Aircrew have commenced the flying phase of training to fly the Poseidon MRA Mk1 (P-8A), the UK’s new maritime patrol aircraft.
The RAF say in a release that Pilots, Weapons System Officers and Weapons Systems Operators have entered the simulator and flying phase of their six-month course.
The personnel, from CXX Squadron at RAF Lossiemouth, are being trained by a mix of US Navy and RAF P-8A ‘seedcorn’ one-way exchange instructors on a course which covers a substantial range of topics. This includes being trained to fly at medium and low level over the sea, so that the mission crew can train in Anti-Submarine Warfare and Anti-Surface Warfare.
“In parallel to the training activity, aircraft production is continuing. In January the auxiliary fuel tanks were completed by Marshall Aerospace & Defence Group in Cambridge and the keel of the first UK P-8 was laid in Witchita, Kansas. Assembly of the aircraft then commenced in February with the fuselage competed at the end of March. Once complete the fuselage of the first UK Poseidon was taken by train some 2000 miles to the Boeing Plant at Renton, Seattle where assembly will be completed. The aircraft is expected to conduct its first flight this summer.”
The Poseidon is based on the Boeing 737-800NG aircraft, the supply chain for which is already supported by UK industry, providing several hundred direct UK jobs. UK manufacturers also provide specialist sub-systems for the P-8A, for example Marshalls (auxiliary fuel tanks), Martin Baker (crew seats), GE (Weapon Pylons) and GKN Aerospace (windshields).
Would be good if the RAF could raid the back of the sofa to buy an extra 2 to 3 P-8, to bring the total to 11 or 12. Not holding my breath though.
Foreign aid budget, just saying…
As oppose to making corporations that make billions pay their fair share in tax, as oppose to making billionaires pay more tax, as oppose to making billionaires that have tons of empty property worth millions in London pay more tax, as oppose to looking at the richest 1% that own half the worlds wealth.
As oppose to looking at the richest 1000 people in the UK, who were already filthy rich, who have increased their wealth by £274 billion in the last 5 years, which is over four years worth of our annual defense budget, and asking them for a bit back
Lets take rice out the starving African kids mouths instead, just saying.
And The Internationale Unites the Human Race – aye right!
Is there something in what I said you disagree with Bill? Which part?
Just that you seem to have stumbled into the wrong blog mate the CPGB is over there amongst the gulag archipelico.
I’m totally lost with you Bill, are you agreeing or disagreeing with my comment, I’m struggling to see a counter argument or telling me I’m wrong in any way.
I have been commenting on this blog for ages are you telling me this blog supports wealth inequality and tax avoidance/evasion?
I am not surprised that you seem lost Mr Survivor as the blog is The UK Defence Journal. A site examining military capability in terms of equipment, training and operations. Not somewhere you would normally expect to finfd floppy haired revolutionaries espousing morally and intellectually bankrupt plans for class struggle. We ran the experiment on that it’s called the 20th century and there are over a 100 million ghosts who can affirm it brings nothing but pain and misery. We have advanced considerably since the 1840s! Now can we get back to military capability?
“A site examining military capability in terms of equipment, training and operations.”
Are you new here? at the top of the page there is a section called “analysis” there is all sorts in there mate that has naff all to do with that, Chinese debt traps, geopolitics, all sorts Bill check it out it’s great.
Politics, Brexit, the state of the country, those subjects have been debated on here for years, some a whole lot more than others, so instead of trying to shut down open debate, try doing what Daniele, Lee and Chris have done and point out things in a counter argument.
What is strange sole is that you are very happy to point out the poor and so called oppressed in this country but then you go out of your way to support regimes like Russia and china who actully do oppress its people through freedom of speach ect ect.
What? when the hell have I ever supported the regimes of Russia and China?
Find it, copy and paste it and show it to me
What ??? I merely pointed out you were pedalling a false analysis based on a morally and intellectually bankrupt set of premises. Now you go go off on a self indulgent tangent,that has nothing to do with your original contention. Becoming ‘triggered ‘ at having your less than convincing economic views challenged is hardly the basis of a productive debate. However a tip from a Nobel Laureate may help in your future ventures into a subject that you clearly struggle with. ‘ The curious task of Economics is to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design.’
You never “merely pointed” out anything Bill, you mustered up two sentences talking about socialist anthems, communists and gulags, your responses were actually quite pathetic.
