A former Commander of the Falklands Task Group and the former Captain of HMS Fearless have urged the Government not to scrap the Albion class assault ships.

In a report to the House of Commons Select Defence Committee on the future of HMS
Albion, HMS Bulwark and Royal Marine capabilities, Commodore M. C. Clapp CB, Commander Falklands Amphibious Task Group in 1982; and Rear Admiral E. S. J. Larken DSO, Captain of HMS Fearless, Falklands 1982, and Assistant Chief of Defence Staff (Overseas) 1988-90 said the following.

“The ALBION Class vessels are essential for the quick and successful completion of an
amphibious operation, an operation that is often described as the most complicated of all
joint operations (see again Annex A). For the UK’s amphibious command and operations
capability, their continued readiness is vital to the UK’s standing and deterrent capability,
including beyond the NATO geographic area, central to the UK’s ability to deter and to
respond to aggression against its interests and legal responsibilities.

Amphibious resources incorporate at-sea ‘poise’, comprising the ability to function as a
deterrent tool, able to operate on a spectrum anywhere between politically-targeted
precision and creating deterrent uncertainty. They are complementary to strike carrier
resources, with which they can operate either closely or loosely and indirectly. All these
characteristics function again on a spectrum – from high- to low-intensity operations. The
ALBION Class are perfectly configured to command, control and facilitate humanitarian
disaster and civil evacuation situations.

Without these amphibious command ships and a capable landing force involving the highly specialised corps of Royal Marines, the UK’s standing amongst World navies in terms of flexible deterrent capability will be diminished and with it the reputation of the UK as a World Power.”

You can read the full thing here.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

313 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul42
Paul42
1 month ago

I understood its been confirmed they are not being scrapped? Albion has been laid up prior to completion of Bulwarks refit?

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul42

Don’t let a little thing like the Secretary for state announcing in parliament that they are not being scrapped to get in the way of a good news story.

Next “ex gulf war general urges the British army not to scrap the challenger tank”.

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

According to the Polish Defence Minister (?) war with Russia is just three years away and even the Germans believe it could be six! That being the case, maybe our American friends have got it right about the UK’s lack of awareness of the threat?

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

Yes but Russia is along way a way from the UK and its navy is a joke. It’s hard for any democratic government to tell the people that they have to go without hospitals, roads or pay more taxes to deal with a threat thousands of miles from home. It’s even harder when that “threat” is from a dilapidated third world power and your plan for facing it is as just a component of the great military alliance in the history of mankind. Poland and the Baltics need to be spending 4% of GDP give their proximity. Germany also needs… Read more »

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Russian cyber and political manipulation is on-going – just read some of the views on here about Russia not being a threat.

Russian submarine forces are rated and again lurk around our shores.

You do seem very glib about Russian forces, Jim.

Meanwhile, you want eg Latvia, pop 1.4m spending 4% of GDP, pray dear, how would they afford that?

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

The Russian Army and Airforce was rated before 2022, I expect much the same from their submarine force if it ever went to combat. Their SSN’s were not that good in the 80’s and they have managed to build a handful of legacy boats since then. Their latest SSK has been in “development” for twenty years and still not at sea. Our ASW capability in Astute, T23, Merlin and P8 is the best in the world and that’s without adding in the US Navy and the rest of NATO. I’m not glib about the Russian’s just realistic, Russia is not… Read more »

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Tosh.

You seriously suggest that 5 Astutes tied up alongside, awaiting taskings, is the best defence in the world?

T23 rotting around their hulls

And Merlin referred to as hangar queen

While the P8 does not have loitering to the extent of the Japanese aircraft and platforms suffering from prohibitive US weapons integration costs

Are the best in the world?

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

Please tell me what platforms are better at ASW in the word then please?

Netking
Netking
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

All great platforms as far as we can tell. How many of them are there?

Jason Hartley
Jason Hartley
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

Exactly

kelvin alderton
kelvin alderton
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

As we know that it’s numbers that ultimately wins wars along with competent command, we no longer have heavy industries or steel manufacturing to support

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

And the logical extension of your argument is that there is no need for US forces in Europe since Washington is 7800 kms from Kyiv and the EU has a population of 450 million with a GDP of $19,5 trillion while the “dilapidated third world power” has a population of 145 million with a GDP of $1.80 trillion. You and Trump agree. The US should use those funds defending Europe on its own borders.

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

The US benefits from its NATO membership and “defending” Europe in other ways. It allows the US to maintain its sole super power status and prevent and equal sized rival in Europe emerging. But those US troops ain’t in Europe to defend America. America is so far away from everyone else and has such a vast military it faces zero conventional threat to its home soil.

Redshift
Redshift
1 month ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

Do not send that argument to Trump it is so much more compelling than anything that he actually says himself!!!

Marked
Marked
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

A war that’s devastating for a significant part of Europe will be devastating for us as well. Perhaps not in the way of seeing cities reduced to rubble, albeit Russian sub launched cruise missiles are a threat we are vulnerable to with no ground based air defence. Europe is our closest business and trading partner, we are intimately tied to them whether people like it or not, what impacts Europe impacts us. To dismiss a Russian threat to Europe as no threat to the UK is naive and people need to be made aware of why it is our problem.

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Marked

Yes I agree, but Europe is massive and has a huge military of its own and a massive industrial base. It’s Republican propaganda that Europe needs America to defend it from Russia which has a fraction of Europes capability. European NATO has a bigger military force in terms of personnel than the USA and significantly more industrial capacity in many areas such as shell production.

Europe also send and sending significantly more aid to Ukraine than the USA.

Marked
Marked
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Europe should not need the US in conventional terms. On that I agree with Trump when he called out freeloaders. Don’t agree with his latest inept way of making the point though which was irresponsible and dangerous.

My original point though was that like it or not, we are in Europe and a European threat is a threat to us, we need to step up and share the responsibility of defending Europe, right now we don’t have a great deal to offer.

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Marked

We have a deployable armoured infantry division to offer as well as independent air assault and amphibious brigades. Is that not enough? How much more do you think we should offer? How much do you think we need to take on Russia? If everyone in NATO offered an equivalent to the UK deployable force that woukd be 20 Divisions. Do you think Russia has the capability to take on 20 Divisions?

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Well listening to the Defence Select Cmtte, you’re the only one who thinks we have a credible UK Armoured Infantry Division.

And we no longer have an Amphibious Brigade and our Air Assualt Brigade is missing enablers.

Subtlety, you like to spread disinformation and discord between the US and European NATO allies.

Who did you serve with again?

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Germany started WW2 with 100 infantry divisions and 6 tank divisions.
Am not convinced 1 is sufficient.

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

We have a deployable armoured infantry division to offer

Haha.

John Stevens
John Stevens
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

I think it’s more like one armoured Brigade could be deployed more easily or in separate armoured groups, as we see in Estonia for example. I guess now we have a smaller sized military concentrating on the high north – Scandinavia, Estonia, Should be the UK’s area of interest when it comes to our contribution to NATO, as we are seeing happening more now. I think it’s where the UK can have more of an effect I would of thought.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Stevens
Jason Hartley
Jason Hartley
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Russia at its closest point is just a fraction over 1000 miles . A fighter with drop tanks could hit London and return with ease..not a good target as you’d not hit anyone British. So they are not too far away . Black jack bombers can fly out into Atlantic and come in from the west and hit any target in western Europe with ease . As for Russia being rubbish I remember reading the Germans in 1941 said the same thing..

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Jason Hartley

Targeting London isn’t such a bad Idea…. It’s a bit of a S&%T hole really.

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Jason Hartley

In 1941 it was not Russia by the Soviet Union, the two are not the same and in the 1940’s the Soviets were a force on the rise. Russia is a rapidly declining low middle income country that lacks almost any manufacturing/ technology base and has significant demographic challenges especially amongst its fighting age population. It’s spent 10 years building a military force and it made it all of 40 miles into the poorest least well defended country in Europe before retreating. It’s activated much if it’s legacy Soviet stores just to hold on to the slither of land in… Read more »

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Jason Hartley

And how effective have those bombers been over Ukraine?? They have been total rubbish. Not even close to achieving air superiority.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Jason Hartley

Check out again the direct distance from the Western border of Kaliningrad to the Norfolk coast. It’s no more than 750 miles, a little less than the distance from Saxa Vord in Shetland to the Lizard in Cornwall.

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

I’ve news for you Jim, Russia will rearm within six years according to the latest estimates and has just implemented a huge budget to rearm. If that isn’t enough to ruin your lunch, Putin is slowly making headway in Ukraine. Anyone who underestimates Russia goes on to regret that line of thinking. Every military vehicle, ship and aircraft in British service is quickly becoming a vital asset as the UK Government fails to grasp the importance of building powerful forces.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

We need to get a move on. I wonder how long we (NATO) could sustain a conventional war with Russia?

Oct 2023
“Western military powers are running out of ammunition to give Ukraine to defend itself against Russia’s full-scale invasion, the UK and Nato have warned.

