| WWW 3 18:15 - Nov 18 with 7768 views | Pippin1970 |
Would it happen or just bluff from all sides ? |  | | |  |
| WWW 3 on 19:42 - Nov 20 with 566 views | bluejacko |
| WWW 3 on 19:05 - Nov 20 by redrickstuhaart |
Have you actually read about the intent behind it? We have ships which were not intended to go to sea again ahead of decomissioning, but which were costing a fortune in maintenance. |
Albion and Bulwark are an own goal admittedly they were in reserve but to cut them before replacement s are in place is anther capability gap. The tankers and T23 were just plain knackered and beyond repair.
Ok on the Chinooks there are replacement s on the way but to cut the Pumas with the replacements not even decided yet is yet another gap rumours of H145 from airbus but they are not medium helicopters! [Post edited 20 Nov 2024 19:45]
| | | |
| WWW 3 on 19:43 - Nov 20 with 566 views | Churchman |
| WWW 3 on 19:05 - Nov 20 by redrickstuhaart |
Have you actually read about the intent behind it? We have ships which were not intended to go to sea again ahead of decomissioning, but which were costing a fortune in maintenance. |
Yes. But as has been pointed out, something however obsolete is better than nothing - as Russia has amply demonstrated using older kit in the last two years. The amounts to mothball any of this kit is negligible compared to a budget of £54bn pa (£500m over 5 years).
What next? Run a few of the remaining warships over a sandbar to make them uneconomic to repair and get them down the breakers?
A review next year? The only certainty is more cuts to come. That’s already been hinted at. What message are we sending Putin and Trump? When all is said and done, Putin has been throwing himself around for years now and our response was to hollow out our armed forces. He will be a happy man tonight.
The new government seem to be continuing the policy of the useless dregs of the last 14 years and hiding behind ‘fixing the foundations’ waffle. It’s not new. We saw all this in the 1930s this is almost a repeat. |  | | |
| WWW 3 on 19:48 - Nov 20 with 534 views | redrickstuhaart |
| WWW 3 on 19:42 - Nov 20 by bluejacko |
Albion and Bulwark are an own goal admittedly they were in reserve but to cut them before replacement s are in place is anther capability gap. The tankers and T23 were just plain knackered and beyond repair.
Ok on the Chinooks there are replacement s on the way but to cut the Pumas with the replacements not even decided yet is yet another gap rumours of H145 from airbus but they are not medium helicopters! [Post edited 20 Nov 2024 19:45]
|
The pumas that are 50 years old?! | | | |
| WWW 3 on 19:48 - Nov 20 with 534 views | jontysnut |
| WWW 3 on 18:53 - Nov 18 by Churchman |
Complete bluff. Putin is a complete coward. He is scared of death which is why he’s happy to see so many others die. He is a bully that likes to smack somebody else in the mouth but rages if they hit back.
There won’t be WW3. His next new masters the Chinese won’t allow it for beginners.
The only threat is to show weakness. Had Britain and France not shown weakness in the 1920s and particularly 1930s, WW2 probably would never have happened (a debate for another time). [Post edited 18 Nov 2024 18:56]
|
China needs to keep selling stuff to the west to keep its own people from getting too lary so probably wouldn't allow a nuclear wasteland in Europe just yet. |  | | |
| WWW 3 on 19:49 - Nov 20 with 530 views | Churchman |
| WWW 3 on 19:48 - Nov 20 by jontysnut |
China needs to keep selling stuff to the west to keep its own people from getting too lary so probably wouldn't allow a nuclear wasteland in Europe just yet. |
And China is the Russian puppet master. You are right of course. One day, assuming these madmen don’t irradiate the world, I can see Russia as a satellite of China as Belarus is to Russia now and Ukraine will be in the not too far distant. [Post edited 20 Nov 2024 19:51]
| | | |
| WWW 3 on 19:56 - Nov 20 with 518 views | bluester |
| WWW 3 on 18:02 - Nov 20 by Churchman |
Attached is an interesting read.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/update-on-defence-capabilities
It’s the usual the tories hid the mess followed by we are going to fix the foundations. Does anyone know what that stupid phrase means? What foundations? How? By demolishing the house? Well, given ships and aircraft are going to the scrapyard and the army is shrinking yet again this year, it must mean cuts and more cuts so yes demolish the house.
The Tories weren’t interested and even their own people said it’s been hollowed out over 14 years. It was a mess long before that too. The current govt clearly are happy with that and see it as a useless spend to be used elsewhere.
Given we now have isolationist Trump in charge in America, parasitic leeching off them may no longer be an option so what’s it to be? Ask that nice Mr Putin to look after us or bury our heads in the sand in denial? Throw out an empty promise bone that we’ll do something about it after yet another time buying review and when there’s lots of spare money available. In other words never.
