General Election 2017

[Hangarshuffle]

Good evening.
Started the thread, like bubonic plague someone had to bring it in for a while.
Was going to open it up on Jet Blast, but somehow.....think its just too infantile at times (jet blast that is).
Well, its massively easy to be emotionally blinkered, politically biased as well in these sort of threads. Would be like soap without water if it wasn't so.
So, try to keep it military aviation based, or even militarily based then?

Have to ask this because I saw it in the letters page of a serious unbiased newspaper today. Has Fallon said we would use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike if we were required to?
Was that true? Is it policy of HMG? Did anyone else see it? Has policy now changed?

[pr00ne]

HMG does not comment on use of nukes, end of.
Doubt that military aviation will get even a mention in GE campaigning. Not an important topic or relevant to anyone.

[Archimedes]

Good evening.
Started the thread, like bubonic plague someone had to bring it in for a while.
Was going to open it up on Jet Blast, but somehow.....think its just too infantile at times (jet blast that is).
Well, its massively easy to be emotionally blinkered, politically biased as well in these sort of threads. Would be like soap without water if it wasn't so.
So, try to keep it military aviation based, or even militarily based then?

Have to ask this because I saw it in the letters page of a serious unbiased newspaper today. Has Fallon said we would use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike if we were required to?
Was that true? Is it policy of HMG? Did anyone else see it? Has policy now changed?


It was mentioned in the Independent three days ago, complete with audio of the SoS saying this.

He refers to the most extreme of circumstances and in ambiguous language, making the point (in unambiguous language) that you don't tell would be adversaries who might wish to attack the UK directly whether or not they'd get a Trident warhead in return.

The subtext of such - very, very rare - utterances, if one believes Peter Hennessey [a usually reliable judge] is along the lines of '...and if you have CBW, and are about to use the latter on the UK population, don't think that you can assume that we wouldn't target your delivery systems with something rather more powerful than a TLAM' and '...if you are seen to be opening the silo doors on your missiles in the vicinty of [say] Yongbyon after saying that a weapon will be heading in the direction of London in a few hours, don't be surprised if the wind speed and temperature in that locale go up very, very dramatically as we do a spot of pre-emptive counter-force.'

I assume that in this instance, it was to draw a further distinction between Mrs May and Mr Corbyn, given the latter's statement which was reported as being that he would never authorise nuclear release under any circumstances.

[Arclite01]

If JC really believes that he would never use the Nuclear option then it makes sense for him not to have it. However if he is happy never to use it whatever the situation he finds himself in, one has to question his judgement in terms of what he'd accept.

I'm sure that seeing people starved to death, mutilated, murdered, buildings destroyed, artifacts smashed, centuries of culture wiped off the map, and ultimately his own family and then himself burned alive or hung from the nearest telegraph pole just because of their religious or personal views are not those of 'A.N.Other' party might change his view. By then it'll be too late of course.............

The naivety of the man astounds me (and I think many others). And is probably a hugely contributory reason as to why he'll never be elected. And if his view is genuinely the view of the rest of the Labour probably the same reason that they are currently seen as widely unelectable in many areas (both geographical and political).

The Labour Party can be electable - Tony Blair proved it. But not in it's current form.

IMHO

Arc

[Pontius Navigator]

I think it was previously stated that we would not use preemption but what was said then is not necessarily what we would do now. A bit like assassination, the US said it wouldn't then it does. Did they publish the policy change in advance?

[Tankertrashnav]

Other than the admittedly very important nuclear question, I see little difference between the two parties on the question of defence. In the 40 years since I left the RAF I have lived through successive Conservative and Labour administrations and have seen a continuous reduction in our defence capability, irrespective of who is in power at the time. The Conservatives may talk the talk on defence, but they certainly haven't been walking the walk.

[Pontius Navigator]

TTN, agree, if I had the time and inclination I would plot put aircraft buys against part in power.

Nuclear weapons - labour
V-bombers - Tory
TSR2 - labour
F111 - labour
C130 -labour
F4 - labour
Buccaneer - labour
Nimrod - Tory all 4
E3 - tory
C17 - labour
Sentinel - labour


Then Tornado, Harrier, Jaguar, Typhoon, A400, Voyager

T
I think labour might have the edge but I don't know how many crossed party boundaries

[ORAC]

Remind when we actually bought some TSR2, as opposed to scrapping the prototypes and driving a steam roller over the jigs so the programme couldn't be revived. And the F-111 never got past the price sticker after they'd lied about it to get the TSR2 cancelled.

If you want to include those that were cancelled during development we can recite the entire contents of "Project Cancelled (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/uk-project-cancelled.htm)".

[Pontius Navigator]

ORAC, I put the failures there too. The Tories could not claim TSR2 success, but I included Nimrod 3/4 on their watch. These were all real aircraft on the cusp of delivery, not just projects

[Willard Whyte]

Perhaps better to look at who cancelled what?

Most projects have such a long development timeline as to negate any party claiming credit for their purchase.

The origins of TSR-2 can be traced back to GOR.339, made public in 1956, and going back to '55. The Conservatives came to power in '55 and lost to labour in '64. A year later the '2 got canned. P.1154 and the 'CVN' are two others that spring to mind from that era, as well as the 'probably-best-it-never-happened' AW.681.

I've not glanced at other projects, anyone else care to have a crack?

[Pontius Navigator]

WW, true to a point, but labour definitely wins on nuclear weapons, Buccaneer, F4, C130 K and J, C17.

Tories win on Nimrod 1

Labour lose on TSR2

Tories lose on Nimrod 3/4, Harrier, Jaguar

[Willard Whyte]

OK, but Tories ordered Trident D5.

Earlier in history labour went for Chevaline, perhaps instead of Poseidon.

And I feel one should credit Churchill with kickstarting Britain's nuclear ambitions. There's a very interesting book on the subject: Churchill's Bomb (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchills-Bomb-history-Britains-programme/dp/0571249795/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1493400249&sr=8-1&keywords=churchill%27s+bomb). Now, Attlee might be given credit for pushing for development, but I still feel it shows how 'cross-political' major projects are during development.

As an aside I can only think of a single major project that was canned and re-instated by subsequent governments: The B-1 bomber.

[PPRuNeUser0139]

The Labour govt initiated the Nimrod Mk 3 project in 1977. It was cancelled under a Conservative govt in 1986.
The signal sent out by the JTU after each sortie used to end with the following words:
Assessment of operational capability: Nil
Assessment of training capability: Nil.
It was far from being on the cusp of delivery.