Adm Rob Bauer, Nato’s most senior military official, told the Warsaw Security Forum that “the bottom of the barrel is now visible”.

Lawmakers paint a dire picture of Britain running out of weapons
https://

defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/03/07/lawmakers-paint-dire-picture-of-britain-running-out-of-weapons/

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

The current’ Wilderness Years’ cloud the UK finds itself in will not improve until we have a new government that can tackle our defences without political distraction. Even then, the Labour Party has never been impressive with defence spending. In short, without a committed US, Europe and the UK will need to face up to the threat. As I currently observe, Germany will need to fill the gap left by retreating US land forces if Trump follows up his threat to NATO to pay or else. Putin intends to build a huge tank fleet with technology developed from lessons learnt… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

👍

Matt
Matt
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

I agree it’s definitely better to have these assets than not have them, it’s been proven too many times in the past that we scrap planes , ships, vehicles only to then need them when they’re no longer available. Example is the Falklands war , we scraped our big carrier ( which would pretty much have brought Argentina to the table in short order without much other intervention! ) and almost sold off the very carriers we actually sent out there only to then desperately need them again. The uk government is far too short sighted and incompetent. We manage… Read more »

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

Rearm with what? They can’t even make engines for vehicles and ships which is the most basic fundamental for an industrial power and they are still looking for microprocessors in dishwashers.

How are they going to take on Poland with that much less all of Europe much less all of NATO.

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

A dangerous perspective Jim.

D.Roberts
D.Roberts
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

The Chinese are supplying all that, Russia is now a wartime economy and their industry reflects that

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  D.Roberts

Absolutely.👍

Jason Hartley
Jason Hartley
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Our NHS is a money pit that seriously needs sorting out . Welfare is £300 billion this year . This needs cutting drastically. If we took just 10% of just that ..no tax increase needed and a properly funded MOD ..just need to sort out the waste and corruption in that too. Anything government is inefficient, corrupt and self important. The NHS has 20 times the staff the. MOD has but it’s efficiency is disgraceful.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Jason Hartley

It is the welfare and social care budgets that are out of control. The level of benefit tax credit fraud is unbelievable. Social care is very expensive and doesn’t deliver very well as it is spread too thinly. Problem is too many people have been made eligible partly as a result of the breakdown of multigenerational care at home. Sons/daughters don’t tend to house parents (houses/flats with no capacity) – vicious circle. The NHS budget is about right but it isn’t properly prioritised into reducing long term expensive needs. Some hard choices need to be made in mo bing spending… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Jason Hartley

Maybe we should cut you John instead!(No, not really) Cutting the NHS & welfare budget will cost lives & cause extensive suffering. Both budgets have been cut brutally over the life of this sociopathic Tory government which rests upon corruption & enriching the few at everybody else’s expense.
What should be cut from the NHS is the highly paid desk jockey jobs for the boys that have proliferated at the cost of clinical staff & the maximal profiteering, minimal delivering private companies draining funds from front line care.

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Jason Hartley

Our NHS is rated as the second most efficient health system in the world by the OECD. We spend about half what the US does as a percentage of GDP on health care, how are you going to cut that, I like my health care, I’ll not be voting for anyone looking to cut it to build and army to guard Germanys boarder.

That vast majority of the benefit bill is pensions and tax credits for families.

If you want to cut pensions I’m all in but somehow I doubt you will get elected.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Agree the NHS is efficient i.e. number and types of treatment per unit cost. Notwithstanding a concerted campaign by the likes of the Daily Telegraph to trash the NHS (so that we sell it off to their US mates), both the public and the NHS are disenchanted with our health service. How much of this disenchantment is justified is hard to say. People have different ideas about to do, but there is pretty wide agreement that the model needs to change. For what its worth my own view is that a couple of sacred cows need to go. One is… Read more »

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Jim, spending is not related to outcome. The US has an insurance based system and recognised as being more expensive. The UK spending is about in line with EU average. The issue is inefficiency. We need one centralised procurement, and set caps on locum – only this week locum doctors were complaining they could not get as many £850 a day shifts as they used to….. The NHS does a good job overall but it’s far from perfect. More money is not the solution for a money pit. It needs a cross political consensus. As a basic example, someone was… Read more »

grizzler
grizzler
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

and if you belive that you will believe anything

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Are you sure it’s the general public or more you, Jim? It’s the general public who will be paying the true cost regardless, in blood. Something the electorate become pretty sensitive to pretty quickly i.e. where their progeny are concerned. There’s no shortage of focus these days, even from our poitical representatives – look at the ‘transformation’ of Cameron. That’s the first sign of changing threat assessment, no matter how reluctant. The rhetoric then ramps up and the prediction timescales shorten from 10-15 to 5-10 & so on ’til 2-5 years, as like as not depending upon how effectively we… Read more »

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 I would agree with you but not now. The UK won’t be paying any cost in a war unless it gets its nose stuck in over Taiwan. There just no major conventional threat any where near the UK. All our wars are discretionary designed to prop up Allie’s and unlike 1939 we are no longer the world’s hegemony with a responsibility to get involved. We can choose our involvement and if NATO is involved there is a massive conventional force able to take on any advasery. If NATO is not involved then why… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Ummm…er…believe this view re Indo-Pacific may be OBE. Japan is on a trajectory to double defense spending.by late 2020s. Taiwanese situation is patently obvious. SK quite concerned by actions of DPRK and PRC. Philippines recently signed an agreement w/ US to increase access to multiple Philippine bases. The genesis and foundation of AUKUS treaty is Australian concern/response to ChiCom expansionism in SCS. Hell, even pacifist Kiwis are interested in participating in Pillar 2 of AUKUS. 🤔

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Hi, Jim. This memo no more than to confirm this was a string of communications that disappeared into the ether mid last month, as you’ll be aware, and evidently appeared again yesterday on my email notifications. Accordingly, I’ll treat as c/old news. Sure 2024 will give plenty of opportunity to revisit the subject… rgs

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

“Yes but Russia is along way a way from the UK”

But its missiles can be here PDQ, they have aircraft buzzing our airspace regularly, submarines skulking around our waters, could deploy mass drones up close & personell etc. Plus they attack us in cyberwarfare regularly.
Besides the defence of Europe, the ex-soviet nations at least, starts in eastern Europe hwere it’s best to deter & stop them. For all that we need stronger forces & to retain the essential means to support & intervene there, plus land troops to re-take territory.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

Dec 29 2023
NATO intercepted Russian military aircraft over 300 times in 2023
“BRUSSELS, Belgium – In 2023, NATO air forces across Europe scrambled well over 300 times to intercept Russian military aircraft approaching Alliance airspace, with most intercepts occurring over the Baltic Sea.

NATO has standing air-policing missions that calls for Allied jets to scramble when there are signs of Russian military planes approaching Allied airspace in unpredictable ways.”

https://

ac.nato.int/archive/2023/NATO_AP_2023

Cripes
Cripes
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

The NATO concept ref mitary spending is that all members should share the costs equally. Thus all are expected to contribute a minimum of 2% of their GDP to defence. That is fair and equitable. We and Trump grumble that only 11 members are meeting that baseline. But another dozen are spending upwards of 1.5% and increasing towards 2%. Your idea that those closer to the likely action should pay more and those furthest from the action, like the UK, should pay less, is a complete non- starter in an alliance . The idea is that we are all in… Read more »

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Cripes

NATO is an alliance not a government, every government needs to make the best provision it can based on its threat environment and not simply expect its Allie’s to come to the rescue. If I was directly bordering a country like Russia I would very much expect to spend more on defence than the bare NATO minimum of 2%. This is exactly what Poland is doing.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Agreed. Putin has frittered his way through what ramshackle forces has had to play with in 2021; his ‘victories’ in Ukraine remind me of Verdun or, further back, Malplaquet. The criminal wasting away of the U.K.’s defences has been reversed but the effects yet to find effect.

The classic mistake to make is to underestimate a potential threat; the other one is to underestimate one’s own country’s powers of response.

Jonno
Jonno
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Dream on Russia will be in Paris for Christmas assuming it starts in August 20xx. Then they will dig in and start executing everyone they dont like. The only way to stop the Russians is to deal them while we have the chance. Patton was right.

The BBC would do us all a favour by showing again their documentary on the Katyn Massacre, till it sinks in, especially to the USA Congress and that ass hole woman. That’s the way the Russians behaved and tried to blame it on the Nazis.

FieldLander
FieldLander
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Enough to keep Trump happy. Not sure what he would do if Putin takes him up on his offer and target Canada!
People are slowly starting to notice the smell of coffee.

DC647
DC647
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

Just look at history we weren’t prepared for WW2 that’s why we got our arses kicked out of Europe then we went crazy building up our stock pile increased aircraft production, ammunition, developing new equipment and wespons. Our politicians only look towards the next 4 years between general elections they go look how much money we’ve saved stuff what happens we might not be government next parliament.