“Becoming ‘triggered ‘ at having your less than convincing economic views challenged”
You have not challenged a single thing I said, I invited you to but you don’t seem to be willing to do it for some reason.
The only person “triggered” here is you, anyone reading this exchange will see that Bill that’s for sure.
Mr Survivor here is another tip, if you start from a false premise anything that flows from it cannot be valid. Get the point? Maybe not. You obviously think this view is ‘pathetic’, ‘ less than convincing’, and that I am struggling from a lack of economic understanding which somewhat more than ironic. It appears like many new under graduates you seem to be clinging to a version of the Nirvana Fallacy, however unlike them you don’t yet have a way to escape it. Finally in common with so many people determined to have the last word it’s rather odd that you chose it with so little care.
Morning Sole.
You are, of course, correct.
A balance is needed though, as taxing the rich til the pips squeak means they up sticks and leave, leaving the UK a nation of peasants.
Yes you have to be careful as too much taxing will lead to no tax at all. More needs to be done but it needs to be well thought out.
Afternoon Daniele and Lee, Yeah I totally agree, reading back on my post it was not the intention to sound a bit “Robin Hood” lol when I say fair share and more, I mean just pay what you owe, does not mean raise all taxes, the only tax I would raise would be corporation tax slightly, so it’s on a par with Europe.
But that’s besides the point, you cannot get an exact figure but a quick look and it looks as though anywhere between £30 billion and £40 billion is uncollected each year in tax, and it’s always thought that it is more because that is all HMRC can estimate, it is undoubtedly higher, so let’s say what £50 billion? probably more but that’s practically our annual defence budget in uncollected tax each year, and that’s why I bring it up, why attack a £13 billion budget that is proven to grow the economy and grows trade, as well as being a contributing factor in the soft power index, when we our five times that every year, money that should be going into the coffers.
If you raise corporation tax so it’s on par with Europe then why would a company set up in the UK. I’d head to Germany and reap the 35% productivity improvement. Until there’s a global socialist revolution all raising tax will do is drive large companies overseas and hit the small to medium companies who can’t move. Labour will raise taxes but it unlikely the defence budget will see any of it. My bet is more gets lumped into the 2% essentially reducing the defence spending is real terms.
“Slashing corporation tax rates will cost the public finances £6.2bn per year, HMRC has said, despite government claims that the giveaway will increase revenues.
The UK already has one of the lowest tax rates on company profits in the world at 19 per cent but it will fall a further 2 per cent by next year under a policy introduced by George Osborne in 2015 and backed last year by Philip Hammond.
Each percentage point drop will cost the public purse £3.1bn a year in lower tax receipts, according to HMRC’s latest forecast; more than the £2.8bn it predicted last year.”
This is in the Financial Times and the Independent, and the figures are from HMRC.
“Despite cutting the UK corporation tax rate by more than 10% in the past decade, Britain has not seen a significant improvement in growth, says The Wall Street Journal, citing figures from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
“British investment as a share of GDP is actually lower than before 2007 and productivity growth – the ultimate determinant of living standards and where higher investment should leave its mark – averaged 0.6% from 2010 to 2015,” the newspaper reports.
Cutting corporation tax has no conclusive proof that it drives investment and attracts companies.
The only thing that is certain is that it reduces what we receive into HMRC.
It definitely needs a rethink in my opinion.
you said this “If you raise corporation tax so it’s on par with Europe then why would a company set up in the UK”
So did companies not set up in the UK for decades before it was lowered? corporation tax is a factor, but it’s not as important as a well developed country with high HDI, 65m people, good transport network, greatest capital city in the world etc etc, that’s what companies look for as well.
“all raising tax will do is drive large companies overseas”
So where are all the Japanese firms who have to pay 30%? surely when we lowered it we should of seen a mass wave of companies flocking to the UK, it does not work like that mate what you’re saying is a myth.
Have you seen the level of investment in the US since they cut Corporation Tax, its at an all time high. Ireland is another example, companies have setup their due to the low rate of tax.
‘The only thing that is certain is that it reduces what we receive into HMRC.’
So receipts have fallen? Statistics say otherwise, it up 6bn in the past year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/284319/united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts-corporation-tax/
They appear to be rising not falling, good news for the UK I’d say. And more tax is more to spend on social policies, defence and pay off debt.
