization is a deep religiosity (essentially judeo-christian) and the protestant/jewish work ethic. Not much to wonder or ponder there.
on which candidate Americans think would be the most likely to say something inappropriate at the table and ruin Thanksgiving Dinner. 46% say they think Trump would be the candidate most likely to ruin Thanksgiving, as much as all the rest of the candidates combined. Hillary Clinton at 22%, Bernie Sanders at 7%, Jeb Bush and Ben Carson at 6%, Ted Cruz at 4%, and Marco Rubio at 1% round out the standings on who people think would be most likely to wreck the holiday.
By a 27 point margin Republicans say theyd Cheese thanks to 59/11 support from Democrats and 28/21 from independents.
Genuine I have no doubt, but definitely tongue in cheek and not at all serious. It's Thanksgiving!
Think Panorama and their feature on the spaghetti tree on April 1 many years ago.
Indeed, if you are interested they have further polling on macaroni cheese and cranberry sauce as suitable sides for thanksgiving dinner and more besides
Where I live mac 'n' cheese is a vegetable (it's on the list of sides on every restaurant menu). We're not having it this time. We are having cranberry jelly though. My request was for peas. I haven't had peas in years. My daughter's request is for sweet potatoes. For dessert, what else - universal acclamation for apple pie a la mode.
The other Thanksgiving tradition is Football. For the 36 years I have lived here the 1pm game is always Detroit at home, and the 4.15pm game is always Dallas at home. The NFL Network also now has a game at 8.15pm, but it moves each year. Thursday it's Chicago at Green Bay. Dallas (3-7) favored by 1 over 10-0 Carolina - I still don't believe it.
But of course I'm not a fan.
Sounds like you are all sorted for Thursday!
Absolutely - the food will be great, the football will be great (Detroit and Dallas have done the short week for decades, so they can install a game plan in 2 days, and they get a 10 day break after). I might even wear my Aikman #8 shirt my daughter got my wife and I last Christmas. I returned the favor on her birthday. Or I might wear my E. Smith #22 shirt. There's a clue for you as to who my team is. America's Team.
In the late 60s I was in Singapore where my dad was in the army. The USS Enterprise came into port for some R&R and we were lucky enough to get a guided tour. It was on a rotation from Nam and fully equipped. It probably had more fighter bombers on it than the RAF had available on an average day. As a weapon system capable of projecting power anywhere in the world it was unmatchable and super carriers remain so to this day which is why the Pacific remains an American lake.
We will have nothing like that but these carriers will give the UK government a range of options in the world's trouble spots that any government in the world other than the US will envy. You can argue about whether this is a good thing or not. But to suggest that this is not a major improvement on what we have right now and have had since our last carriers retired is just silly.
I had a tour of the Enterprise when she put into Hong Kong in the early seventies, not long after the Vietnam war. An absolutely amazing ship but the strongest impression I took away was the state of semi-organised anarchy that ruled below decks. There were areas where officers didn't go, there were areas where white sailors didn't go and drugs were rife (on a return visit to our mess a couple of their officers confessed to the fact that there were several fatal accidents a year caused by crew members being smashed out of their minds whilst on duty). The USN was not a good organisation in those days, not that the US Army was much better.
Saw her berthed at Greenwich a couple of years ago. Impressive sight.
HMS Ocean, the "Flagship of the Royal Navy", is to be decommissioned after a multi-million pound refit.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed the move would happen in 2018, when HMS Ocean will have "reached the end of her life", despite no mention of it in Monday's Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The Devonport-based helicopter carrier and assault ship, which is Britain's biggest warship, underwent a £65m upgrade in 2014.
Another casualty of the ridiculous, bloated Supercarrier vanity project.
Why use a cheap, inexpensive, effective ship like Ocean when you can roll in a hideously expensive Supercarrier.
Grossadmiral Dairnitz hat gesprochen.
.. he cleaned the windows and he swept the floor, and he polished up the handle of the big front door.
I take it your drooling personal attacks reflect the complete paucity of any argument in favour of the Supercarriers.
Because, thanks to the f**king stupid contract Labour negotiated it was going to be as expensive to cancel the useless hulks as to commision them?
That's just not true. The hulks might have been tied in to pay to completion. But there is no requirement to commission them, indeed they could have been sold off on the cheap to India, China, Brazil, perhaps even persuaded NATO to create joint carrier groups.