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  DC647

To be fair though Maurice….. Since 1935/6, the UK did actually start a re-arming programme and that gave birth to some pretty important and effective Weapons…. Spitfire, Hurricane, KGV Battleships to name just a few….. These times, We are seeing new capabilities being built at a Glacial rate and just to catch up with decades of neglect…..

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

The civil service even in the 30s were acting against the UK, indeed most politicians were, only Churchill had read any history and had any clue. The spitfire and hurricane would have had fuel injection had it not been for the civil service and the chief scientific adviser who didn’t like it and stopped it’s development. Imagine a spitfire and hurricane not stymied by a carb that either flooded the engine or starved it during turns and had the extra range and performance provided by the better control

Fen Tiger
Fen Tiger
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

Keep positive G on and no problem Nothing to do with turns’, it was a negative G problem alleviated somewhat by Miss Shilling and her mod. to the Carbs.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Fen Tiger

Thanks, but had the civil service not blocked the fuel injection then that problem wouldn’t have happened, we all know injection is also good for more power amd economy, maybe being able to last another half an gour would havr helped the bomber boys

Marked
Marked
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

They had no problem with turns. It was negative g that caused fuel flow to stop, they could not push into a dive with German fighters, they had to roll inverted and pull positive g into a dive.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Marked

To be honest it doesn’t matter if it is turns or something else they had issues that would not have been there if a civil servant hadn’t stopped research we were doing. As i recollect there was also an issue with turns mentioned that was partially cured by some rubber a lady designed but would have to go back to the books to find it again

Joe devine
Joe devine
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

The civil service was only reason we were able to resist, factories were commissioned, aircraft, tanks put into production. Politicians were the issue, to short sited playing party politics not interested in the bigger picture. Not a lot has changed.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

Simply by looking at the evidence.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

That the UKs defence has been cut back and back and back on the advice of civil servants and against the advice of the military or even world events such as the current war.

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

That is absolutely true Frank, yet it was painfully late leading to the good old kitchen knife on a broomstick for the Home Guard as late as 1941 for some units! The current UK defence status is similar to a mill pond, which occasionally stirs but even then is a lethargic affair. In truth, those MPs eager to get UK defences up to par are unable to come up with tangible arguments, which would require changes to the plans as presented a few years ago. The grey suits in the Treasury deem the Ukraine war to be heavy on losses,… Read more »

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

Most politicians are too stupid to even think before opening their mouths. Scholz saying we had boots on the ground was obviously something that is helping the enemy and would have you shot in ww1 or ww2, yet it happened. And then all the American and European politicians lining up to refute any idea of supplying troops to Ukraine after Macrons (sensible) statement also allows putin to plan without fear of our acting. This is as dangerous to us as Trump, they are ALL traitors not just to Ukraine but their own countries as well. WHEN (not if given the… Read more »

Exroyal.
Exroyal.
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

I think you may want to look again at the the history of the aircraft you mentioned. It was Hawker and Vickers that developed those sircraft in the most part without government funding. From memory I think Supermarine got 10k towards the spitfire. Indeed government thinking was very much welded to the Bi Plane. On the first of July 1935 they placed a contract for the Gloucester Gladiator. In 1937 8 Squadrons of Gladiators were declared operational as the air defence for London. We had no effective armoured units and no effective anti tank gun. Our bomber force was woefully… Read more »

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Exroyal.

Thanks… I did look again… there were two different Specifications issued by the Air Ministry, the first led to the Gladiator even though a design that would lead to the Spitfire was submitted, it was not chosen…however, additional funding was given together with encouragement and the design was then reworked and the Prototype Spitfire was first flown in 1936 leading to firm orders shortly after…

The other was won by the Hurricane design…. which first flew in late 1935 and an order for 600 placed in 1936.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Exroyal.

Yes, companies DID develop stuff without direct government orders, in fact often in defiance of government (although no one was able to continue development of fuel injection when the civil servant said no) in those days we had companies with leadership that had at least some nounce and ability to proceed without worrying more about this years bonus than the future of the company, further we didnt stop them exporting and selling products abroad so they could develop things without a government contract.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

Frankly we dont have the armed forces to defend the Isle of White from serious attack any more (though this is not a swipe at the men and women who do their best to serve despite the politicians and civil servants)

Marked
Marked
1 month ago
Reply to  DC647

We were rearming well before the outbreak of ww2. The appeasement talk is exaggerated, the country did not bury its head in the sand like so many claim. Armour, aircraft, ships were all being modernised as quickly as possible without the country being on a total war footing. If that hadn’t been done the battle of Britain would have been fought with biplanes not hurricanes and spitfires.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

I have also heard 10 and 20 years before WW3. Whatever, when will most politicians wake up and initiate rearming?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I agree that our defence industrial base is now slim…and that politicians still have not reacted when major war is likely – even when Grant Shapps says we are in a pre-war situation – and Gen Sanders has been saying similar for 2 years.

The government just seems pleased that it is now spending over £50bn per year on defence, but some is spent on veterans pensions – and there is much waste in procurement and support contracts.

Conscription only happens at the start of a world war, not before.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

…or when Russia invades a Baltic state.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

Interesting divergence of opinion across NATO re perceived threat level/warning period. The UK (HMG and perhaps a majority of UK citizens) are part of a coalition of countries that evidently believe there will be a significant lag time (5-10 yrs.) between a perceived threat and an existential defence crisis. Other countries (Baltics, Poland, Finland, Sweden, and to a lesser extent, France and Germany) have apparently begun to adopt a viewpoint that the warning period could be considerably compressed (5-10 days, weeks or months). The future will prove which group is correct. Believe that public opinion in the US has shifted… Read more »

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

I agree with your assessment of time frames. I believe these are based on peace time calculations. The western industrial capacity has to be placed on a war footing. Not for Putin exactly, but Xi.

And the Democrats need to find a new Presidential candidate fast.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

Yes, there is a Senator from the state of West Virginia, Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat, who seemed to be a rational potential candidate, but has since opted not to participate.

There is a schism developing w/in the Republican Party, which may not be amenable to compromise/resolution. Indeed, a viable third party may form by 2028.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Many thanks. Leadership is very deficient across the entire western world – maybe not Australia.

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

😀😀😀😀😂🤣

Have you seen the Australian government, they make our’s and the US look good.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Blimey!

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

There was a schism in the Republican Party. Trump has obliterated it. Mitch McConnell and the “country club” Republicans have lost. You can’t win a Republican Party Primary in 2024 if you oppose Trump. Why do you think Mitt Romney isn’t running for re-election? Trump takes over the Republican National Committee next month and the last barrier to his total control of the party has been eliminated. If any third party forms it will be a split from the Democrats, not the Republicans. Joe Manchin had as much chance of winning the Presidency as Donald Duck and maybe Donald Duck… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

The Republican Party may indeed become ideologically homogeneous during the next several election cycles. It will also undoubtedly have fewer members.

Moderate, centrist candidates have been disavowed by both major parties, to the detriment of the country.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Indeed I think the problem is the Joe Biden, trump mix is just toxic for the future of the U.S….although I’m not sure what I see happen in your county can be easily fixed…I was having a fascinating discussion with a US citizen a few weeks ago and they informed me that: 1) the US was not a democracy first it was a republic and he was there to defend the republic and not some democracy. 2) democracy was a construct of communism, to try and take over and destroy the republic. no mater how much I pointed out that… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Given a population of 330+/-M, a normal distribution would predict a certain number of +/- 3 sigma cases. 😁

monkey spanker
monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Well they will both be dead/exit politics in the next decade. What will come after them is unknown.
A few interesting reforms of the US process that could make a difference would be funding limits, time limits on campaigning and where and how it can be done. Perhaps that could help create a more level playing field for other parties to come up.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 month ago
Reply to  monkey spanker

One American I met last century thought a single Presidential term – say five years _ would be the best option. But the real problem all over the democratic western world is finding leaders of calibre.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

“Si vis pacem, para bellum.” A truism throughout history since the Roman empire. 🤔😁

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Speak softly and carry a really big stick….or the Roosevelt approach. FDR was probably one of the US greatest Presidents in regards to foreign policy…he may have been a bit more “personality cult” than you would expect in a U.S. president and the whole 3rd and 4th term thing was a bit iffy to be honest…But from an international statesman point of view he was without a peer amongst US presidents, who have on the whole…)apart from some exceptions like Reagan) been poor on foreign policy.. 1) have a serious level of militaryforce that your enemy must take notice of.… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Theodore Roosevelt’s full quote: “I have always been fond of the West African proverb: ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.'” 😁

My personal favorite of the post-war era presidents was Ronald Reagan. Not certain he ever encountered a weapon system that he did not deem to be invaluable, in ever greater quantities. USAF benefited significantly during his presidency. 😊

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Absolutely agree. Significant deterioration in quality of political leadership w/in a single generation. Harbinger of future? 🙄

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

The UK ..is part…🙄

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Not important clearing grammatical mistake in a previous post.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

And I would bet everything I have that the timescale is sub 5 years, that the USA will NOT help the rest of us, or Taiwan etc. either. It will promise everything and let us down just as it did Iraq, Afghanistan and now Ukraine