Your comment that its not just about tax is correct, of course it not. But decades gone by there was never the number of countries competing to attract businesses like there is today. Singapore was not a option decades ago but today its seen and a great capital city, connected and highly educated population. So companies have many choices why mark ourselves down by increasing corporation tax, especially when receipts are rising.
As for Japanese companies or any other companies from outside the UK, well its not just about Tax its about things like transfer pricing (moving profit to other countries).
Japanese companies, specifically Honda for instance has been operating a plant at well below capacity for years. You have to make a profit to be able to tax it and it better to get taxed at 30% on profit than make a loss. There’s also productivity, high productivity in other countries means companies make more profit. Again better to get taxed a higher rate on more profits than a lower rate on less.
As for companies leaving, you already stated UK investment was low so will a Tax increase improve it? Again look at the US how recent tax cuts have lead to increase repatriation of profits and record investment in R&D. Compnies leaving due to high taxes is not a myth it just a theory that’s not tested yet. Problem is it could be a very expensive experiment and one we may never recover from.
I agree with you. However the Aid budget is not only spent on rice for African kids. It is also given to India (who have a space program) and Pakistan (a nuclear power)… While I do not want the aid budget spent on our defence industry I do want it spent on aid for countries that need it rather than countries that could afford to look after their own people.
We do not give foreign aid to the Indian Govt.
Whether we should give the aid that we do or spend it differently is an issue that is a wider one.
@SoleSurvivor – I am with you about people paying their taxes but I am afraid you exaggerate beyond factual reality:
* The highest earning 1% in the UK pay an estimated 28% of all income tax in 2017 / 18.
* That is just 1% less than was paid in 2015 / 16
* The top 50% of earners make up roughly 90% of income tax receipts, slightly more than back in 2000
* During this same period, the percentage of income tax paid by the bottom 50% of earners has fallen from almost 12.6% to just fewer than 10%.
* Households earning the top 10% of incomes pay about 27% in total of most direct and indirect taxes, according to Office of National Statistics (ONS) data
* It is a proven fiscal strategy to avoid reaching a finite point in taxation of higher earners before it becomes viable for them to pay people to move investments elsewhere
* While rich people live in your country they spread their wealth through other taxation in VAT, council Tax, Business Rates, Corporation Tax etc etc. If they leave we lose everything
* There is an adage in business that it is better to have 80% of something than 100% of nothing.
* Wealthy people are by definition mobile as is their wealth. We need to encourage them to live and do business IN the UK not elsewhere.
* Just as you are free to do as you please with your own property so are Billionaires. That is how a free and democratic society works.
So while I understand your wish to hammer the rich as that is your political outlook and while that drives your statements I fear the economic facts are stacked against you.
Personally I would repeal the Foreign Aid Law as it is a nonsense to say we know how much foreign aid we will always need. Some years demand more than others depending on external events. It is always a nonsense to dish out cash to other Governments as most will be salted away in private bank accounts. We should do what the USA does and say ‘if you need something building we will provide the machinery built in the USA and expertise paid in the USA’. (as they did with Marshall Aid).
Of course what happens is that Civil Servants see a surplus in funding and then rush out to waste it to preserve the fiction it is worthwhile. We should increase Defence to 3% by law, use a combination of SOME FA budgets with Defence budgets to build 2 hospital capable ships and operate them as military assets and have the military better trained in disaster relief. And then keep a nominal sum in the Treasury Reserve for Disaster Relief.
I think I have replied a bit to this in my reply to Daniele and Lee Chris, good to hear from you and to get a reply Chris, it’s been a while.
Like I said above it was not the intention to sound Robin Hood and attack the rich, when I say pay more tax, it has more to do with paying what they owe, we all know a lot of the corporations and super rich exploit loopholes etc, but obviously it’s not just them, tax evasion/avoidance is rife through all levels of society, the point I was making is that if we actually collected what is owed, not tax more but just what we are owed, it dwarfs the foreign aid budget, so should that not be more of a target?
It goes beyond party politics for uncollected tax, I was as pleased as anyone when David Cameron called out Jimmy Carr and the likes for tax avoidance.
“So while I understand your wish to hammer the rich as that is your political outlook and while that drives your statements I fear the economic facts are stacked against you.”
In regards to wealth inequality, yes it’s my political outlook that wealth inequality is not only far too high but increasing at an alarming rate, the richest 1% might well pay a good share of all income tax, but I would prefer to live in a society where that was much less, and the lowest 50% pay a bigger share because we are earning more!