[pax britanica]

Some good points here about many weapons projects crossing party boundaries and of course exceeding the life of parliaments . Thing is can we really justify even what we have got in terms of military unless it is combined with other forces.

Realistically that means the Americans where we are just along for the ride or Europe where we are one of the larger powers and probably have a fair amount of influence -France being of similar size and it seems we cooperate quite a bit with the French even if some people do still see them as potential foes.

I have always presumed that as our nukes are American we cannot actually sue them on our own. so as well as what equipment should we have is a question of what alliances and that would also extend beyond any one aprliament.

As for Jeremy C I would trust him more with a nuke that Mad May who seems to have completely lost her mind since becoming PM and looks like she would nuke someone for criticising her hair do

[Hangarshuffle]

UK would be 'unable to withstand' nuclear strike, Russian senator warns (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/uk-would-be-unable-to-withstand-nuclear-strike-russian-senator-warns/ar-BBAuskI?li=AA59G2&ocid=spartanntp)

I found a link about it. On MSN news whatever that really is. But I'm assuming the quotes are good and not false.
Some good points by the Russian I suppose. I don't really like Fallon, have to admit that and I wonder how long he will be in the post if PM May returns to office. Think he is playing a funny game. Should he even be commenting in this manner? It always seems to be better left unsaid.

[Haraka]

Earlier in history labour went for Chevaline, perhaps instead of Poseidon.

Referred to by one Labour minister (Castle?) on BBC as "Chevalier" :)

[Pontius Navigator]

SV, I stand corrected on dates but with all 11 airframes completed all it needed was a bit of kit.

Ok, I know, just joking.

[Wensleydale]

The Labour govt initiated the Nimrod Mk 3 project in 1977


Sadly, Fred Mulley was awake to sign the order!

[Brian 48nav]

The Conservatives under Churchill came to power in 1951 and were re-elected in '55.

PN

The Buccaneer entered service in '62, of course with the FAA, but still under the Conservatives.

[Basil]

I really would like to say: "Cut out the sabre rattling!" but Russia has a casual attitude to foreign affairs such as murdering their citizens in MY country.
Perhaps , if they calmed down a bit, we would respond in kind.

Re 'casual': have to admit that one was most impressed by the Mig29 pilot at Paris ditching his parachute and casually lighting a ciggie as he walked off :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

Brian, I was considering only the RAF and the transfer of the Mk 2s to the RAF.

[goudie]

It was said at the time that the Mig29 pilot should give up smoking...It could endanger his heath!

[ShotOne]

Gauging which party is strongest on defence by types introduced on their watch is a pretty meaningless yardstick. A bit like saying how generous a mate is for ordering a huge round...who then left without paying for it

[Tankertrashnav]

Understandably this has all got a bit aviation centric. My original remarks concerned defence across the board - land, sea and air. Only a couple of days ago I was discussing the matter with my neighbour, a retired FAA Observer, and we were bemoaning the lack of naval air power. Even with the forthcoming arrival of the two new carriers, always assuming we have some aircraft to put on them, a huge problem is who is going to man them. Its not like opening a new branch of Tescos - you cant just advertise at the Job Centre for a thousand or more men and women of all trades - they just dont exist any more. The blame for that situation has to be laid at the door of both Conservative and Labour governments neither of whom will bite the bullet and admit that defence is an expensive business. But with the great British Public unable to see beyond the NHS and schools, who can blame politicians for pandering to their wishes.

[A_Van]

UK would be 'unable to withstand' nuclear strike, Russian senator warns (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/uk-would-be-unable-to-withstand-nuclear-strike-russian-senator-warns/ar-BBAuskI?li=AA59G2&ocid=spartanntp)

I found a link about it. On MSN news whatever that really is. But I'm assuming the quotes are good and not false.
Some good points by the Russian I suppose. I don't really like Fallon, have to admit that and I wonder how long he will be in the post if PM May returns to office. Think he is playing a funny game. Should he even be commenting in this manner? It always seems to be better left unsaid.


IMHO, both (UK and Russian officials) showed very low level of professionalism. Whatever is chaotically circulating in their minds, they should not escalate the tension, especially talking publicly about "nuke exchange".

[ShotOne]

Agreed, both sides are diminished by such unnecessary comments. Let's hope those with the actual launch codes are more professional. For what it's worth, Mr Fallon's original statement was probably intended to highlight the UK Labour Party's disarray on the issue rather than send any message to Russia

[Pontius Navigator]

Shotone, accepting the cross Government time scale for many projects, the home grown ones, others might have been in the OR stage at the end of one party but substantially concluded by the next. Others, such as the C130K/J, F4, E3, C17 were wholly within one.

[Chinny Crewman]

Maybe defence will be an election issue;

http://thetimes.co.uk/article/86a015b2-2c47-11e7-9d2e-96f2194e0ac4

For those who can't read behind the paywall the essence of the article is;

Insufficient cash.
Another SDR needed.
Possible cuts unless more money, suggested cuts include slowing introduction or reducing buy of P8 among others.
Fallon unlikely to survive post election reshuffle.

[ShotOne]

Agreed, pontius but the point I was making is that we should credit the party that pays the bill rather than the one which simply placed the orders. The Blair/Brown years saw lots of shiny kit. But when they left office much of it wasn't paid for, nor even budgeted for. This unfortunate fact is behind some of the tough spending calls which would have had to be made whoever won the last election.

[Bigpants]

We can hardly expect Defence Spending to be a vote winner when Private Eye can publish at least one update a month on the latest MOD overspend/delay to a project which often does not work properly.

This week it's the RN Destroyer shambles which suggests the refurb of just the diesels will be so that the ship can spend most of the time cruising around on them rather than the RR gas turbine/electrical systems which keep failing/tripping.

[Pontius Navigator]

ShotOne, ah, the bare cupboard. At least Wilson bought the C130 and F4. Without starting a debate, the C130 buy was absolutely essential to replace the whole mishmash of trucks that we had gathered over the years.

[ShotOne]

No argument with you on their necessity Pontius...but that's not what the threads about

[Pontius Navigator]

No argument with you on their necessity Pontius...but that's not what the threads about

Which was party and aviation related?

Or, given the probability of no contest, about nuclear deterrent policy?

[ShotOne]

Fair point, Pontius; it began titled General Election 2017 but then meandered to which party is strongest on defence. If it's about cupboards being bare, they certainly were when Harold Wilson left office!