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Yes all completely true, the next war is not going to to be Russia vs NATO or US and pacific allies against the CCP it’s going to be a rolling conflagration that will involve every anti western power and every western power. We just have to see how WW2 evolved…in reality it was a set of world wide rolling conflicts that started well before 1939 and ended well after 1945….it’s likely that looking back if there is a world war it will be seen as having its genesis possibly around 2014 with Russian aggression in Ukraine or 2008/2010 which was… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Believe this will become the predominant, mainstream account of the path to WW III, whether or not a formal axis alliance is formally and publicly announced and recorded. 🤔

Our forecasts are quite similar, through the initial phases of the conflict. Differ in the hypothesis that it will, almost inevitably, evolve into an unlimited nuclear exchange, as one side gains a conventional warfare advantage and the other side refuses to accept defeat.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Apologies, one too many “formals” included in the post. 🙄

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

I just don’t see WWIII being on the cards now Russia has clearly lost in Ukraine it managed to get 40 miles into a country that barley had an enemy that it surrounded on all sides. If China is stupid enough to go for Taiwan and lucky enough to get it even if The USA does not directly intervene the G7 is going to enact sanctions and probably and oil embargo which would devastate China and stop its ability to make war. They would be facing mass starvation with in a year. Even if the Russians came to their aid… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Please refer to post further down thread re possible outcomes of Orc campaign in UKR.

ChiComs could form a natural resources trading and manufacturing consortium w/ Orcs which requires little/no maritime access.

DPRK covets SK. Mullahs seek to establish hegemony in ME.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Suggest referring to J.R.R. Tolkien’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy, for a complete description/explanation of the term.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Agreed. The New Axis are not so well prepared nor are the Allies as badly prepared as in 1939.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

That’s not really true Barry in reality Germany had a shite level of forces compared to the the allies…the French army alone should have been able to bury the German army…the RN vastly outweighed the tiny German navy…. the German army was mainly equipped with panzer 1 and 2s these were essentially awful armoured fighting vehicles…the French and British had very good armoured fighting vehicles ( with a few flaws) but the panzer 1 was incapable of engaging any other tank ( it was armed with a machine gun and its armour could just about withstand small arms fire)…what that… Read more »

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

The Baltics and Scandinavia are justly concerned that their borders along with Poland are at risk within five years. No matter how much the NATO states talk about increasing military spending, it’s bound to sound hollow in the face of Russian military plans in the same period.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

It is truly unfortunate that the collective NATO response to an unprovoked Russian invasion of UKR has been so anemic. If Mad Vlad, through collective Western malfeasance, is able to secure a partial or total victory in UKR, the public and the political class of each NATO member nation should seriously reevaluate both collective and country specific potential future risk This risk assessment would be especially applicable if the US adopts an isolationist foreign policy. Probable Russian campaigns of aggression against Georgia and Moldova would rapidly follow on from Orc success in UKR. The next dominoes to fall would probably… Read more »

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Is it just human nature not to look for a potential threat or is it a basic instinct, if so, we in the West are collectively not allowing our instincts to rule our hearts.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

Our civil servants and politicians are ready to roll out the red carpet as soon as Putin wants. We have nothing to fight them with, the fact his troops might die of laughter when they see ‘women’ with beards or beer guts larger than mine or just the state of the country in general, the pot holes roads, all major cities where the police parent tread… No, we are safe because not even Putin would want a scum bag country that accepts pies even he wouldn’t dare to try like we left the EU while our government sneaks through EU… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

It’s not just Russia, China is on a timetable to kick of WW3 around 2027..you can pretty much guarantee that if china kicks off an indo pacific war, Russia will use the fact the U.S. is full engaged with another superpower to kick over the can even more in Europe ( if it has subjugated Ukraine) you will probably see the same thing happening with Iran in the Middle East and North Korea….we are not talking about a European war, or a Middle Eastern or indopacifc war we are talking about a conflagration that will consume the world in a… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

In not sure that’s such a good idea, they have nuclear weapons and are run by a nutter. It’s all a bit vexing really, but like to Cold War we have to win in other ways….

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Yes..it’s all a bit of a worry really… Russian nutters to the left of me..American psycho to right….here we are stuck in the middle….🎼🎼

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

totally agree with all of that – except I dont think it is a case of IF with the russians and Ukraine as neither the europeans (including us) nor the USA have managed to supply more than 10% of our collective promises and a tiny fraction of the arms needed by Ukraine despite our boasts of how much bigger our economies are than russias. Worse both europe and the UK continue to cut back our armed forces and let in undocumented unknown males of fighting age from all over the world.

Old Tony
Old Tony
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Otto von Bismarck once said that we should never believe anything until it had been officially denied.

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Old Tony

And the Captain of the Bismark once said…… “Bugger, I thought we were unsinkable”…..

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

Very much the same statement as the Captain of the RMS Titanic…😉

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

It wasn’t Captain Smith, it was the builders.
I believe Smith was instructed to run Titanic at full speed through the night to arrive at destination earlier than planned.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

Apologies to the good ship, crew and Captain. The villains in the saga were presumably as stated.

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Indeed……….. “where’s all that bloody water coming from”

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

And the pilot of an F-35B 😂

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

He was so lucky not to have gone under….. saved by the Parachute snagging apparently….

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

🙏Does TR3/BLK4 include scuba tanks 😆

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul42

The problem is Paul, anything the current government say or pledge is irrelevant, they are only house sitting for Labour for a few months.

The current government can only guarantee they won’t be decommissioned by October!

This question needs to be put to the Labour Shadow cabinet, to get any clue of Albion and Bulwarks immediate future.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

The current government is certainly getting kicked out, introducing EU legislation quietly while we aren’t looking, letting Ukraine down, disarming in the face of clear threat, allowing the poor to be charged for going to work. The problem is labour are just as ridiculous, just as stupid, greedy, corrupt, dishonest, anti British, it’s time people realised the mess of the country our two minutes parties have created in 60 years and voted for someone else. The first party that says it will deport every current politician, councillor, mayor, civil servant and policeman will get my vote and approval

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

I appreciate your sentiments Dave, certainly regarding the two main parties, I’ve long decided to vote Reform in the coming GE, as both Labour and the Tories are just two different shades of Socialism, as far as I can see. Both parties believe in big government, out of control spending, plunging us deeper and deeper into the red, with absolutely no plan to turn it round. Allowing a militant Woke culture to overshadow every level and facet of governance, from Westminster to parish council. A small example…. I live in a small Warwickshire town, last year my parish council decided… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

A common story. No disrespect to Sunak or Starmer but until this country acknowledges the faith that formed it, we will continue to struggle in the weeds. If you deny your parentage you deny your own identity.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Decent guy but more a manager rather than a leader. For what it’s worth I think the armed forces are on a good trajectory. We are starting to hussle. Read today that army recruitment is up; and they seem to finally be deciding on revised orbat and replacement vehicles and artillery. Recent trend for RN also encouraging; T45 missile and engine upgrades, NSM, solid support ships. Scrapping Montrose and Westminster was realistic- no point in flogging a lifex dead horse; just crack on with the new frigates – all will get significant number of Mk41 for FC/ASM, and make sure… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

Just a thought, perhaps there should be a campaign to add a ‘straight’ bar to the queer rainbow flag, that covers 80% of the flag, now that would be properly inclusive…..

Last edited 1 month ago by John Clark
Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul42

If a politician says they won’t be scrapped it means they have already been scrapped

Richard Beedall
Richard Beedall
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul42

True under “current plans”, but that can change overnight. It all comes down to whether Hunt gives the MOD some extra money to cover inflation and a bit more in the budget on 6 March. However all the signs seem positive. The next obstacle is whether a new Labour government elected in the Autumn would reverse any increase to the defence budget. But that also seems unlikely based on their recent public statements. Overall, the RN seems set to hang on to the Albion’s for another 7 to 10 years.

Jim
Jim
1 month ago

What actually diminishes the UK’s reputation is the constant stream of media pundits, ex military chiefs and internet trolls who find every single little fault with the UK and its military capabilities and present it as some form of crisis unique to the UK that some how diminishes us from the “good old days” when everything in the UK military was hunky dory and the UK was a super power. UK forces today are vastly more capable in terms of equipment and professionalism than they have ever been during peace time. The forces are smaller but then we live in… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Spot on!

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I use that on the Cats….

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

Make sure you wash your hands 🙂

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Largest population in Europe, say that one again 🙄

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D

The UK population is projected to over take Germany by mid century and Russia before the end of the century. Everyone in Europe except the UK and France is in a total demographic collapse.

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Mate, You just have to post the link here…..😄

Micki
Micki
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

We need much more millions imported from Africa-middle east, the question is , in 2050 the UK will be a country with European population and customs or an African-Pakistani-Middle east origin population ?