Also are the government serious about defence? Do they see any threat? The answer is no. They should be at least honest and say so.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2k0292v0w1o
Getting rid of stuff when you have nothing to replace it. Yep, I can see the sense in that - as long as your only objective is budget cuts. [Post edited 20 Nov 2024 18:09]
|
It’s been tough reading this thread and not being able to weigh in. | | | |
| WWW 3 on 19:59 - Nov 20 with 508 views | Churchman |
| WWW 3 on 19:56 - Nov 20 by bluester |
It’s been tough reading this thread and not being able to weigh in. |
Just a view on what’s been announced today allied to my lack of faith in politicians. | | | |
| WWW 3 (n/t) on 20:03 - Nov 20 with 504 views | bluester |
| WWW 3 on 19:59 - Nov 20 by Churchman |
Just a view on what’s been announced today allied to my lack of faith in politicians. |
[Post edited 20 Nov 2024 20:54]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| WWW 3 on 20:05 - Nov 20 with 494 views | bluejacko |
| WWW 3 on 19:48 - Nov 20 by redrickstuhaart |
The pumas that are 50 years old?! |
They are but this will leave us at least 17 airframes short and the only reason they are going is because the govt didn’t want to renew the maintenance contract. Did all of them need to be cut at once? | | | |
| WWW 3 on 20:06 - Nov 20 with 491 views | redrickstuhaart |
| WWW 3 on 20:05 - Nov 20 by bluejacko |
They are but this will leave us at least 17 airframes short and the only reason they are going is because the govt didn’t want to renew the maintenance contract. Did all of them need to be cut at once? |
Are we realistically going to use 50 year old helicopters, or is it better to have the cash for what comes next? | | | |
| WWW 3 on 20:26 - Nov 20 with 467 views | bluejacko |
| WWW 3 on 20:06 - Nov 20 by redrickstuhaart |
Are we realistically going to use 50 year old helicopters, or is it better to have the cash for what comes next? |
What comes next and when? The bidders for the medium helicopter contract have pulled out because we won’t order enough of them to make it viable! Do you really think that the money saved will go into the replacement pot? All Govts have kicked replacing kit down the road so ships ,aircraft and armour all need replacing at the same time!
UK Defence Journal is a good read for all this stuff if your interested👍 | | | |
| WWW 3 on 20:34 - Nov 20 with 451 views | Churchman |
| WWW 3 on 20:06 - Nov 20 by redrickstuhaart |
Are we realistically going to use 50 year old helicopters, or is it better to have the cash for what comes next? |
Surely using old reliable helicopters instead of nothing does not prevent the procurement of replacements.
In 1938/39 they didn’t scrap all the Gloster Gladiators on the basis that Spitfires and (mostly) Hurricanes would be delivered sometime in the future. One took over from the other. Nor will the ITFC owners demolish the Cobbold stand next May on the basis it’ll be replaced in a few years time.
Lastly, if this review sometime, maybe next year takes place, how do they know some of the kit being chucked in the bin won’t be needed in some way shape or form? | | | |
| WWW 3 on 20:55 - Nov 20 with 422 views | Radlett_blue |
| WWW 3 on 19:43 - Nov 20 by Churchman |
Yes. But as has been pointed out, something however obsolete is better than nothing - as Russia has amply demonstrated using older kit in the last two years. The amounts to mothball any of this kit is negligible compared to a budget of £54bn pa (£500m over 5 years).
What next? Run a few of the remaining warships over a sandbar to make them uneconomic to repair and get them down the breakers?
A review next year? The only certainty is more cuts to come. That’s already been hinted at. What message are we sending Putin and Trump? When all is said and done, Putin has been throwing himself around for years now and our response was to hollow out our armed forces. He will be a happy man tonight.
The new government seem to be continuing the policy of the useless dregs of the last 14 years and hiding behind ‘fixing the foundations’ waffle. It’s not new. We saw all this in the 1930s this is almost a repeat. |
Britain still has the 6th largest defence budget in the world. We spend more each year than either France or Germany, who would be the obvious comparisons. If you increase defence spending, you have to raise taxes or cut something else, while defence spending is relativeley unproductive for economic growth. |  |
| |
| WWW 3 on 20:58 - Nov 20 with 412 views | redrickstuhaart |
| WWW 3 on 20:34 - Nov 20 by Churchman |
Surely using old reliable helicopters instead of nothing does not prevent the procurement of replacements.
In 1938/39 they didn’t scrap all the Gloster Gladiators on the basis that Spitfires and (mostly) Hurricanes would be delivered sometime in the future. One took over from the other. Nor will the ITFC owners demolish the Cobbold stand next May on the basis it’ll be replaced in a few years time.
Lastly, if this review sometime, maybe next year takes place, how do they know some of the kit being chucked in the bin won’t be needed in some way shape or form? |
There are arguments to be had. But both ways. To say, without having done the analysis or sought advice from military chiefs, that the decision is wrong, is not really tenable is it? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