But I don’t necessarily agree that all the economic facts are stacked against tax raises, Andrew Neil dissected a minister on tax that was lowered and then we collected more, Andrew Neil said that was called fiscal drag, and it’s been made to look like we are collecting more because the thresholds been changed.
Also there is no sound proof that money saved in not paying tax leads to investments etc, it can also lead to the money saved going to shareholders in dividends.
There is obviously a fine line between too much tax and not enough, should there be law put in place that if tax is lowered to corporations etc there needs to be investment and wage rises?
UK corporation tax is only higher than Lithuania, Hungary and Ireland in the OECD, at 19%, the US, Canada, France, Germany, Japan etc is all 25% plus, looking at that table we do seem out of place third bottom, and are we seeing massive benefits to that?
Yeah I agree about foreign aid, it should not be in law as a percentage, and I would fully support some of it being used for new RFA ships, but i will point out any money “dished out to governments” is in the form of soft loans, a lot of the money out of the Aid budget is actually well spent, and we do see a percentage in every pound spent put back into our economy through trade.
Thank you and yes I am dipping the old toes back in the forum waters ….
All I will add is that when the likes of Google, Starbucks and others can earn £ Bns in the UK and pay less tax than some SMEs then it is more than just a problem in the UK. This is an international problem. And while I have no wish to drag in an EU debate the issue we have is that when Ireland and Luxembourg are allowed to grant companies Tax Residence these companies can charge their own companies in other countries huge ‘licencing’ fees that are then set off against tax in (say) the UK and why they pay less tax in the UK than they should. And when those ‘fees’ are repatriated to Luxembourg they then pay lower tax rates on those inflated profits. Win Win
On your point about lower income families should pay more by being paid more well we have done that by raising the Minimum and now the Living Wages. It is also the case that wages generally have been outstripping inflation by some margin for quite a while. But I believe it is right for a society to remove those lower paid people out of taxation altogether as is now happening. You cannot just tell employers to pay unfair wages or they just up sticks and move to lower wage countries. Its that tipping point I also made about taxing the rich. And while I understand how you see increased tax receipts as some sort of fiddling of the numbers the fact remains the UK is taking in more in tax than it has done for decades. And why we have basically got rid of our fiscal deficit.
I’d suggest the problem is with the “loop holes” that appear, to my untrained eye, to be put there deliberately to allow the rich to get richer.
If you earn £250k a year you can afford an accountant and lawyer to avoid paying anything like the 42% due.
If we can’t reduce foreign aid (it’s dam law 0.7%) then Foreign aid should be spent more on our millitary like the cost of the UK Bahrain based ships and uk base there and buying british products for foreign nations ect. It’s totally the governments choice what we spend on our millitray…we just need a pro British hard power government…. can’t see it anytime soon unfortunately!!
Absolutely , the foreign aid budget is a sham , we give Billions away without ever bothering to ensure the money is spent on what its supposed to be allowing it to fill the pockets of corrupt officials all while civil servant and phoney political elites and those wealthy fuds from the entertainment industry pat themselves on the back for how amazing we are at giving away 0.7% of gdp yet can’t spend enough on cancer drugs and care for the elderly or help for homeless here in our own country. The U.K. governments primary responsibility is for the people of the United Kingdom not the people of Africa Or anywhere else for that matter. If those in power in Sudan Ethiopia Nigeria Kenya Zimbabwe Kenya etc etc etc would rather spend there cash on guns instead of feeding their people then that’s on them it is NOT the fault of nor is it the British governments responsibility So yeah shave a few billion off and spend it on HM armed forces .
Or How about just the basic number that we actually need to fulfil all our tasks and duty’s and it was found that the number was 16…..
Air to air refuelling would be nice with raf tankers with additional refueling capacity or take the system of the raf awacs and refit onto the new aircraft.
Do planes have keels?
Keel beam. Yes!
Spot the Argumentative “Member”.
Falls out with absolutely everyone and asks why.
Another reason not to even bother with this site other than Highlight the Obvious.
The Multi Account holders are doing a Stirling job downvoting all the Previously Popular Posters too. Well Done, As Predicted.
How do you know they were previously popular posters if there was not a voting system then?