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Micki

Well If Jim is right about the UK having more people than Russia, I’m more worried that we might sink…. 😂

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Micki

Both. Which is part of the problem as not enough integrate.
But, neither Tory or Labour care about that, nor how infrastructure for 50 million can handle 60,70,80 however millions.
Utterly unsustainable.
Look at a map at how small the UK is.
The environment and countryside will be trashed for starters.

Levi Goldsteinberg
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

And that is entirely because we’re importing the third world and replacing our own population with a foreign one. We’ll be minorities in our own country by 2040. Let’s not pretend our demographic picture is so rosey

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago

Given your name, the irony of your comment is superb. Just saying.

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

😂

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago

This country has a problem with mothers and babies. We don’t really want the hard work of raising and educating children. Much easier to send the women out to work and import ready made tax payers – brightest and best only required of course.

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Yes by 2100, the UK population will have expanded from todays 67 million rapidly overtaking Russia’s current 147, because Russians will stop having any more Babies and the UK will be sending out invitation letters to the World……. you just couldn’t make it up….😂

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

Yes according to UN Population projections that’s exactly what will happen.

Mike
Mike
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

I disagree and I have spent the last 43 years at sea. We have become too soft with capablity slipping back evey year. Yes decision making has been poor but only because it has been forced upon the seniors by Governments who do not understand what is required to maintain a glodal outlook or even the ability to defends its people.

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Mike

What do you disagree about? 40 years ago the UK was almost entirely focused on European defence and our power projection capability was seen as a colonial legacy promoting the Thatcher government to scrap the LPD’s which were mediocre and old and get rid of the few light carriers we had which were little use for anything beyond shooting down Soviet Reconnaissance Aircraft in the North Atlantic. We had a lot more ships however we faced a Soviet navy with 300 boats so our navy was tiny by comparison and most of the ships in the fleet including T42 and… Read more »

John
John
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Successive governments keep on asking our military to perform global tasks while only equipping it as a home defence force. The Rivers, OPVs really meant for policing our local fisheries and so on, currently sailing around the world while severely outclassed by everything around them are a good example of this. The navy do as they’re told and quietly get on with it anyway but if things ever go hot, and that’s looking ever more likely, such things are not going to end well for us.

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  John

The Rivers are mostly sailing round the Caribbean, west Africa, the South Pacific and the south Atlantic, what’s outclassing them there? Why woukd we waste Billion pound frigates and destroyers in such postings?

The river B2 have been a great success allowing us to concentrate T23 and T45 close to home or with carrier groups instead of scattering primarily anti submarine frigates in far off locations with no submarines to worry about like we did in the 90’s.

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Of the original 16 T23’s, just how many are available ? and how many T45’s ? and Astute’s ? …… Mate, On Paper stat’s are one thing but reality is something else…. Next time Specsavers have their sale of “Rose Tinted Spectacles” do us a favour and post it on here ….. 😶

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

That’s not the point Frank, the point is how many of Russia’s submarines, frigates and aircraft carriers are available. How many of those can it put in the North Atlantic. That’s the only conceivable conventional threat to the UK and that’s the threat we are scaled to combat. We can do that comfortably on our own today without NATO. In 1989 when we were spending 4% of GDP we could not do that on our own. The Soviet Navy was massive. Russias not the Soviet Union no where near it and it never will be again. Defence spending does not… Read more »

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Ermm, well yes and no mate…… At this time, we have very few assets available at all….. It’s not a good place to inhabit despite the Russians own problems……

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Forty TWO years ago, let’s not quibble, the UK was rolling into the Falklands campaign, which if my memory serves is not in Europe.

Those LPDs and carriers we were the back-bone of the fleet.

Can someone take your keyboard away from you for a day so you can give your head a wobble.

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

I’m David.

Please re-read your posts re. scrapping the Albions.

No one is pretending anything – please don’t try to escape your words.

Your words “40 years ago the UK was almost entirely focused on European defence and our power projection capability was seen as a colonial legacy”

The inaccurate posting you indulge in needs gripping.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

I agree with some of Jim’s point on this one, though remember, our primary role was defending GIUK Gap. Hence the 3 x Invincible class etc However, today yes, naval unit capability is good, but restricted. The Navy has no land attack and we really do not yet have sea based air power with the 2 carriers, not fully deployable, little air capability and embarrassingly little destroyer and frigate cover. We just simply do not have enough. We don’t have deep strike, it’s on its way but not ready now, and 19 escort ships, many of which are alongside is… Read more »

John
John
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

If the government thinks everything is mostly fine then they also think “well there’s no votes in defence, we’re tight on money and all these toys are expensive. Could you go and make some more cuts?”. If it seems the sky is falling in, defence related embarrassment is rife, their foreign friends and enemies are all giggling at them and they can conceivably get the blame for it, it sends the message back “Don’t even think about it. Also, get your wallet out”.

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  John

There will be no further cuts, all political parties agree to 2% NATO funding rules which is pretty much where we are now. The reduction in UK defence spending that’s been ongoing since 1944 as a % of GDP is now over.

Interestingly in the 30’s when we were a super power with defence commitments all over the world we were also spending 2% of GDP.

The post ww2 world was the unusual stand out in British defence spending.

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

By 1939, it was 9% GDP…. because some in power actually understood the emerging threat……

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

Yes funnily enough the year we went into a world war that had been obvious for years defence spending was over 8% of GDP but in 1935 it was around 2%. And we had to police and defend a global empire surrounded by hostile countries and most of our Dominions were spending less than 1% of GDP and our only significant Allie France was some what of a political and economic basket case while the USA barely even had a military and had zero intention of helping anyone much less the British empire. Now we just have to defend a… Read more »

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

OK…….. look mate….. See the thing is/was that back then and unlike now…. There were people who saw the impending and obvious threat and actually took notice…… the 9% of GDP was actually in place at the start of the War….. I do understand your comments mostly though and I do actually see what you try to say but mate…… You just have to be the single most optimistic bloke on this site ATM……. I just hope to God and any other fictitious entity, that you might just be 2% right in your thinking….

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

Correct.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

PPE and Classics develop critical thinking…..oh, wait a minute…..

George Amery
George Amery
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Hi folks hope all is well.
Yes agree Jim with much of your posts on this subject. Main stream media in this country never, well hardly back up our fantastic nation, the likes of the BBC and ITV etc are so quick to do down our country very rarely give all the positives of our excellent military. Yes we do have issues, then again every advanced economies militaries also have similar issues.
Cheers
George

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  George Amery

Yes agree George, we are also unique in being the only western country that has waiting lists in hospitals and whose trains don’t run on the second on super fast high speed rail built for just £10 a mile. Also we are consistently the worst performing economy in the G7 except for years when we are not or even when we are top which some how go un reported. Also when it snows every where else in the world the roads are instantly gritted and airports never close and no other country in the world has ever had a problem… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  George Amery

The BBC has been complicet with HMG, failing to call out the reckless cutting of our forces & the risks that has caused.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

The thing that makes the UK’s reputation so odd is that there isn’t a clear funded strategy.

The budget is tiny once you take pensions and CASD out of it – 1.45% GDP

So if you spend 2.8% GDP you end up with 2.00% GDP conventional spending which is why UK’s defence outputs appear so poor.

It is that simple.

I think 3% defence spending g is now essential to prevent war.

Jim
Jim
1 month ago

Every military on earth accounts for pensions through military spending, every military on earth that has nuclear weapons also accounts for this in its military spending. The UK is the 21st biggest country in the world by population and the 80th by land area yet it has the fourth largest core military budget in the world. So the budget is not tiny actually it’s very large in comparison to others.

The UK also spends much more on equipment and much less on pensions than almost any other military.

Richard XIE
Richard XIE
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

You are so brillant. The opinions are correct and absolutely impressive. Clowns widespread on internet always mislead the public and make them dumb.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Intelligent people calling out false economies, the run down of our forces, foolish policies & mistakes etc are essential for any functional open democracy. It is not diminishing the UK or its armed forces. Running down & diminishing the UK(while spinning/talking up out greatness) is exactly what HMG has done in fact, way OTT, reducing the capacity of the UK to resist aggression & defend all our interests. What most of us have been doing is decrying the reckless, stupid disarmament, military illiterate gapping of essential capabilities that is agaisnt the interests of the UK & the free world at… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

There is an awful lot of truth in that post Jim.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Correct. No other country now or in modern history has ever made a mistake. Only the U.K. Apparently.

Mike
Mike
1 month ago

It is all well and good to want to be able to do Amphibious operations however the UK needs to invest both money and in people. At present the Royal Navy is toothless. A SM survice destroyed due to poor decision making lack of sailors, lack of infrustructer and working boats, the surface navy with old and worn out FF’s DD that in general spend most of their time broken, Carriers which are not full operations and all with too much time alongside requiring expensive contractor to repair. unless there is a fundimental step change at present I doubt the… Read more »

Jacko
Jacko
1 month ago
Reply to  Mike

Is this your opinion or are you a serving member of the RN with first hand knowledge?