[Finningley Boy]

Just to jump in, F-111 was cancelled following a massive public spending programme by Labour (Wilson led) on top of a significant devaluation of sterling, leaving the RAF to accept Lord Mounbatten's offer of three for the price of one on Buccaneers against... well TSR2 at the time. Labour's cuts to defence always follow the need to scrape together more money for all the usual community related projects... NHS, Welfare, Housing etc. Not a bad endeavour, but never balanced properly, hence they always max the nation's unauthorised overdraft.:uhoh:

FB:)

[Chinny Crewman]

Just to jump in, F-111 was cancelled following a massive public spending programme by Labour (Wilson led) on top of a significant devaluation of sterling, leaving the RAF to accept Lord Mounbatten's offer of three for the price of one on Buccaneers against... well TSR2 at the time. Labour's cuts to defence always follow the need to scrape together more money for all the usual community related projects... NHS, Welfare, Housing etc. Not a bad endeavour, but never balanced properly, hence they always max the nation's unauthorised overdraft.:uhoh:

FB:)
And the Tories cuts are always to cut public spending, reduce the deficit and pay off debt. They never get that right either.
Sadly in today's political and economic situation I don't think either of the main parties are strong on defence and neither of them care.

[Melchett01]

What Chinny Crewman said.

The Tories talk the talk but regularly fail to walk the walk, preferring to take a business approach to Defence, leaving us with the absolute bare minimum to get the job done and with no redundancy when things change or go wrong. Invariably business being the only ones to benefit from their spending.

Labour try to walk the walk, not because they believe in Defence but because we get caught up in their general desire to grow the State. As a result their ideas are often lacking analytical rigour and nearly always aren't effectively funded.

Both could write what they understand about strategic thinking on a post-it note.

[Hangarshuffle]

Still sign of any party manifestos yet, which actually surprises me. Got a flyer today from my sitting MP-no mention of defence at all. Her election is being fought on spending on schools/NHS/local hooligan issues. Its not a bad pitch actually, and she will walk it back in, I think. She is a good local MP-no mention of London /Westminster/ National politics at all (and I think that will eventually be a national strategy for her party).
To be fair to Labour post 1997 Melchett01, (with due help from a Conservative Govt in their previous Govt.) the Navy did sort of end up with a better Amphibious Force for a while under Labour. HMS Ocean, Albion, Bulwark plus the RFA Cardigan Bay, Lyme Bay and two others same type(I've actually forgotten both their names now - thanks BSE). That was a decent small expeditionary force which wasn't really sustained in upkeep, and is now much more fragmented in 2017. Maybe they tried to walk the walk for a while on a world stage......

[Alber Ratman]

What Chinny Crewman said.

The Tories talk the talk but regularly fail to walk the walk, preferring to take a business approach to Defence, leaving us with the absolute bare minimum to get the job done and with no redundancy when things change or go wrong. Invariably business being the only ones to benefit from their spending.

Labour try to walk the walk, not because they believe in Defence but because we get caught up in their general desire to grow the State. As a result their ideas are often lacking analytical rigour and nearly always aren't effectively funded.

Both could write what they understand about strategic thinking on a post-it note.

Agree, the Tories business sense is to take risk and try and make everyone believe their bull****(Investment bankers and Journalists, two professions that would wind up most military men and filling rather large roles in our Government). Defence has nothing to do with this election anyway, it is how much people want a rough ride with Brexit or not. Good Defence at the end of the day depends on a good economy to pay for it.

[Treble one]

Defence and defence spending is not a vote winner, so expect piecemeal reference to it between now and June.


It had only become an election issue as the Leader of HM Opposition categorically stated that he would NEVER use the nuclear deterrent-thus rendering it useless. Yet official Labour Party policy is to replace Trident.


This is now been used to smack him round the head repeatedly by his critics and to show that he's not fit to lead.


Perhaps he should have watched Dr Strangelove and find out the meaning of deterrence before he opened his mouth?

[Finningley Boy]

Further to my earlier comment, indeed the Tories are every bit as capable of making quite severe defence cuts, usually there is a practical rationale; Duncan Sandys and the all Missile Defence Force which amounted to nothing and left an air defence fighter force of five Lightning Squadrons and a Bloodhound Squadron. However, defence cuts have been on the agenda regardless of the economic situation with every Labour Government, I don't know if they've ever increased the actual order of Battle anywhere since 1964 but what is definitely of concern with Labour Governments is the number of times they have threatened, while in opposition and the present situation springs to mind, to abandon the Nuclear deterrent and apply significant cuts to defence spending generally. Their last manifesto stated they could not promise to maintain the 2% level of expenditure, the party is riddled with people who clearly hold military service and the entire concept in very low regard. There are sympathetic members as well. I don't know if the Tories have ever included privatising the NHS in their manifesto but Labour have certainly had radical changes to defence policy in theirs, including abandoning all nuclear strike capabilities and reductions in real terms in spending on conventional forces. A report in the Daily Mail today, however much everyone hold the Mail in contempt, the article showed a disgraceful publication available via 'supporters of Jeremy Corbyn' (described as an off shoot of Momentum, the booklets were on sale alongside join the Labour party leaflets at a festival organised by same) which quite subjectively equates service in HM Forces with murder and suicide through the use of grotesque cartoons and slogans.

FB:)

[Chinny Crewman]

FB.
Whilst I am no Labour/Corbyn apologist just a couple of points.

The first year of Blair's Govt saw defence expenditure as a proportion of GDP rise from 2.3% to 2.5%. It averaged around the 2.3% mark until Cameron came to power and it now sits at 2% after he decided to include pensions and other misc costs in the figures which weren't included pre 2010.

The article in the DM refers to a satirical pamphlet written by Daniel Cullen (Not the RAF Pilot awarded the DFC). It was written during the Afghan conflict in conjunction with 'veterans for peace' to protest against that war. Proceeds were donated to military charities. I can only assume some members of momentum had some copies still or the DM was playing a bit fast and lose with the facts for political gain.

[racedo]

What Chinny Crewman said.

The Tories talk the talk but regularly fail to walk the walk, preferring to take a business approach to Defence, leaving us with the absolute bare minimum to get the job done and with no redundancy when things change or go wrong. .

One only has to look at what they did with Military Housing to realise that their so called support is just another way to assist their donors make money.

MH could have been folded into a Housing Association and managed that way but no Politcal donations come that way.

Services are just seen as a photo opportunity for some MPs who will gladly commit them to some foreign war. Tell them how much they value their service, well that is until they come home with a broken body or mind and can be forgotten about.