But no. He EXPANDED the Labour "plan" of one active and one mothballed Supercarrier, with 16 planes, to two active boats with 24 Lightning 2s a piece. A huge commitment which cannot be afforded... unless you cut hugely into our effective military assets like HMS Ocean.
Ocean will be at the end of it's life. How difficult is this to understand?
Amusingly, if Ocean didn't exist now, and someone suggested building it, you'd be in full on rant mode about the ridiculous expense, and 'why can't they build a dozen littoral patrol ships with the money'.
Ocean was launched in 1998, it is a relative young RN vessel and given its "class of it's own" status, and lack of effective replacement, could have continued to be deployed for another 20 years at least.
At decommissioning, the UK Type 23 Frigate fleet will be at least 30 years old on average, Decommissioning at 20 years is ridiculous.
Unless you believe Tory press releases, 2018 is not the end of Oceans expected life.
In the late 60s I was in Singapore where my dad was in the army. The USS Enterprise came into port for some R&R and we were lucky enough to get a guided tour. It was on a rotation from Nam and fully equipped. It probably had more fighter bombers on it than the RAF had available on an average day. As a weapon system capable of projecting power anywhere in the world it was unmatchable and super carriers remain so to this day which is why the Pacific remains an American lake.
We will have nothing like that but these carriers will give the UK government a range of options in the world's trouble spots that any government in the world other than the US will envy. You can argue about whether this is a good thing or not. But to suggest that this is not a major improvement on what we have right now and have had since our last carriers retired is just silly.
I had a tour of the Enterprise when she put into Hong Kong in the early seventies, not long after the Vietnam war. An absolutely amazing ship but the strongest impression I took away was the state of semi-organised anarchy that ruled below decks. There were areas where officers didn't go, there were areas where white sailors didn't go and drugs were rife (on a return visit to our mess a couple of their officers confessed to the fact that there were several fatal accidents a year caused by crew members being smashed out of their minds whilst on duty). The USN was not a good organisation in those days, not that the US Army was much better.
£2 billion to the house-builders to deliver starter homes to be announced tomorrow apparently. Osborne has bet the UK economy on house price growth. Arguably no Government has ever had as much exposure to housing - he is (with starter homes) price setting about a third of the new build market, subsidising a large proportion of mortgages through Help to Buy, holding alot of the mortgages through the banks that the Treasury owns, and Housing Association debt is now nationalised as well. Very very iffy strategy.
£2bn for 10,000 houses is frankly just tinkering. it needs massive funding ideally through banks to the small builders to provide circa 100,000 houses every year from them.
The govt policy is for 200,000 starter homes by 2020 isnt it? where does tinkering with 10,000 fit in?
Eating in the USA can be an absolute joy - lobsters, chowders, fish dishes to die for and mouthwatering steaks the like of which cannot be obtained any where else in the world, you can even get really, really good burgers - but sometimes one has to wonder about the basis of their civilisation.
The food is fantastic.
The basis of civilization is not exactly complicated. One of the things you notice about the South is that the more rural the location the longer the name of the church. I have been to churches where they hold snakes (I didn't partake) and all sorts of healing events.
It's not exactly St Michael in the Meadow in Shepton Mallet.
Eating in the USA can be an absolute joy - lobsters, chowders, fish dishes to die for and mouthwatering steaks the like of which cannot be obtained any where else in the world, you can even get really, really good burgers - but sometimes one has to wonder about the basis of their civilisation.
Mr Llama, really. The basis of their civilization is a deep religiosity (essentially judeo-christian) and the protestant/jewish work ethic. Not much to wonder or ponder there.
Well you know more than I, Mr. T., so I shall take your word for it, but a place where Macaroni Cheese is considered a vegetable? I mean, come on, that has to be indicative of a deep seated problem.
on which candidate Americans think would be the most likely to say something inappropriate at the table and ruin Thanksgiving Dinner. 46% say they think Trump would be the candidate most likely to ruin Thanksgiving, as much as all the rest of the candidates combined. Hillary Clinton at 22%, Bernie Sanders at 7%, Jeb Bush and Ben Carson at 6%, Ted Cruz at 4%, and Marco Rubio at 1% round out the standings on who people think would be most likely to wreck the holiday.
By a 27 point margin Republicans say theyd Cheese thanks to 59/11 support from Democrats and 28/21 from independents.