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Jacko

Frankly it’s so obviously correct and accurate that your question is irrelevant. We wanted an aircraft carrier for an exercise, both were broken, we have less than 10 mobile ships and those are largely unarmed because the civil service says it is too expensive to have air defence missiles for all the ships. The aircraft carriers don’t even have a full complement of fighter jets. The navy is a joke now, once a proud and good service it now couldn’t muster a working rowing boat and an experienced sailor for a trip down the serpentine

Jacko
Jacko
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

Did you miss POW leaving Portsmouth? I mean 30 days notice cut tot 8/9 days to get her out wasn’t it? Pretty crap performance really! Are you saying every ship that can sail should sail and spend days on end steaming up and down the North Sea just for the sake of it?

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Jacko

Ships don’t need to sail around pointlessly but they should be maintained in a condition where they can sail, at least one carrier should be available, why having just 2 is frankly wrong, given our wealth as a country there is no reason we shouldn’t have 5, maybe it was stupid, short sighted, irresponsible, crazy to get rid of lusty, the ark and invincible, if we had kept them and the harriers we would be able to field some defence. Russia, china, Iran are not playing games and we are sleep walking into being ruled by one of them

Jacko
Jacko
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

Ok,where is HMS POW now,still in harbour? Just because ships are not trolling about doesn’t exactly mean they can’t go to sea does it? I mean you don’t want them swanning about unnecessarily so what do you want? I would have thought by now the invincible ships would be that expensive to maintain now it would cost most of the navies budget.mind you they are giving Victory a make over perhaps we can bring her back.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Jacko

As i recollect fro. The report still sitting in harbour. It’s amusing that the US navy was still operating ww2 ships in the gulf war, the Indians only recently decommissioned Hermes a ww2 aircraft carrier,either we can’t build ships any more or we could have repaired the invincible class, hell it may even have required welding some steel in here or there, just as keeping my classic cars requires steel welded in amd paint applied. Building new is expensive always has been but i guess you are right with the fifth largest economy in the world we can spare no… Read more »

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

criminal to get rid of any of them, or the harriers, or all the old ships we had laid up, even more stupid that we are still considering decommissioning the subs at devonport, I dont really give a shit if they are old we need them, we need them out at sea and I would volunteer happily even if some moron says the reactor might spring a leak in the next 250 years.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

run by civil servants,.

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Mike

Interestingly US navy carriers are not full, The French carrier is not full. Is the UK the only power that has to have a maximum complement of aircraft on a carrier to consider it worthwhile or could you give us the magic required number?

Peter S
Peter S
1 month ago

Arguments rooted in a vanished past. Britain is not a World Power. So to make the case for the retention and replacement of ambitious assault ships, you need to explain why we need them now for our own defence.
Delivering humanitarian aid does not justify any warship.
If they have a deterrent effect, who are they deterring from what?
These sorts of vague nostalgic comments contribute to the depressing narrative of decline and failure. They also distract from the task of focusing our defence expenditure and decisions on ,well, defence.

Rob Young
Rob Young
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S
Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

I agree, the only serious threat near the UK mainland and the one that we carry the principal responsibility for is northern Norway. These ships would likely be vital for that along with the carriers and the royal marines. The loss of Norway in 1940 was a catastrophe for the UK and since then we have always heavily focused our forces on preventing that happening again. The Russians need to get through a dozen European countries first to get anywhere near the UK but in the north its just one small country. That’s the kind of argument that can be… Read more »

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

The Capture of Norway was also not a great help to Germany longer term, too many resources, manpower and money were needed to maintain it’s defence ….. Atlantic Wall and all that.

Peter S
Peter S
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

Sound argument. Pity that retired senior officers couldn’t make it.

Micki
Micki
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

Ok. Better to scrap the armed forces as we don,t need them, are you happy ?

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Micki

I never said scrap the armed forces, I only said that they need to be appropriately scaled in peace time and Russia is an insufficient threat to change the calculation.

2.5% of GDP for core military spending is probably about right as outlined in SDR 98.

Jason Hartley
Jason Hartley
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

If you knew anything about naval ideology then you’d know humanitarian operations are high up in the roles most navies are involved in. Amphibious warfare ships are eminently suitable for this task.. considering our country and territories are all islands do you not think a sea borne humanitarian capability would be a good idea ?

Peter S
Peter S
1 month ago
Reply to  Jason Hartley

Not if paid for out of an overstretched defence budget. Nor if devoted to providing assistance to territories that not only contribute nothing to the cost but actively undermine the UK tax system that pays for it.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Peter S

Britain is a global power by any measure. That is a fact, not a nostalgic notion. I think you assume that to be a world power you need a massive Empire, an enormous population or superpower levels of military might? Well, you don’t.

Frank
Frank
1 month ago

I see Happy hour has started early today !!!

The Carrier Garibaldi is leaving Portsmouth now…. if anyone’s interested…. HMS Warrior Live Cam.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

Bit smaller than the PoW, isn’t she?
And more heavily armed. There’s Sea Sparrow in front of the bridge and Super Rapid 76s all over the place.

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Yes mate, lot’s of defensive equipment on show….. the Camera angle is a bit deceiving… she looked bigger whilst alongside. She’s soon to be decommissioned after 40 plus years and the Trieste will shortly enter service, her weapons load is pretty impressive too but someone on here did say that she might not carry much of it….. QE’s engines were started a day or so ago, so when I saw the Tugs, I thought she might be heading out, on her way to Rosyth but She’s still there. There was a Spanish Frigate off the South Coast and Stirling Castle… Read more »

Jason Hartley
Jason Hartley
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

She might be smaller but she at least doesn’t breakdown and actually has aircraft. She’s a good ship .

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Jason Hartley

I was told she no longer carried Harriers, just a few Helicopters. one Merlin was all I saw though…..

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Jason Hartley

She has a hull sonar, which some of our future frigates won’t even have, a SAM system, much longer ranged Dardo 40mm AA than out phalanx, which currently aren’t even fitted at all to the POW. I think her Harriers are a dedicated naval squadron, rather than being shared/owned by the air force as our F35Bs are. But yes about as small as you can make a modern carrier. 10,000t standard, 13,000t full load. She will be replaced by a 38,000t carrier, Trieste, this year. Also fitted with a hull sonar.(I’m not asking for carruiers to be fitted with ASW… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Frank62
SailorBoy
SailorBoy
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

Only 10,000t! We should ask the Italians how much they cost, harriers on that displacement Is a bargain. All we need to do now is turn the MRSS requirement into an LHA, buy some Protector STOL and we have 6 new light carriers probably for £400m apiece with a couple of 40mm each.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

We should get our barriers back from the yanks and build a load of illustrious class, they worked and worked well

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

“Barriers”…. 🙄

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

Spell corrector on the phone screwed up harrier as you are certainly well aware, if you want to not pick instead of going for a real argument then fine. But the reality is we have the fifth largest economy and a dismally half funded half baked military that is out gunned even by Greece. The russian economy is a fraction of ours and yet they can muster 500 tanks for a single assault in Ukraine, you can argue they aren’t good thanks and I would agree but good or not a shell from them bloody hurts

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

“Nit Pick” 🙄

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

She is more comparable to an Invincible CVS than a QE/POW. Invince had Dart and a hull mounted sonar 2016 (!)

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Better still she could actually get to sea and deploy

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

Well I doubt they would work nowadays. Olympus TM 3 Marine Engines aren’t exactly common these days in fact the only one I know of in the UK is here in Derby in the RR Heritage Collection.
Other than the shaft issues (which will be fixed) the QE are a way more effective, efficient and cost effective design.
They just need MOD to properly fit them out with sufficient F35B, adequate AEW and self defence weaponry.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Yes, those engines will now be rare, same reason the Vulcan no longer flies but rolls Royce built them once and can do so again, they may even be able to build a better engine, or maybe we refit the hull with different propulsion but not now we towed them to Turkey to be destroyed, not even giving that work to the UK taxpayer who was funding it

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Indeed they all came from the same aviation cruiser concept, which seemed to be all the rage in the 1970s.when these heavily armed small limited carriers were designed.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

If the Italians have a brain they I’ll keep her and have both carriers, i don’t know why we seem unable to maintain more than 10 ships at a time, we have naval bases capable of more. Yes so old ships need one of the steel in their hull replaced, what the hell do people expect, some of my old cars need steel replaced and they don’t sit in the sea all day

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

Translation…. “If the Italians have a brain … THEY’LL…. keep her.

Correction…. “and have both carriers”…. They would then have Three not two.

Are you lost mate ?

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

To be honest 3 is clearly better than 2 so even better if they keep the old ones and have more, pity cam moron wasn’t that intelligent

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

Eh the QE’s were ordered by Blair !

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Indeed they were but who scrapped the 3 we had? We could have had 5.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

We could have kept the Harriers, theyare obviously not useless as the Yanks are STILL using them successfully today

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

ah, no reason why not, its quite strong.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
1 month ago
Reply to  Jason Hartley

Well, she carries a few helicopters when on active exercises, if that’s what you mean. Also if you note she is out of port, so therefore working. You won’t hear any stories about broken down Italian carriers in Britain, just like Queen Elizabeth didn’t break down when it visited Italy.