[cornish-stormrider]

Everyone harping on about Corbyn being unelectable due to his stated position of not being able or willing to sanction the use of nuclear weapons.

if we have to use them then we have already lost - a pre-emptive strike opens us up for retaliation - massively so and if it is in retaliation.

are we honestly in a better position having them than not - i do not think we are anymore.

someone has to be first to give them up. Nukes are just the most cost effective way of creating a very big bang.

now that the targets are so hardened and need so much more force to remove them does anyone think realistically that they will be used?

lets give them up and be better neighbours in the world instead....
war is not glorious or great or noble, it is horrific.
better to not do it

[salad-dodger]

lets give them up and be better neighbours in the world instead....
Cornish, are you related to Comrade Corbyn?

[Pontius Navigator]

At least one good thing, the media is split with so much to cover, the 100 days,Ivanka, the General Election that it has quite pushed the council ones out of sight.

[andrewn]

If Ms May did want to engage the great unwashed on the topic of Defence, and potentially free up a bit of cash, she could start with the QE Carriers. Impressive they might be, but it's a classic case of "hollowing out" with a couple of high end assets and almost nothing in the rear. Let's be honest we've done without them for the last few years and not really missed them, unlike MPA which is a critical national asset that is most definitely required.

Like most other in anyway controversial topics though I feel sure her advisers have made sure she stays well away and carry's on talking about "stability" and "strong Britain", blah, blah, etc, etc :)

[Basil]

lets give them up and be better neighbours in the world instead....
war is not glorious or great or noble, it is horrific.
better to not do it
If only; but we can't un-invent anything from the knobkerry to nuclear.
As animals, my feeling is that we have wooden club brains but with fusion weapons in our hands. We are tribal creatures and are not given to acceptance of universal rule.

[Basil]

the QE Carriers
Let's just hope we have the assets to put a screen around, under and over them!
Unless we can defend them there is no point in having them.

[Hangarshuffle]

I'm going to call this really early but I don't think the Government will return with anything even like what they think they will. It wont be 1983 again. I cant really quantify this. This is my now I think 8th or 9th GE, its very hard to call. Corbyn should be totally unelectable, but he still strikes a chord with a large section of the voting population including myself... he may return as PM, he really may. We are such a divided and fragmented island now, its very sad really but its 40 years in the making.

[Finningley Boy]

CC,

I dare say that Tony Blair did oversee a rise in spending on defence, he also presided over a farrago of military interventions, not all unjustified, but culminating in Iraq in 2003. When he took office in 1997, the RAF had 20 frontline Tactical Squadrons, when Labour lost in 2010, they had 12. The Army had dropped from 40 infantry battalions to about 34. The wars were supposed to have been funded direct from the treasury (Capital Spending).
Clearly the defence budget was inflated slightly to absorb this but by no means enough.

FB:)

[ShotOne]

"DM playing fast and loose with the facts for political gain.." Really chinny? So the hilarious limbless servicemen dolls on display at last Labour conference were made up by the Mail too?

[Tankertrashnav]

cornish strormrider - like many before you, you entirely miss the point of nuclear deterrence. You are of course correct that once we have to use them, we have already lost, but the point is it is a potential enemy's belief that we will use them which prevents him using his own weapons. Throughout the Cold War, the prospect of mutually assured destruction kept the peace.

I want us to live in peace with our neighbours too, but there is an old saying - "good fences make good neighbours" and our nuclear fence should remain for that reason

[Planemike]

I want us to live in peace with our neighbours too, but there is an old saying - "good fences make good neighbours" and our nuclear fence should remain for that reason


Why does Denmark not need and independent nuclear deterrent, yet we do? Do not understand it.....

[cornish-stormrider]

Gents
I don't " miss the point of deterrence "
It is not needed
Our number of deployed warheads - do you seriously think a nation advanced enough to loft ICBM's at us isn't capable of tracking and eliminating our sole platform?

If a rogue nation or terrorist group attacked us with a dirty bomb or CBW and was successful are we going to turn their capital into a glowing glass puddle ??

Our independant nuclear deterrent is an anachronism from the past

We do not need it anymore
There are far far better ways if war has to be waged

Also - no I am not related to Jezza.

I have spent years reading and doing a lot of thinking, in that time I have come to realise that we are far better off ridding ourselves of these obscene weapons.

Fylingdales for example serves no strategic purpose for us - it merely tells us that it is incoming and we do not have the time to do anything about it

It helps America

Is PAX America all its cracked up to be? They have been involved in wars for just about every year since the end of World War Two - for what ?

It boils down to this - who do you trust in charge?

A decent principled man who is prepared to sit and negotiate with others or the lying, flip flopping harridan?

Let's try and move forward - not cling to weapons of the past.

Also

Would I gamble my only sons life if I was given the option to retain or dispose of these weapons ? Yes. I would.

Better to surrender and live than subject the world to a deliberate nuclear strike

Park all of the nuclear weapon issues for one moment

Work through all the other points - can you honestly tell me the Conservatives will do a better job given the last nine years as factual evidence. A million people needing food banks, wage freezes and an economy that has watched every one who chose a different path improve

Defence is important - clue - defence, not expeditions to a sandbox that realistically did not achieve much

What do we do about Syria and Daesh??

China??

Korea??

I know, let's do just what we did before - that keeps working so well doesn't it ?

How about we really look to deal properly with people and stop lining rich people's pockets by moving taxes to their bank accounts through various means

[Pontius Navigator]

I think I tend to side with CS that it is virtually inconceivable that we would nuke, shall we say Tehran with millions of generally innocent people to chastise a few madmen?

Douglas Hurd eventually came to realise this long after retirement. Would we, if needs be, incinerate the capital of NK with the capital of SK almost within blast range and definitely within the fallout plume?

You need a nice little buffer zone like Poland, Belorussia, and a westerly wind for real deterrence.

A small nuclear CM might be the better way to deliver the bad news.

[Chinny Crewman]

"DM playing fast and loose with the facts for political gain.." Really chinny? So the hilarious limbless servicemen dolls on display at last Labour conference were made up by the Mail too?

I didn't go to the last Labour conference Shot so I wouldn't know.
I did however see one of the pamphlets that FB and the DM were talking about back in 2013 when I returned from Afghanistan. I found it quite sad but also a powerful piece of anti-war propaganda hence I researched the author and background. This is why I remember it so well, I also remember very well that it wasn't reported in the DM or anywhere else back then.