Genuine I have no doubt, but definitely tongue in cheek and not at all serious. It's Thanksgiving!
Think Panorama and their feature on the spaghetti tree on April 1 many years ago.
Indeed, if you are interested they have further polling on macaroni cheese and cranberry sauce as suitable sides for thanksgiving dinner and more besides
Where I live mac 'n' cheese is a vegetable (it's on the list of sides on every restaurant menu). We're not having it this time. We are having cranberry jelly though. My request was for peas. I haven't had peas in years. My daughter's request is for sweet potatoes. For dessert, what else - universal acclamation for apple pie a la mode.
The other Thanksgiving tradition is Football. For the 36 years I have lived here the 1pm game is always Detroit at home, and the 4.15pm game is always Dallas at home. The NFL Network also now has a game at 8.15pm, but it moves each year. Thursday it's Chicago at Green Bay. Dallas (3-7) favored by 1 over 10-0 Carolina - I still don't believe it.
But of course I'm not a fan.
Sounds like you are all sorted for Thursday!
Absolutely - the food will be great, the football will be great (Detroit and Dallas have done the short week for decades, so they can install a game plan in 2 days, and they get a 10 day break after). I might even wear my Aikman #8 shirt my daughter got my wife and I last Christmas. I returned the favor on her birthday. Or I might wear my E. Smith #22 shirt. There's a clue for you as to who my team is. America's Team.
Eating in the USA can be an absolute joy - lobsters, chowders, fish dishes to die for and mouthwatering steaks the like of which cannot be obtained any where else in the world, you can even get really, really good burgers - but sometimes one has to wonder about the basis of their civilisation.
If you ever braai with Afrikaaners, remember that chicken counts as a vegetable!
Eating in the USA can be an absolute joy - lobsters, chowders, fish dishes to die for and mouthwatering steaks the like of which cannot be obtained any where else in the world, you can even get really, really good burgers - but sometimes one has to wonder about the basis of their civilisation.
Mr Llama, really. The basis of their civilization is a deep religiosity (essentially judeo-christian) and the protestant/jewish work ethic. Not much to wonder or ponder there.
Well you know more than I, Mr. T., so I shall take your word for it, but a place where Macaroni Cheese is considered a vegetable? I mean, come on, that has to be indicative of a deep seated problem.
Mac 'n' Cheese is not like you know it out of the Kraft box. Ditto the potato salad. Home made they are to die for.
Eating in the USA can be an absolute joy - lobsters, chowders, fish dishes to die for and mouthwatering steaks the like of which cannot be obtained any where else in the world, you can even get really, really good burgers - but sometimes one has to wonder about the basis of their civilisation.
Mr Llama, really. The basis of their civilization is a deep religiosity (essentially judeo-christian) and the protestant/jewish work ethic. Not much to wonder or ponder there.
Well you know more than I, Mr. T., so I shall take your word for it, but a place where Macaroni Cheese is considered a vegetable? I mean, come on, that has to be indicative of a deep seated problem.
Isn't tomato ketchup also classed as a vegetable for official US nutrition purposes ?
Saw her berthed at Greenwich a couple of years ago. Impressive sight.
snip
Another casualty of the ridiculous, bloated Supercarrier vanity project.
Why use a cheap, inexpensive, effective ship like Ocean when you can roll in a hideously expensive Supercarrier.
Grossadmiral Dairnitz hat gesprochen.
.. he cleaned the windows and he swept the floor, and he polished up the handle of the big front door.
I take it your drooling personal attacks reflect the complete paucity of any argument in favour of the Supercarriers.
Because, thanks to the f**king stupid contract Labour negotiated it was going to be as expensive to cancel the useless hulks as to commision them?
That's just not true. The hulks might have been tied in to pay to completion. But there is no requirement to commission them, indeed they could have been sold off on the cheap to India, China, Brazil, perhaps even persuaded NATO to create joint carrier groups.
But no. He EXPANDED the Labour "plan" of one active and one mothballed Supercarrier, with 16 planes, to two active boats with 24 Lightning 2s a piece. A huge commitment which cannot be afforded... unless you cut hugely into our effective military assets like HMS Ocean.
Ocean will be at the end of it's life. How difficult is this to understand?
Amusingly, if Ocean didn't exist now, and someone suggested building it, you'd be in full on rant mode about the ridiculous expense, and 'why can't they build a dozen littoral patrol ships with the money'.