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Jason Hartley

I bet she has broke down at some point in the last 30 years! What do you think? It’s mechanical, shit breaks, it gets fixed sigh!!!!!!!

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Jason Hartley

She will have broken down numerous times during her career. You just won’t have heard about it.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Jason Hartley

She made it all the way to Portsmouth so clearly better than ours

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

We made it all of the way to Japan…

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Once upon a time

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

My rubber dinghy is more heavily armed than both our aircraft carriers combined, in fact if i take my bow and 8 arrows on board it’s more heavily armed than our entire armed forces

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

Can you carry a squardon of F35s in your dingy a? Thats impressive.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I said my dingy can be as well armed as the royal navy, given that we don’t have that many f35s between air force and navy and nothing foe them to carry I can still outgun you as i can piss i to the wind

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

you actually said that your rubber boat with your bow and 8 arrows was…..”more heavily armed than our entire armed forces”…..

How would you like people to comment when presented with this sort of material…… 🤔

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

What I would like is for people to understand that its so damned close to true that it is not a joke, We have two MASSIVE military forces to face up to in the very near future and one we should be facing up to NOW before they actually win in Ukraine. Hot air from europe (including us) and unfulfilled promises have led DIRECTLY to russia winning yet more territory in this last month. The USA is NOT standing by europe, Ukraine or frankly anyone, its history is appalling from failing in Iran, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam to running from Ukraine,… Read more »

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

At one time vied with the Thai carrier as the world’s smallest fixed wing carrier, depending how you measure it. Now I think they are both helicopter carriers, with garibaldi focusing on ASW. The Thai carrier, for a long time viewed more as a Royal Yacht and status symbol, reported started flying drones in 2022.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Small means less of a target but Hermes was considered small and could fly fixed wing jets before the ski jump, the illustrious class flew harriers which carried supersonic issues and shit down supersonic keys in the Falklands. Yes today we might think the harrier is quaint but the US are using them to shoot down Iranian drones by the dozen with reasonably cheap arms

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

Harriers are profoundly limited aircraft, they cannot operate against integrated air defence systems, are very short legged, carry limited munitions, are very challenging to operate and fall out the sky more regularly than any other front line fighter…..they made sea vixens look safe. finally they have no combat record against forth generation fighters…the Falklands was a great victory for the harriers and fleet air air….but that was against 3rd generation fighters at the maximum combat range…who could not really use afterburners and 3rd generation strike aircraft with little air to air combat capabilities…we don’t know how effective an AV-8b would… Read more »

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

And how many did we lose during the Falklands? Oh yeah, none, do they hardly fall out of the sky, sounds like a top gear enthusiast.all fighters have limited range, and all have limited munitions. Yet if you don’t have a runway because some nice enemy has put craters all over yours then limited range and limited munitions taking off from anywhere that’s going is better than nothing. They were created because German bombing of airfields came close to them winning the battle of Britain. Ask the Ukrainians if they would like some harriers, i bet they would, as i… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

Well mate, 235 harries have been lost to accident or combat…that vast majorly to accident and I myself have seen one drop out the sky.. harriers have a profoundly limited range..it’s a major weakness. Combat range was only around 300nmi and only 200nmi for ground attack from a carrier, the combat radius of most modern strike aircraft is around 500-600nmi total weapon load out is 8000lbs an f35B can cart around 18000Ibs of weapon load. as for a Viff it’s not manoeuvre that has been used in actual air to air combat…shedding all your energy is a death sentence. It… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

No plane can operate against integrated air defences without anti radiation missiles and long range missiles.

Harriers have AIM-120 so they can fight.

Btw an USMC Harrier just downed 7 Houthi/Islamic Iran drones.

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

I mean they can fight air to air with AIM-120’s

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I’d say the US operates a sound policy in thoroughly maintaining assets until a capacity is replaced 1/1 by the new iteration, e.g. AV8B for F35. We’re now hearing that another issue affecting the endless delays in forwarding F16 to Ukraine is those otherwise excellent assets need for very well maintained runways. This is why I pondered, some considerable time ago here, the efficacy of using prop-driven ground attack aircraft suitable to austere landing conditions, together with what I envisaged would be numerous pilots familiar with flying such driven craft. This mindset:- a) from personal experience of adapting quickly to… Read more »

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

I don’t buy the whole it’s big therefore more of a target argument. Carriers stay 100 miles off the coast, and at that distance, whether it’s 150m or 300m long barely makes a difference.

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

“The Illustrious class”…. actually they were called “Invincible class”……
“which carried supersonic issues and shit down supersonic keys”

Crying here, simply in pieces 😂😂

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

OK, on a proper keyboard so maybe we wont get the alterations to what I actually typed. You knew the class so that’s fine. The harriers carried supersonic missiles and shot down the supersonic planes the Argentinians used (I know they weren’t all supersonic). We have 48 F35s now we have ordered enough to take that to a total of 74. Each of our carriers can in theory carry 72 of these, so we have enough to equip a SINGLE carrier, we have nothing else that they can use. So when we have to fight russia, china and iran we… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

She was more of an aviation cruiser design that a pure carrier..designed for enclosed waters…she was built with SSMs, torpedoes, Guns ect in-fact she was a surface warship that also had aircraft…very much in the same way as the invincibles were not designed as pure aircraft carriers but were designed as aviation cruisers to act as the flagship of ASW groups in the North Atlantic…which was why they were effectively equipped as well as an AAW destroyer. it’s was very much a thing in the 1970s to design these aviation cruisers…the Russians did the same.the major navies that managed to… Read more »

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Personally I would have thought a carrier that could look after itself is better than one needing a fleet of other ships with it, but whatever it is clear now that war is here, russia, iran and shortly china, it is late but we need to build all branches of the military quickly as it is also apparent that even if trump doesnt win the USA has abandoned everyone else.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

Everything is a compromise in ship design especially carriers..the more space and time you put into non carrier ops the less navel aviation capability you have… a prime example are the Russian carriers…they had huge numbers of ASuW missiles as well as anti air missiles, but from a carrier ops point of view they were some of the worst in the world. the invincible class carried a full sea dart system and magazine..but this did compromise the flying ops..so it was removed to increase aircraft capacity and flying ops. Another really good example were the British carriers vs US carriers… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

There’s Sea Sparrow in front of the bridge and Super Rapid 76s all over the place.

No.
Aspides in front and rear. It is 80’s missile 4 directors so 4 can be guided simultaneously to different targets.
3x Breda 40/L70 doubles. Circa 600 rpm. each mount.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

I was going off the frankly inconvenient camera angles offered by the Portsmouth webcam so not far off, all things considered.
That’s still a pretty beefy fit out for a tiny helicopter carrier.

Micki
Micki
1 month ago

They can give them to Ukraine as a gift, everything is possible.

kelvin alderton
kelvin alderton
1 month ago

Answer me this! The USA have no trouble recruiting sailors, why do we?

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago

Of course they’e absolutely right. It’s military illiteracy to consider cutting them. It’s often almost like HMG wants the UK/Nato to fail & fall. We should be rearming against the Russian & Chinese threat, especially when an out of control lunatic criminal may become Potus soon, taking the US out of the equation on standing up to the authoratarian threat.
If we want UKR to win we may soon have to commit troops & engage Russia within UKR.

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

My personal opinion is that we (Nato) have to get involved if we are to stop Putin in the Ukraine and it has to be soon (before Putin’s mate takes over in the US). We could start with setting up a “safe sea corridor” in the Black sea for ships transiting too and from Ukraine, the next move would be a no fly zone West of the Dnieper river then give Putin 1 month to get out of Ukraine.
It’s time to step up to the plate.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago

Putin’s mates are already in charge in the USA and his bum chum in Hungary is stopping the EU and NATO, his paid lackies in our government and civil service are disarming us, it’s time to kill off your sons and daughters before the russian scum rape them to death in front of you

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

As much as I agree with a lot of what you are saying I would also say we still have time (not a lot) to stand up and stop Putin and at the same time cut out the rot that is affecting the West’s ability to do anything. We could start by making politicians and civil servant’s accountable for their actions and deeds that way I would estimate well over half that are currently running the country would end up in jail for treason.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

The civil service and politicians have been working hard to kill the UK for at least 100 years, scrapped fuel injection prior to ww2, the current disarmament, the stupid idea currently in vogue to scrap security checks so we can have more minorities is one example and then the governments bringing in eu laws despite brexit is anorher

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

😆😆😆

John
John
1 month ago

Reading the comments, why do folk get so triggered? We as a nation, do what we can with what we have got. Always has been, always will be the case. Funny but the 1982 lesson seems to have been forgotten. Industry and the forces adapted so quickly, innovation, speed and flexibility allowed us to retake the islands without help. A one off. If, just if, we ignore propaganda and think logically? The whole of Nato is stacked up against Russia. Thats if they are stupid enough to role into Poland or anywhere. Sheesh, though I was a doom merchant at… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B
1 month ago
Reply to  John

Agreed.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  John

In 1982we still had industry, we had steel mils, aluminium plants, machinery to make things engineers and enough of a navy, army and before to have a starting point, the civil service had been working hard to kill it all but the argues started before Hermes had sailed for her new home, today they have .wages to dismember all of that, if Putin’s mob turned up in London today the aircraft carriers would be being repaired, the destroyers unarmed, the population wouldn’t even have the infamous pitchfork, the health and safety people would say such things are dangerous and the… Read more »

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

If Putin turned up in London the carriers would be militarily irrelevant. They are a globally portable airbase and London doesn’t move a lot, which is fortunate for me and my morning commute.