[Finningley Boy]

CC,

I never lose my own personal capacity to be utterly bewildered, are you saying that the DM (I'm always prepared to accept they miss the meaning of intended satire, deliberately, just as many on the left can't take a joke at times) has got its report backside to the fore? If so I'll stand corrected but do you know, when I saw the pictures in the paper I didn't find them anything other than insidious, even before I read the supporting article. But I did think to myself, the DM will get a lampooning for this, someone somewhere will be able to take apart what they have written, on the face of it, however, it does appear like a genuinely subjective and up front denunciation of the entire concept of certainly the UK's Armed Forces. My question is how do Labour manage to get so tarnished with such controversial attacks on the entire concept of the military as an institution. Often they are forced, only just recently, to profess
an entirely different attitude toward National Security and Defence than the general image played out. But who can blame anyone for having doubts, when we read reports that Corbyn back during the Falklands described service personnel taking part in the liberation of the Falklands as unemployed men. How can you have a tag like that then try and paper over it by making a point of staying behind at the Cenotpah to shake ex-servicemens' hands like some retired Colonel. I just do not get it. Surely he is the beast he's portrayed as and he's simply trying to limit the damage in an area where he is not just weak but utterly at odds. I've no idea what kind of military posture we'd be left with after the gang of four (Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbot and Thornberry) have been at the helm for a year or two, or a term in office.
But I don't think it likely anyone could venture a remark like business as usual. Please don't tell me about how the Tories have made severe cuts in defence since 2010 and at times before. We know why, they've been struggling with an unmanageable still spiralling national debt and deficit. Corbyn reckons he can find £3,000,000,000 easily, for the NHS and all the good stuff! I imagine he'll get it from somewhere, now where do you think it'll come from?!:E

FB:)

[Chinny Crewman]

FB.
As I said before I'm no Corbyn fan.
I don't know what the DMs motive is but the fact is the leaflet was written by an anti-war protester in 2013, he says himself that some will find his work offensive and much of it is. He claims no affiliation to the Labour party, when it was written Corbyn was a back bencher and Momentum didn't exist however the report and headline suggests that this is somehow linked to Corbyn. The DM didn't report it's existence then or at anytime in the last 4 years. If they find it that outrageous why wait until now before publishing? If they want to discredit Labour on defence then they could but that article is lazy journalism.
Regarding the second part of your post I agree Corbyn would be an awful PM because of many reasons but primarily I think it is because he is a committed pacifist and supporter of unilateral disarmament. I don't think that is compatible with being PM.
Should they get in they will do as the Tories have done since 2010 and they will strip the defence budget to ringfence favoured sectors.

[ShotOne]

"...strip defence budget for favoured sectors" Yes, exactly.

"..as the Tories have done..." er, by that you mean pay for all the stuff ordered by Tony and Gordon but not paid for or budgeted?

[Chinny Crewman]

"...strip defence budget for favoured sectors" Yes, exactly.

"..as the Tories have done..." er, by that you mean pay for all the stuff ordered by Tony and Gordon but not paid for or budgeted?

Shot. Since 2010 the Tories have;
Ringfenced NHS spending.
Raised pensions by use of the triple lock.
Raised overseas aid spending by billions.
These are just some of the Tories favoured sectors. And whilst at it they have increased the national debt to it's highest level ever and we are still running a deficit.

Most of the stuff Tony and Gordon ordered the Tories cut.
Nimrod.
Reduced Chinook order.
Harrier although the upgrade had been paid for before they cut it.
I could go on but I'm sure you get my point.

[Chinny Crewman]

Shot.
Just to clarify I do not support the Labour party and I think the Conservatives record on defence is equally if not as bad. As long as people (esp current and ex mil) are prepared to pretend all the problems are caused by Labour then the Tories will continue to get away with it. Also as long as papers like the DM are prepared to twist stories then real arguments get lost in the nonsense.

Anyway what were you doing at a Labour conference, infiltrating?

[Chinny Crewman]

I suspect John McDonnell will be tomorrow's news and the EU leaks will fade. For those who haven't seen it he chose to speak at and march in a May Day rally organised by the British Communist Party. Usual stuff, comrades together type thing, stand together to overthrow the Tories. The Communist Party are not fielding any candidates in the GE and are urging their supporters to vote Labour as the current Labour leadership share the same principles and aims. These include unilateral disarmament, withdrawal from NATO and large defence cuts.

[AR1]

I'm a Grandfather now. A couple of weeks back, when we had the fireworks display and I pondered the consequences of escalation, I came to the conclusion that under no circumstances would I invite the consequences of a Preemptive nuclear strike, yes, I'm making the assumption that others that hold them would not feel the requirement to strike first should we not have them, but there's an awful lot more countries out there that are in that position. I do not want my descendants to depart in a flash of light or poisoned slow time. Maybe I'm getting old, but I'm in agreement with JC.

[Pontius Navigator]

AR. While I find it difficult to imagine us using NW against bit players I don't think non nuclear states such as Germany or Denmark could be considered as safe from nuclear strike.

[SARF]

Steady on Pontius. I know the brexit negotiations have got off to a bad start. But using trident on a couple of the opposition is playing our ace card a bit early

[BATCO]

CSR
......nuclear weapons.

someone has to be first to give them up.

Ukraine did. And look where that got them.

Regards
Batco

[Onceapilot]

AR1
I think history teaches us that charismatic tyrants, despots and psychopaths sometimes rise to lead nations. To counter that possibility; democratic, secular and sane nations must hold the balance of power. Yes, the sane nations can be vulnerable to a first strike but not necessarily and, less so due to the power they have. Basic nuclear weapons are technologically available to many nations, they cannot be un-invented. :hmm:

OAP

[cornish-stormrider]

CSR


Ukraine did. And look where that got them.

Regards
Batco

Indeed
And look at the wider history of the region going back to pre communism times then factor in the NATO posturing and push to encircle Russia.

Don't get me wrong
I'm no fan of Putin but to constantly treat them like the enemy and that we follow America's lead after the innumerable screw ups they have made puts us in a position where the Russians view us with distrust to start with

How about we look to move forward in the world

[BATCO]

How about we look to move forward in the world

CSR
Any predictions on who might then follow us out of the nuclear club?

AVan
How so? The proposition was made that UK give up nuclear weapons as an example to the rest of the world. I responded by raising the case of a country that had given up nuclear weapons.

Regards
Batco

[A_Van]

....
AVan
How so? The proposition was made that UK give up nuclear weapons as an example to the rest of the world. I responded by raising the case of a country that had given up nuclear weapons.

Regards
Batco

"Looking from a distance", I see no problem if UK keeps its status. It is definitely some sort of a national pride (at least for many), and if people are proud of it, why not. Especially as the country is likely the most stable politically among all in the "club".
P.S. We probably did not understand each other on Ukraine. My point was that some countries that got rid of NW are doing well (KZ), and some - not (UA). It does not help keep or loose internal stability.

[ShotOne]

The basic proposition would seem flawed however idealistic or keen one is to be rid of nuclear weapons. Can you give ANY instance of a negotiation where handing ones opponent everything they want incentivises them to do so? ... whether it's paying a plumber in full then hoping he'll prioritise your job...or paying €100billion to EU hoping it will lead to a reasonable trading relationship!