I don’t think that the voting buttons add a great deal to the site. What sort of person posts in order to gain likes….Billy no-mates!!!! It is a good example of teenage narcissism! As my old geography teacher used to say….If you’ve got something to say…say it. If you have nothing to say…say it. Or, put up or shut up!
I am reading “Why markets fail” by John Cassidy. In it he recounts an early 1950s experiment at Swarthmore College, by Solomon Asch. A group of male students looked at lines on a card & had to say publicly which ones matched. What was hidden, was that only one student was doing this for real. The others had been told in secret, what results to announce. When the group announced that lines matched, even when they clearly did not, only a quarter of the test subjects would stand against the group to declare the truth. The other three quarters went along with the group, no matter how obvious the group result was wrong.
With that finding, it is just as well we don’t operate a direct democracy. Whatever the frustrations with the political system at the moment, at least the majority of MP’s seem to be acting in a principled manner!
I think it is the blind leading the blind.
My pennyworth on how to get out of this, is another quick referendum, not on in/out, as that was decided in 2016, but on do you want a hard or a soft Brexit? That might break the logjam in Parliament & give the EU a clear idea of what Britain really wants. Putting on my tin hat now. Is there a limit on how many minus points you can clock up on this site? I fear I am about to find out.
Yes John….that is probably true of those that voted in 2016! However, there is a huge number of new voters now; young people who would be able to vote for the first time. As a teacher, I am concerned that the very people that this decision is going to affect, have had no chance to vote on the issue. I am also aware…if my classes are anything to go by, that there is an overwhelming majority amongst them for remain.
I accept your point! I am no fan of referenda. We are a parliamentary democracy….and Parliament is the place for these decisions to be taken. It was only cheap party politics that led to the 2016 referendum. And, given the corrupt nature of the campaigns, the electoral commission should have declared it null & void. I would suggest that as a compromise, an additional referendum could be held for those who reached 18 after June 2016. The results could be added to the votes cast in 2016!
Considering the deep split in the nation, one side or other trying to game a 2nd vote, would only lead to more bitter division.
I see the SNP is calling for another independence vote only 5 years after the previous one. If referenda are not to be constant farce, there needs to be a rule that you have twenty years minimum between referenda asking the same question.
If remainers came out of their bunker for a second, they would see that a quick second referendum asking a related, but different question, on a hard or a soft Brexit, would be in their interests. If remainers join with moderate leavers, then you would get a 60%+ vote for soft Brexit (the Norway option). That would be decisive. If Britain leaves the EU, but stays in the EEA under EFTA rules, we can still be trading easily with the EU. It solves most of the border issues in Northern Ireland. It may placate the Scots, just enough to keep the UK together. Also, we would be shadowing most EU rules/regulations, so that rejoining the EU in future decades would be reasonably simple, should the EU surprise the sceptics & actually reform for the better!
On the finance side, it would be good if we stopped inflating the amount we spend on defence as we currently do by including MoD civil servants’ pension schemes, Whitehall stationery purchases, etc and of course return the CAD to the responsibility of the Treasury. Then if we spent our agreed 2% we probably could buy a lot more.
I also get the feeling that the Treasury’s predeliction for procrastination when it comes to big ticket purchases (not just in defence but across all govt depts) causes increases in overall cost due to delays in orders and spreading orders out over longer periods.
For instance it seems strange that T26 will cost about the same as the troubled T45 programme considering the former is using tried and tested systems and materials (CODLOG, Artisan radar, even the Sonar 2087 is being ripped out of the T23s and transplanted straight into the new hulls) while the latter was incorporating many brand new, cutting edge systems all in a new class of ship (SAMPSON, IEP powerplant, Sylver, etc). While the T26 will be excellent, it seems like it could be built quicker and cheaper but the Treasury would rather spread the work out to spread the cost, but ultimately costing the MoD more and getting less.
The other way to increase the Govt’s budgets for all departments without increasing taxes or taking money from one dept to give to another would be to boost the woefully low productivity of the UK economy, creating economic growth which in turn would generate greater tax yields for the Treasury. But nobody in Parliament (of any party) seems particularly bothered about that.
There is nothing more expensive than HM Treasury saving money.
Speaking of which, has anyone else seen the plan to cut the number of upgraded Challenger 2 to only 148? I fear we will lose this heavy armour, only to need it again in a future conflict/stand-off, then have to pay a fortune to get it back quickly.
Errr…yes, Nimrod!!