Oliver Craig
Oliver Craig
1 month ago
Reply to  John

The real fuckup began in 2010 when that arsehole Cameron scrapped our two small carriers and more importantly the Harrier fleet ( many will say it was going tits up before this) and left the RN without fighter cover. Seems odd that the US still has harriers and I was reading last week they were shooting down Houthi drones. Cameron is now our foreign secretary, say no more!!!!!?

John
John
1 month ago
Reply to  Oliver Craig

Agree. Rather than have two white elephants a smaller ship would have done to me. Suits the Italians and Spanish fine. Then it seems some politicians want to play “big league” as did some admirals. Instead of shoehorning into Nato rather than dreams of empire. I was part of the circus for a long spell. The waste appalled me TBH. Too cosy with the MIC and too handy at throwing taxpayers money at them.

Farouk
Farouk
1 month ago
Reply to  Oliver Craig

I see he is going to visit the Falklands, and has made a call to Argentina to join him in talks. I dread to think what he has planned.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

From what I’ve seen on the news this morning ,there’s no question the Falklands are to remain in the UK hands.However there are rumours immigrants could be put on the island .Who knows with Cameron 🙄 🇬🇧

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Now that sounds an interesting idea ! Nah can’t be Cameron’s 🤣

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

There are reports of Chinese fishing fleet ‘going dark’ in Argentinian waters and of clashes in which Argentina sank a Chinese boat fishing illegally. Maybe we can offer Argentina some surveillance and fisheries protection help?

farouk
farouk
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I was down there 10 years ago on a battlefield tour. I was really surprised at the number of South Americans working there (Note I am not been xenophobic, rather just pointing out the large number of migrants on the Island) Loads of Saints but saints have been part of the furniture since after 1982 Finally I dont trust Cameron, this government or even a Labour Government one bit. They say one thing, whilst doing another, they have form of shafting the British public

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

I suspect Cameron is making the visit because its just part of the job. I doubt there is any agenda.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  Oliver Craig

👍

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Oliver Craig

And about to go to the Falklands saying he isn’t giving them to Argentina, does anyone believe he isn’t?

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

Remember when he visited HMS ARK Royal tell crew members what a fine job there do and the ship was a big part of Britain’s security .About 3 day’s later he announced the ship was been Retired from service 🙄

Jonno
Jonno
1 month ago

Couldn’t one of them take over from HMS Argus or a Cadet training ship and the other be converted into a full time Hospital ship? With war looming it seems the Government imagination is fully lacking that there wont be a need for cadets or a hospital ship. These two ships must be in excellent repair order since they are always in refit or on standby. One could maybe be permanently based in Gibraltar. Change of scene from Plymouth and better climate, closer to the Costa’s, etc.

Mark B
Mark B
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonno

I thought they were continuing in their current role.

Tom
Tom
1 month ago

Is there an internal plot/plan to destroy the UK armed forces?

Mark B
Mark B
1 month ago
Reply to  Tom

What ever gave you that impression. The current plan is to have a peacetime military. Things don’t always go to plan and there is not a limitless supply of cash.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Tom

If there is, it’s done a damn good job! 73,000 army, 160-170 fighter jet RAF, 13 escort RN soon until new builds finally begin delivery, just 6/7 hunter killer subs. Shocking incompetance/negligence at the very least.
If you were going to prepare for war or deter war, this could hardly be a much worse place to begin from.

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Tom

Yes

Frank
Frank
1 month ago

Wow.. 70 comments removed !!!😯

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

Yes, I don’t think we are allowed to criticise the media now.

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

It would be nice to know why so many comments were deleted though… This happens alot and never any explanation…. 70 people/comments all removed.
Up to the point where I switched off, all I saw was healthy debate with people exchanging views as per the norm, whatever was said after that must have been quite something to warrant such action.

Shame.

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

Yes, I agree

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

Although a really enjoy this site and appreciate everything the team do to provide free content. I really don’t see the point of such articles. The Albions have been confirmed they are remaining in service. Articles like this just get people arguing.

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Up until i logged off at 3.30pm, all i saw was typical normal debate… must have missed something that happened later 🤔

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

Maybe. Jim was getting stuck in 😆

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Agree. And look at some of the crap being posted.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago

Yep. Some of it is pretty unbelievable stuff from people who are supposed to be interested in defence matters.

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Well. I’m seriously considering buying a rubber boat and a Bow and 8 arrows……… 😂

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
1 month ago

I’m reading it and came to a couple of conclusion’s. I’m off to the pub so I don’t get tempted to get involved & I’m beginning to think Defence of the U.K and its citizens should be selective.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

😆

Frank
Frank
1 month ago

Morning DM….. just out of curiosity, i took a look at the very first articles and comments from @ ten years ago…. there were some rather silly comments way back then too….. I think I joined a year or so later…… Recently there has been rather noticeable increase in new “Members” who seem to already be getting stuck in…… The FB site, I sometimes view, is a rich source of comedy gold too but at least you get to view the commenter’s profile and get some sort of Idea about them….. A lot of comments get deleted there too though.… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

That would be an issue for the faceless Trolls who feed on the fact that many of us care and are concerned for the armed forces. And they inflate the issue with posts out of all proportion to reality and ignore all other factors at what makes a military effective, to try to spread despair and despondency. Or, they get off on having a good moan and dwelling in it rather than seeing both the positives and the negatives. I lament cuts as much as anyone else, but you have to he realistic and see both sides, and also compare… Read more »

Frank
Frank
1 month ago

I think “Dave”… just like “Rodney” (only Fools and horses)….. might just have a few different accounts… It’s a pattern that keeps appearing ….. the trouble is, we tend to get to know each poster by what they type and the style in which they type it….. not to mention the typo’s !!!! and I believe “Dave” is playing with us….. Wyn Beynon disappeared shortly before Dave turned up… he liked to “Stir People Up” and actually went to school with Herodotus apparently where they both studied Geography …. Interesting to see that he was a retired Priest with a… Read more »

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

It’s today’s politically correct moderation making sure no one can tell the truth i case it ruffles afeather or two or upsets a woke

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

I believe George will look into if he gets the chance. But, yes, did terminate current discussion.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

My get took off in seconds Frank and that with out been Rude or argument with Anybody 🤔 and this one will go .🙄

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

We’ll go dare you tell the truth

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

You can’t handle the truth!

Marked
Marked
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

Welcome to life in China or Russia where free speech is outlawed.

FieldLander
FieldLander
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

Mine comment questioned Trumps reaction to Putin invading Canada, given their clear delinquency, in his words, and the fact that some are now ‘smelling the coffee’.
I thought vaguely humorous.
Seems to have disappeared, maybe it was not.

Phredd
Phredd
1 month ago

Someone once said to preserve peace prepare for war ,
we need to up the anti and build more ships starting with a new carrier , more tanks more artillery ,more home designed warplanes .
We see politicians measuring the cost of the military , but what is the cost of defeat .
If the military doesn’t get enough volunteers the use conscription, ,

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  Phredd

Sounds about right to me .However it’s getting the government to wake ⏰ first 🙄

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Phredd

Agreed, and there are volunteers for the armed forces, plenty, but they don’t think they are martians, they aren’t the ‘right’ colour or religion to show how wonderfully ‘inclusive’ we are because we don’t want to be sued under the NEW EU law our government has bought in to supplement the current equality legislation that allows you to bar white hetrosexual males from applying for jobs, prizes etc.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

Hands up anyone who has actually been bared from a job because they are a white male ? Both of which would be illegal under the equality act….because the equality act is colour, age and gender blind…you cannot not employ someone because they are white anyone than you could not employ them for being black…

Dave
Dave
1 month ago

What standing? Our armed forces are a laughing stock, no, the UK is a laughing stock, a joke, a mess of biblical proportions. Our eco only is upteen times the size of Greece yet they are modernising 500 tanks, we have less than 100, inner mongolia has more of a navy than we do. Even the air force has nothing to smile about, no planes and no ammunition. We have equality wallahs saying we shouldn’t have security checks so we can have more rabid Muslim illegal migrants trained to use guns so we can have the right proportions, we need… Read more »

Frank
Frank
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

Mate, any chance you could check your spellings… It’s a frightful bore having to translate !

Dave
Dave
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank

Was done on a phone, sorry, terrible keyboard

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave

What a load of exaggerat