[Onceapilot]

100 BILLION, ShotOne :rolleyes:

OAP

[ShotOne]

Thank you, OAP. Millions, billions; the commission seem to have made up the numbers on the day. Just so long as it's a gigantic figure pour encourager les autres!

[Chugalug2]

Surely we can beat them at their own game? Just think of an even larger number! £150 billion, there I've done it. Oh, wait....

[Mil-26Man]

P.S. We probably did not understand each other on Ukraine. My point was that some countries that got rid of NW are doing well (KZ), and some - not (UA). It does not help keep or loose internal stability.

Kazakhstan will continue to do well, so long as it stays on the right side of Putin. Ukraine has nothing to do with "internal stability".

[Willard Whyte]

Nothing to do with military aviation.

A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support...etc.

So one could argue it's for you not about you.

(I realise that for some people the fact that it might not be about them would lead to a serious dent in their ego!)

[Pontius Navigator]

WW, how long before Harrier pilots join us BOF?

[Hangarshuffle]

With genuine apologies to Albert, Brian - I had hoped the manifestos would have been out way before now (for scrutiny of their respective military matters by the learned people on here) but apparently they wont even be before next week (I read somewhere else).
Thinking its going to be such a whitewash now will the manifestos even come out?
And its such a lot riding on it as well- Nuclear deterrent and where they the ICBM bombers are based (country), Expeditionary air warfare, present RAF strategic bombing policy to bring about regime change (because that's what they are doing isn't it?), support of Middle Eastern nations in this pursuit (dubious or otherwise), aviation arms exports to the previously mentioned, P6, unequivocal support to the USA, pre-emptive nuclear strikes on Russia......its all in the mix.

[Hangarshuffle]

Junket is frankly unbelievable in his present petty nastiness. I forgot to mention also our continuing membership of NATO. We will probably do a UDI and leave that particular organization if we suffer the wrath of the EU organization over Brexit....why should we even think about remaining within NATO setting tripwires in Poland and piling in money if we get stiffed? I said this the day after the Brexit vote on here. If we get stiffed over leaving the EU we will leave NATO - I can see it easily happening. I can easily see an opportunistic group or leader taking this up in the near future.

[ShotOne]

+1 to almost all of that, hangarshuffle. It looks as if we're in for the hardest of brexits irrespective of whatever anyone in the UK wants. Hope you're wrong about leaving NATO though

[Pontius Navigator]

There is more to NATO than the EU. Albania, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Turkey, United Kingdom.

Then there are countries in the EU not in NATO.

[Finningley Boy]

Junket is frankly unbelievable in his present petty nastiness. I forgot to mention also our continuing membership of NATO. We will probably do a UDI and leave that particular organization if we suffer the wrath of the EU organization over Brexit....why should we even think about remaining within NATO setting tripwires in Poland and piling in money if we get stiffed? I said this the day after the Brexit vote on here. If we get stiffed over leaving the EU we will leave NATO - I can see it easily happening. I can easily see an opportunistic group or leader taking this up in the near future.

I would have thought the idea of us leaving NATO was ridiculous. NATO has nothing to do with the EU, NATO was formed in 1949, the EU in its current form in 1992. The common market was formed, without the UK, in 1957. De Gaul vetoed our joining in 1963, we joined the common market in 1973. Honestly, the EU has bugger all to do with NATO, the chief overseer of NATO is the USA. Also I get very irritated hearing politicians on the remain side, who would be anathema if let loose with the Defence Budget trying to claim that peace has been maintained since 1945 in Europe thanks to the EU.:mad:
FB:)

[Hangarshuffle]

It comes down to the money. If this bandied about figure of 100 billion euros is even half true, that UK will have to find a massive hit of cash to supply to Europe.. then no way will the right wing element of the Conservative Party, (with a big majority) sanction that. Would be very easy to totally withdraw all our remaining forces back here, as a bargaining chip/cost saver/raspberry. Poland, Estonia.....they would be looking for us then.
I can seriously see it coming. We have an expensive nuclear deterrent which always seems to be being factored in these days.
These are bad unstable times.
Macrons just got in, next Prez of The French Republic.... he's no anglophile. Junkers crowing already like the ****er he is.

[t43562]

Also I get very irritated hearing politicians on the remain side, who would be anathema if let loose with the Defence Budget trying to claim that peace has been maintained since 1945 in Europe thanks to the EU.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gifI assume what maintained peace was the common feeling that there was a great threat to face. One thing I wonder though is that structures seem to get bigger through history villages to cities to city-states to countries etc. It always seems to happen by war. If one chooses for it not to be done in some reasonable, equitable form doesn't that leave war as the only remaining option?

[Hangarshuffle]

Poland Estonia Latvia Lithuania are the countries that really need to be leaned on by ourselves, and reminded the value of our current membership of NATO, when those said countries start thinking about siding up with the usual suspects in giving us such a very hard time about leaving the EU.

Of course we are militarily no longer the power we were even 15 years ago, and this diminishes our leverage here.
But I hardly see Russia attacking those countries though, anyway. More likely try to destabilise the situation to suit its own aim- a stop to the expansion of the EU into its old satellites. To limit the influence of NATO upon its sphere.

I've continuously worked abroad since I left the RN, and have travelled widely. The attitude of EU/NATO members own citizens fascinates me.
I was heavily harangued by a Croat. The current middle eastern or MENA refugee crisis is entirely the UKs fault, he raged. And now because of this, these very people we are responsible for displacing , we leave the EU under Brexit he said.
We are going to have very few friends left in Europe soon, I fear.

Militarily, if we do ever quit NATO because of European intransience we will have to bite the metaphorical bullet and pull all assets back towards the mainland UK, (whatever that will actually be). Possibly no Scottish bases at all in any capacity. Who will even care about Scotland in the political blue camp? They wont need them and will be missed even less.
ICBM submarines based out of Plymouth (whose constituents will welcome the work and funding). The protector aircraft based out of Culdrose, St Mawgan yet again...
2 carriers out of Portsmouth. The Army will be hammered on savings of course.
A very different world and we are closer to it than we think.