Ocean was launched in 1998, it is a relative young RN vessel and given its "class of it's own" status, and lack of effective replacement, could have continued to be deployed for another 20 years at least.
At decommissioning, the UK Type 23 Frigate fleet will be at least 30 years old on average, Decommissioning at 20 years is ridiculous.
Unless you believe Tory press releases, 2018 is not the end of Oceans expected life.
I prefer to believe the word of people who work with it, who say 'at 20 years old, it will be knackered'.
Meanwhile, we look forward to the arrival of the carriers. And they're going to be ACE.
on which candidate Americans think would be the most likely to say something inappropriate at the table and ruin Thanksgiving Dinner. 46% say they think Trump would be the candidate most likely to ruin Thanksgiving, as much as all the rest of the candidates combined. Hillary Clinton at 22%, Bernie Sanders at 7%, Jeb Bush and Ben Carson at 6%, Ted Cruz at 4%, and Marco Rubio at 1% round out the standings on who people think would be most likely to wreck the holiday.
By a 27 point margin Republicans say theyd Cheese thanks to 59/11 support from Democrats and 28/21 from independents.
Genuine I have no doubt, but definitely tongue in cheek and not at all serious. It's Thanksgiving!
Think Panorama and their feature on the spaghetti tree on April 1 many years ago.
Indeed, if you are interested they have further polling on macaroni cheese and cranberry sauce as suitable sides for thanksgiving dinner and more besides
Where I live mac 'n' cheese is a vegetable (it's on the list of sides on every restaurant menu). We're not having it this time. We are having cranberry jelly though. My request was for peas. I haven't had peas in years. My daughter's request is for sweet potatoes. For dessert, what else - universal acclamation for apple pie a la mode.
The other Thanksgiving tradition is Football. For the 36 years I have lived here the 1pm game is always Detroit at home, and the 4.15pm game is always Dallas at home. The NFL Network also now has a game at 8.15pm, but it moves each year. Thursday it's Chicago at Green Bay. Dallas (3-7) favored by 1 over 10-0 Carolina - I still don't believe it.
But of course I'm not a fan.
Sounds like you are all sorted for Thursday!
Absolutely - the food will be great, the football will be great (Detroit and Dallas have done the short week for decades, so they can install a game plan in 2 days, and they get a 10 day break after). I might even wear my Aikman #8 shirt my daughter got my wife and I last Christmas. I returned the favor on her birthday. Or I might wear my E. Smith #22 shirt. There's a clue for you as to who my team is. America's Team.
Eating in the USA can be an absolute joy - lobsters, chowders, fish dishes to die for and mouthwatering steaks the like of which cannot be obtained any where else in the world, you can even get really, really good burgers - but sometimes one has to wonder about the basis of their civilisation.
Mr Llama, really. The basis of their civilization is a deep religiosity (essentially judeo-christian) and the protestant/jewish work ethic. Not much to wonder or ponder there.
Well you know more than I, Mr. T., so I shall take your word for it, but a place where Macaroni Cheese is considered a vegetable? I mean, come on, that has to be indicative of a deep seated problem.
Isn't tomato ketchup also classed as a vegetable for official US nutrition purposes ?
I have heard that before but cannot confirm or deny the fact. Has to be Heinz or Hunt's though for me.
In the late 60s I was in Singapore where my dad was in the army. The USS Enterprise came into port for some R&R and we were lucky enough to get a guided tour. It was on a rotation from Nam and fully equipped. It probably had more fighter bombers on it than the RAF had available on an average day. As a weapon system capable of projecting power anywhere in the world it was unmatchable and super carriers remain so to this day which is why the Pacific remains an American lake.
We will have nothing like that but these carriers will give the UK government a range of options in the world's trouble spots that any government in the world other than the US will envy. You can argue about whether this is a good thing or not. But to suggest that this is not a major improvement on what we have right now and have had since our last carriers retired is just silly.
This "American Lake", is this the same "American Lake" that China is currently dominating to the extent that it is taking over Japanese territory with absolutely no repercussion?
It sounds like a Chinese lake.
And the Chinese have a total of ZERO Supercarriers.
