£35.4m going spare....

The first argument I can appreciate.

 

"Us"?

But you French aren't you?

Doh, silly me, you're not really, are you.




--
Dan L

http://thebikeshed.spaces.live.com/
1996 Kawasaki ZR1100 Zephyr

BOTAFOT #140 (KotL 2005/6/7)
X-FOT#000
DIAABTCOD #26
BOMB#18 (slow)
OMF#11

 

Well, quite, the point I was making is air carriers are nothing to do
with defending the British Isles, they're to do with 'other stuff'.

 

Same has happened in the army and RAF. Huge cuts in capability, many
things being cut with no replacement or to save a few mill here or
there. The Jaguar force, comparatively cheap was due to disband later
this year (but still ahead of its ability to remain in useful
service), cut in May to save literally a couple of million. There's
no replacement in place.

All in the face of the highest level of deployment since WW2. Makes
no sense to me.

 

Indeed. About 10 years "wasted".

It would have been way to expensive with out US involvement and a buy
for the US Marines who have everything predicated on F35.

 

B,B,B,But it's all wroted in some foreign lingo. I tried shouting at
it and even finished each word with an "o", but I couldn't unnerstayned
it, so I jest nutted the screen like.




--
Dan L

http://thebikeshed.spaces.live.com/
1996 Kawasaki ZR1100 Zephyr

BOTAFOT #140 (KotL 2005/6/7)
X-FOT#000
DIAABTCOD #26
BOMB#18 (slow)
OMF#11

 

RN Sea HARriers and RAF Harrier GR3.

 

(The Older Gentleman) wrote in
message

I'm no great fan of the armed forces; view them as a bit of a tool used
to polish politician's egos.

There was something on in the small hours recently looking at the
Thatcher Years. Apparently Callaghan was green with envy that Thatcher
got to win a war.

 

Probably not but that wasn't your question.

Maybe not, but you need to get the politicos to make that decision.
Given that the appetite politically is there to send our forces out,
then they need the best kit possible. Which admittedly would be a sea-
change.

 

To be sure. Force projection.

 

Would it have been that expensive? - especially if we were going to keep
them in service for longer? - or is the Harrier now so outdated that it
would have been useless to keep it in service for another 20 years?

What I don't understand is why, given the size of the new carriers,
we're investing so much money in the STOVL variant of the Lightning II.

I understand the new carriers are designed to take catapults and
arrestors, but they were considered too expensive to implement and
operate? - surely not more expensive than having to develop a new STOVL
jet?

 

That's a point against the politcos, not against the forces though.
But I agree. But given that the politicos send the forces in, whether
to polish their egos or not, then those forces shouldn't be given less
than what they need.

 

Christ yes. You're looking at a wholesale redesign of the whole front
end, cockpit and so on for a buy of maybe 20-30 airframes, plus the
radar as Blue Fox was prtty basic 20 years ago. Plus given the record
of BAe it would have been overbudget and late.

The SHAR could have stood a few years more service, albeit was was
getting pretty long in the tooth.

Mainly because it's what the US is building so we "have" to go with
that.

 

<sigh> ~I didn't put my point across very well, so it's hardly a
surprise you missed it.

ne'er mind.

 

Oh, right. Just my rose-tinted specs., colouring my view I suppose.

I was in the ATC when I was a teenager - until it was pointed out that
the RAF wouldn't let anyone with glasses fly fast jets. Didn't last long
after that. Totally blew all my ambitions out of the water, it did.

Anyway, it was kit like the Harrier that attracted me to the idea.

 

Geordie or Scouse?

 

That may well be, if we're talking about the ones carried on UK subs.

 

Crap sight put my young piloting ambitions back as well. I did join
up though - where I first met that SD....

 

Hmm. We spend far too much money on this sort of nonsense and far too
little on things that matter; e.g. education.

If I'm going to bitch and moan about something around 'defense' it'll be
around the governments use of it and not lobbying them to throw more
money at it.

 

Eh? I've not expressed any contempt anywhere in this thread. "I'm no
great fan of the armed forces" is not 'contempt'.