[SARF]

When have we ever had many friends in Europe .. we don't need to lean on Poland, they have the choice to make.. and are one of the few European nations to not neglect defence. With good reason

[Hangarshuffle]

The Government have hired an expert war negotiator to help them with the Brexit talks. Interesting move.
Government hires expert negotiator who helped avert nuclear war to advise on Brexit talks | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-hires-war-negotiator-william-ury-advise-brexit-talks-a7722381.html)

SARF my much younger than me Polish friends thought it hilarious and utterly stupid the country had voted for Brexit. They are of an age and time when free travel and working where you want are a matter of fact. I had to remind them that some think otherwise and that coming to the UK is not and never will be an automatic right in the eyes of many in the UK. Where am I going with this....? the point I'm making badly is many in Europe have always taken our membership of NATO for granted...not so any more..the gloves are coming off. Its disastrous for everyone of course, this present trajectory. How we need new bright fair minded statesmen to emerge. The old greys are leading us on to disaster.

[Finningley Boy]

I don't believe what I'm reading on this thread, who has suggested in even the most cryptic fashion the notion of Britain leaving NATO? And to imagine that leaving the EU may influence this in anyway is to deeply misunderstand the two organizations and how they relate. There have been a number of pro-EU politicians recently who have made highly subjective erroneous comments about the EU having been the preserver of peace since 1945, sitting in TV debates gently expanding their hands and putting the point as if it is plainly obvious. The EU, to reiterate, has had nothing to do with the maintenance of peace anywhere. If you like you could indeed argue (although it wouldn't be fair to hold the EU to account) that the EU came hand in hand with the Balkans conflict. So its existence, in its current form, coincidentally came about as Europe saw violent bloody warfare on its soil for the first time since 1945. NATO is separate, it meets a different requirement and is not European centric necessarily, although the majority of member states are European and its Head Quarters are also in Brussels. Its area of concern is broadly, the Western Hemisphere, North America across the 'Atlantic' to all other member states which stretch across Europe to the edge of Russia and the Middle East, Turkey and the Baltic States for example.

FB:)

[ShotOne]

Hmmm, sounds like it's a re-run of the referendum that you're after!

I hope hangarshuffle's wrong about leaving NATO. Certainly, I don't see that it follows from his other (IMHO 100% correct) assertion that the EU Commission have a royal shafting in store for us if we let them. It's nothing personal or even anti-British; it's simply necessary to protect The Project from others following suit. It's not enough that our deal be slightly disadvantageous, it must be calamitous! Let's hope our negotiators have a robust Plan B!

[BEagle]

Well, this is very interesting: Parties agree to meet NATO 2% defence budget target (http://news.sky.com/story/parties-agree-to-meet-nato-2-defence-budget-target-10872021)

The Ministry of Defence argues that the NATO figure includes spending outside of the main MOD budget such as war pensions and elements of intelligence spending, but the confusion supports those who accuse the Government of creative accounting and shows the UK is close to the line, whoever has their calculations right.

On Wednesday a group of former senior military personnel wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister to express concerns that the British armed forces are understaffed and under-equipped.

It read: "The armed services are having to seek further very damaging savings in manpower, support and training at a time when the likelihood of combat operations is increasing. These realities of the security situation must be faced."

[racedo]

I'm with the pensioners, including pensions and stuff is cooking the books. What else will get reclassified.................. housing and disability for those injured in the line of duty.

[tmmorris]

Call me suspicious, but last year, cadets were finally included in the list of formal defence tasks. Maybe a small part of the budget, but still...

[Melchett01]

Well, assuming the copy of the manifesto published in The Spectator is accurate, this is what Labour has to say on Defence. Interestingly, given that they say the first duty if Government is to protect its citizens, this was the penultimate section in a 40/50 page manifesto, behind sport, culture, animal rights etc.

Defence

The primary duty of any government is to protect and defend its citizens. We live in a period of growing international tensions. A strong, viable and sustainable defence and security policy must be strategic and evidence led.

A Labour government will order a complete strategic defence review when it comes into office – to assess of the threats facing Britain and the necessary defence requirements.

We will ensure that our Armed Forces are properly equipped and resourced to respond to wide- ranging security challenges. Labour will commit to effective UN peacekeeping, including support for a UN Emergency Peace Service.

As the security threats and challenges we face are not bound by geographic borders, it is vital that as Britain leaves the EU we maintain our close relationship with our European partners. We will continue to work with the EU on a range of operational missions to promote and support global and regional security.

The last Labour government consistently spent above the NATO benchmark of 2% of GDP on defence.

Conservative spending cuts have put Britain’s security at risk, shrinking the army to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars. The scrapping of Nimrod, HMS Ark Royal and the Harrier jump jets, have weakened our defences and cost British taxpayers millions.

Labour’s commitment to spending at least 2% of GDP on defence will guarantee our Armed Forces have the necessary capabilities to fulfil the full range of obligations, and ensure our conventional forces are versatile and able to deploy rapidly in a range of roles.

Labour supports the renewal of the Trident submarine system. But any prime minister should be extremely cautious about ordering the use of weapons of mass destruction which would result in the indiscriminate killing of millions of innocent civilians. As a nuclear armed power, our country has a responsibility to fulfil our international obligations under the Nuclear Non* Proliferation Treaty. Labour will lead multilateral efforts with international partners and the UN to create a nuclear free world.

The UK defence industry is world-leading and Labour will continue to support development and innovation in this sector and ensure that it can continue to rely on a highly skilled workforce. We are committed to a procurement process that supports our steel industry and other manufacturing that provides good quality jobs throughout the supply chain. Labour will publish a Defence Industrial Strategy white paper, including a National Shipbuilding Strategy.

The first duty of any government is to protect its citizens. But we also have a duty to protect our Armed Forces personnel. That’s why we will never send them into harm’s way unless all other options have been exhausted.

Our Armed Forces are suffering from rent rises in services housing, pay restraint, and changes to tax and benefits, which is putting real pressure on service personnel and their families. We will ensure our Armed Forces get the pay and living conditions that their service merits.

Our Armed Service personnel deserve better. Dedicated servicemen and servicewomen are at the heart of our defence policy. Labour will immediately examine recruitment and retention policies in order to stem the exodus that we have seen under the Conservatives, reducing the size of the army from over 100,000 to just 80,000 today. In government we will publish new strategic equality objectives to ensure to ensure our personnel reflects our diverse society.

Service personnel who are injured whilst serving should have prompt access to support and compensation. Our nation owes a duty to all who serve in the Armed Forces and we will ensure that the legal duty owed by Ministry of Defence to all personnel is met in full.

A Labour Government will roll out a Homes Fit For Heroes programme that will insulate the homes of our disabled veterans for free. The scheme will provide disabled veterans appropriate insulation or efficiency measures, from cavity or solid wall insulation, to loft insulation or a boiler upgrade. We will drive up standards in Service Accommodation and take action where private companies have failed to deliver. We will consult with the individual services to give them greater autonomy over their housing choices and we will review the Forces Help to Buy scheme with a view to improving it.