In the late 60s I was in Singapore where my dad was in the army. The USS Enterprise came into port for some R&R and we were lucky enough to get a guided tour. It was on a rotation from Nam and fully equipped. It probably had more fighter bombers on it than the RAF had available on an average day. As a weapon system capable of projecting power anywhere in the world it was unmatchable and super carriers remain so to this day which is why the Pacific remains an American lake.
We will have nothing like that but these carriers will give the UK government a range of options in the world's trouble spots that any government in the world other than the US will envy. You can argue about whether this is a good thing or not. But to suggest that this is not a major improvement on what we have right now and have had since our last carriers retired is just silly.
This "American Lake", is this the same "American Lake" that China is currently dominating to the extent that it is taking over Japanese territory with absolutely no repercussion?
It sounds like a Chinese lake.
And the Chinese have a total of ZERO Supercarriers.
They are also building man made islands off the coasts of the Philippines and Vietnam.
In the late 60s I was in Singapore where my dad was in the army. The USS Enterprise came into port for some R&R and we were lucky enough to get a guided tour. It was on a rotation from Nam and fully equipped. It probably had more fighter bombers on it than the RAF had available on an average day. As a weapon system capable of projecting power anywhere in the world it was unmatchable and super carriers remain so to this day which is why the Pacific remains an American lake.
We will have nothing like that but these carriers will give the UK government a range of options in the world's trouble spots that any government in the world other than the US will envy. You can argue about whether this is a good thing or not. But to suggest that this is not a major improvement on what we have right now and have had since our last carriers retired is just silly.
This "American Lake", is this the same "American Lake" that China is currently dominating to the extent that it is taking over Japanese territory with absolutely no repercussion?
It sounds like a Chinese lake.
And the Chinese have a total of ZERO Supercarriers.
I think you are confusing the South China Sea with the Pacific Ocean........
Comments
They are shocked. SHOCKED. That the defence review involves spending money on, you know, defence stuff.
What about health, education and handouts, they say.
Absolutely hilarious.
Labour at 20% in 2020?
So even after a disastrous electoral performance they would be the official opposition, all on UNS of course.
Same reason no one of sound mind would buy an old US ship. Plus they're nuclear, which the RN don't want, since there are restrictions on where they can tie up. And there are weight and balancing limitations. The new CVF's will have generators sited in much better areas relative to the architecture of the vessel, which are then cabled up to the propulsion units in the bowels of the ships.
A Nimitz would never fit into the dock at Portsmouth. If you ever get the chance, go and watch when one of the new vessels does move into its berth from the Solent. It will be jaw dropping.
There were some imprisoned in WW1 for refusing conscription, and some prisoners taken to France where they would be subject to death threats under military regulations, but most were put in other roles. Some as farm workers some in ambulance units, some as merchant seamen etc.
By the WW2 the rules were better laid out. I was chatting at Church on Sunday to a former Conchie who spent the war in the merchant navy as engineering officer. He was even excused serving on munitions ships, though being on a tanker was no laughing matter.
candidate Americans think would be the most likely to say something inappropriate at the
table and ruin Thanksgiving Dinner. 46% say they think Trump would be the candidate
most likely to ruin Thanksgiving, as much as all the rest of the candidates combined.
Hillary Clinton at 22%, Bernie Sanders at 7%, Jeb Bush and Ben Carson at 6%, Ted Cruz
at 4%, and Marco Rubio at 1% round out the standings on who people think would be
most likely to wreck the holiday.
By a 27 point margin Republicans say they disapprove of
the President's executive order last year pardoning two Thanksgiving turkeys (Macaroni
and Cheese) instead of the customary one. Only 11% of Republicans support the
President's executive order last year to 38% who are opposed- that's a pretty clear sign
that if you put Obama's name on something GOP voters are going to oppose it pretty
much no matter what. Overall there's 35/22 support for the pardon of Macaroni and
Cheese thanks to 59/11 support from Democrats and 28/21 from independents.
(This was a genuine poll apparently!)
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_112315.pdf
In answer to his 5 points:
1. We simply cannot say what British involvement might or might not do to accelerate the defeat of ISIL. It does give the coalition a little more flexibility and a useful missile for harder targets but the only sensible answer is that our contribution is at the margins.
2.It is clearly a British objective that Assad is removed but it is equally clearly not something that is within the gift of the British PM and it is stupid to pretend otherwise.
3. Economic sanctions against people we don't even trade with is frankly silly.
4. It is completely beyond the power of the British PM to promise to rebuild Syria. That is a matter for the Syrians and if that is a precondition we should perhaps see how Daash is getting on in 30 years.
5.To the extent meaning can be given to a phrase like "strengthen community cohesion" the government is already doing it.
A much more realistic approach is to ask: does the existence of Daash and safe territory for them to train and send out terrorists affect our safety? If so, do we want to help a coalition which might prevent that? If we take part in such a coalition will we be better listened to in working out what comes next?
As the answer to all 3 of these questions is yes we should get on with it.
Or we could place the metaphor as just because my friends go to the pub doesn't mean I have to.
Surely you've worked that out HL.
From the magic money tree of course.
Borrow and bribe
Borrow and bribe
Borrow and bribe
Borrow and bribe
Borrow and bribe
Borrow and bribe
Borrow and bribe
Repeat half a TRILLION times
and then keep going
Borrow and bribe
Borrow and bribe
Borrow and bribe
Borrow and bribe
Borrow and bribe
Think Panorama and their feature on the spaghetti tree on April 1 many years ago.
And with Mr USA, Mr Iran , Mr France, Mr Saudi Arabia, Mr Israel, Mr Iraq all in the pub is it really a party we want to join.
And before anybody gets excited yes I did see the monocled mutineer
As to dry dock - pretty sure not.
The American carriers are constrained by the docks as well - in fact the hull form is compromised from a pure "speed" form (wider) to have the displacement on a shorter hull.
Instead Osborne prefers to run economic policy as he sees political requirements demand. Either at a macro political level or at an internal Conservative level ie cutting the budgets of potential Conservative opponents and increasing them of Conservative allies.
Overseas Aid
Subsidising house prices
Triple lock pensions
Public sector fatcats
OBR
would do for a start.
COST OF TWO BRAND NEW QE-CLASS CARRIERS
=======================================
* The current projected cost of the two QE-class aircraft carriers is 6.2billion, so when they're both off the blocks in 2020 and fitted out, we'll be looking at 8billion. Say £4billion each
* We crew it with approx 650 sailors at £25Kpa, that's salary cost of £16million per year
* We can't use F/A18's (no catapults), so let's get STOVL F35Bs, they're about £70million each, so 50 of them is £3.5billion
* So if we ignore fuel, food, missiles, etc, that's about 7.5billion down and oeprating costs of 16million per year
* If we get two, that's 15billion down and operating costs of 30million per year.
* Over 20 years, that's a total cost (ignoring net present value) of 15billion+20x30million, say 15.6 billion. so that's a total cost over 20 years of £15.6billion
COST OF TWO SECOND HAND NIMITZ CARRIERS
=======================================
* The scrap value of a US nuclear aircraft carrier is one cent[1]. This is not a joke. They don't have a way of decommissioning nuclear safely, so they tie them up and wait for somebody else to solve it.
* So, we take a second-hand Nimitz-class carrier for one cent. We crew it with approx 5K sailors at £25Kpa, that's salary cost of £125million pa.
* A F/A18 Super-Hornet is about £40mill new, so call it £20mill second-hand. Let's get 50 of them, so that's £1billion worth of aircraft
* So if we ignore fuel, food, missiles, etc, that's about 1billion down and oprating costs of 125million per year
* If we get two, that's 2billion down and operating costs of 250million per year.
* Over 20 years, that's a total cost (ignoring net present value) of 2billion+20x250million, say 7 billion
* Since they're nuclear, we'll also have to spend about £2billion decommissioning them, so that's a total cost over 20 years of £9billion
COMPARISON OVER 20 YEARS
========================
* TWO SECOND-HAND NIMITZES WITH 50 F/A18S EACH: 9 BILLION GBP
* TWO BRAND-NEW QUEEN ELIZABETHS WITH 50 F35Bs EACH: 15.6 BILLION GBP
I'd've gone for the two Nimitzes. YMMV.
[1] https://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Old-Aircraft-Carrier-Sold-For-A-Penny-11-7-2013.asp
But no. He EXPANDED the Labour "plan" of one active and one mothballed Supercarrier, with 16 planes, to two active boats with 24 Lightning 2s a piece. A huge commitment which cannot be afforded... unless you cut hugely into our effective military assets like HMS Ocean.
Second hand ones are turkeys. Ditto knackered out Hornets with 1000's of flying hours on the clock.
So I would say that Osborne has been an economic Chancellor rather than a reforming one simply because the economic situation he inherited and had to deal with took all of his attention.
In relation to things like this latest housing scheme no one denies that this is one of the top problems facing the UK. Just because he cannot do enough to fix it does not mean he should do nothing at all.
Amusingly, if Ocean didn't exist now, and someone suggested building it, you'd be in full on rant mode about the ridiculous expense, and 'why can't they build a dozen littoral patrol ships with the money'.
And the stereotype image of a French person is a bloke in a beret with onions around his neck.
Seriously has France ever had a female head of state ?
They had a very mediocre female PM briefly in the 1990s as I remember.
The other Thanksgiving tradition is Football. For the 36 years I have lived here the 1pm game is always Detroit at home, and the 4.15pm game is always Dallas at home. The NFL Network also now has a game at 8.15pm, but it moves each year. Thursday it's Chicago at Green Bay. Dallas (3-7) favored by 1 over 10-0 Carolina - I still don't believe it.
But of course I'm not a fan.
Actually, I was surprised the gap was only 6 billion: I'd forgotten the huge difference in complements
They are indefensible weapons platforms which are very no more effective than a boat like HMS Ocean in real world applications.
To be remotely effective, they require permanent accompaniment by two Type 45 destroyers, three type 26 Frigates and two Astute Class Submarines which ties up almost the ENTIRE capital inventory of the Royal Navy in two carrier groups which do NOTHING to defend the United Kingdom.
There is nothing "potent" about a Supercarrier, which is why Russia and China do not have them and have very limited plans to even consider them for the future. Supercarriers are a dead duck weapon system, completely outdated and with little practical application.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/natalie-mcgarry-suspended-after-resigning-snp-whip-1-3957290
Which is why his proclaimed 'March of the Makers' has been a march in reverse, borrowing is way beyond his predictions, productivity has been stagnant and the UK current account defiit is at record levels.
Still house prices are up. Even if home ownership is down. Those two facts are connected.
And I'm sure we're all amazed to discover that you're so impressed by Osborne.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us by how many hundreds of billions need Osborne exceed his borrowing predictions before you stop declaring that he has 'exceptional skill' ?
Eating in the USA can be an absolute joy - lobsters, chowders, fish dishes to die for and mouthwatering steaks the like of which cannot be obtained any where else in the world, you can even get really, really good burgers - but sometimes one has to wonder about the basis of their civilisation.
We will have nothing like that but these carriers will give the UK government a range of options in the world's trouble spots that any government in the world other than the US will envy. You can argue about whether this is a good thing or not. But to suggest that this is not a major improvement on what we have right now and have had since our last carriers retired is just silly.
This guy's odds is at 40+% on Betfair:
https://twitter.com/bterris/status/669260849471590400
This guy is at 20+%:
https://twitter.com/wpjenna/status/669293518616141824
The QE2's are not 'super carriers'
They do not have nuclear power plants they do not have angled flight decks they do not have any catapults (let alone 4), they do not have 4 propeller shafts and they do not displace 100,000 tonnes. Nor do they have anything like a compliment of over 4000 sailors or the capacity to carry and fly off 90 conventional jets.
Also they do not cost $10.5 billion (£7bn) . Nor has $5bn been spent on their research and development.
They in fact cost left than half that - which makes them less than half a supercarrier.
Of course I'm still not a fan.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
At decommissioning, the UK Type 23 Frigate fleet will be at least 30 years old on average, Decommissioning at 20 years is ridiculous.
Unless you believe Tory press releases, 2018 is not the end of Oceans expected life.
Or failing organisations in general.
The basis of civilization is not exactly complicated. One of the things you notice about the South is that the more rural the location the longer the name of the church. I have been to churches where they hold snakes (I didn't partake) and all sorts of healing events.
It's not exactly St Michael in the Meadow in Shepton Mallet.
Meanwhile, we look forward to the arrival of the carriers. And they're going to be ACE.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/34908237
It sounds like a Chinese lake.
And the Chinese have a total of ZERO Supercarriers.
At this rate, by the end of this parliament they would lose 20 MPs.
Interesting analysis of the Russian jet shoot down
What are the Super Carriers doing ?
Lab & UKIP: 12,500
Con: 2,000
LD: 1,000
Greens: 500
Loony: 100
Total votes: c. 28,600
Electorate: c.72,500
Turnout: 39-40%