So another SDSR; pay rises all round; procurement based on political vice strategic objectives and recruitment and retention policies centred on equality & diversity targets. Not that any of this matters as the Forces will be put into a glass box and marked up with break glass only when we've run out of all other ideas. But will the Tories be any better? I can't say I feel particularly valued or appropriately resourced under Cameron, May et al.

[Tankertrashnav]

Labour supports the renewal of the Trident submarine system. But any prime minister should be extremely cautious about ordering the use of weapons of mass destruction which would result in the indiscriminate killing of millions of innocent civilians.

This point needs absolute clarification by Corbyn, it's far too important for there to be any doubt. Corbyn is on record as saying he would not authorise the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation, May has given an unequivocal "yes". If Corbyn will not "press the button" (and yes, I know there is no button) then the whole point of it as a deterrent is lost. In those circumstances, better to scrap the whole thing and spend the money elsewhere in defence.

[pasta]

If Corbyn will not "press the button" (and yes, I know there is no button) then the whole point of it as a deterrent is lost. In those circumstances, better to scrap the whole thing and spend the money elsewhere in defence.
Not quite. I agree that if it's known that Corbyn won't press the button the deterrent is not effective; the saving grace is that all that's required to reactivate the deterrent is to replace that one person. If it's dismantled, however, it's very difficult indeed (politically, financially and logistically) to reactivate.
By leaving that possibility open, some voters may see Corbyn as a slightly less risky option than he otherwise would be...

Edit: More generally, clarification of awkward points is not Corbyn's thing; as far as I can see, his modus operandi is be incredibly vague as soon as the debate gets a bit difficult...

[blimey]

Letter from this morning's Telegraph if I'm allowed to post it:

SIR – It appears that Emmanuel Macron, the new French president, along with some French officials in the EU administration, are determined to make political and financial capital from Brexit.
They might be reminded of the French withdrawal from Nato’s military arm in 1966. This, at a time of difficult relations with the Soviet Union, required US and Canadian forces, and staff from the international headquarters, to leave France in short order and with no compensation for the money invested in military infrastructure. Moreover, much extra money was then needed to resettle the military in other countries.
France remained a political member of Nato, creating waves when it suited her, while benefiting from the security that forward-based American, British and Canadian armed forces provided within the Nato alliance. A free ride: nice if you can get it.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon

Which naturally brings us to President Johnson asking DeGaulle if his order to remove all US troops from French soil included the dead ones in cemeteries from WW1 and WW2.

[Cazalet33]

Is Macron threatening, or promising, to leave NATO?

Is there some relevance to DeGaulle in the 1960s?

He's a bankster. Neither more nor less.

He's certainly not as hard-right as the LePens, but he's no lefty pacifist.

[wiggy]

blimey

Have you any more info on what Sir Michael is on about/source for his concerns?

As I understood it of all the Presidential candidiates Macron and Hamon were the only two firmly of view that France should remain in NATO ( though if I read things correctly Macron is not in favour of further NATO expansion).

La place de la France dans l'OTAN - propositions des candidats à l'élection présidentielle 2017 (http://www.lemonde.fr/programmes/securite/la-place-de-la-france-dans-l-otan)

[ShotOne]

No, wiggy. I think the point he's making is that the EU are demanding, a humongous sum of money from us for daring to leave the EU but when they baled out of NATO they didn't pay a single centime.

[ricardian]

Letter from this morning's Telegraph if I'm allowed to post it:

SIR – It appears that Emmanuel Macron, the new French president, along with some French officials in the EU administration, are determined to make political and financial capital from Brexit.
They might be reminded of the French withdrawal from Nato’s military arm in 1966. This, at a time of difficult relations with the Soviet Union, required US and Canadian forces, and staff from the international headquarters, to leave France in short order and with no compensation for the money invested in military infrastructure. Moreover, much extra money was then needed to resettle the military in other countries.
France remained a political member of Nato, creating waves when it suited her, while benefiting from the security that forward-based American, British and Canadian armed forces provided within the Nato alliance. A free ride: nice if you can get it.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon

Which naturally brings us to President Johnson asking DeGaulle if his order to remove all US troops from French soil included the dead ones in cemeteries from WW1 and WW2.

The French will always be there when they need us...

[Pontius Navigator]

ShotOne, rather more than bail out, more an ejection. I don't know if they benefitted from infrastructure. I think ACEUR HQ buildings were temporary.

[Hangarshuffle]

Utterly piss poor manifesto on Defence from the Labour Party, but I expected nowt less if I'm honest. Right now I cannot think who their shadow ministers are at all......yes my brain is small and tired but if even I don't know....
The national shipbuilding bit is horse bolted door closed but at least its a hint of a policy......
They are also hinting that they will bring in positive recruitment policy. That could be good. I would like to see less public school, more state school in the better jobs.

[Melchett01]

Utterly piss poor manifesto on Defence from the Labour Party, but I expected nowt less if I'm honest. Right now I cannot think who their shadow ministers are at all......yes my brain is small and tired but if even I don't know....
The national shipbuilding bit is horse bolted door closed but at least its a hint of a policy......
They are also hinting that they will bring in positive recruitment policy. That could be good. I would like to see less public school, more state school in the better jobs.

I think you're giving them more credit than they have policies. National shipbuilding and positive recruitment aren't policies, more like targeted support for key constituencies and voter demographics. Frankly, when we're as undermanned and stretched as we are, we need the best people we can get, regardless of origin. Anything else represents a risk to operational success, and in the worst case life, in the name of political correctness.

All that said, I doubt we'll see much more in the Tory manifesto. Have you noticed how the Tory campaign is increasingly becoming about Mrs May and less about the party? Just look at their 'battle bus' where her name is plastered all over and 'Conservative' gets a token mention by the door. Much more and it will look more like a personality cult than a political party. I'm dying to see how they squeeze 'strong stable leadership' in to the Defence manifesto.

[4mastacker]

I'm dying to see how they squeeze 'strong stable leadership' in to the Defence manifesto.

More horses for the Army?

[RAFEngO74to09]

The French benefitted hugely from inherited infrastructure investment from the USAF being required to withdraw from France. In 1966, the USAF had several air bases in France - many of which the USAF had built up from scratch for the jet era after the start of the Cold War.

For instance, at Toul-Rosieres AB, the 26 TRW was in the process of converting from the RF-101C to RF-4C and at Laon-Couvron AB the 66 TRW was operating the RF-101C. The 26 TRW relocated to Ramstein AB and the 66 TRW relocated to RAF Upper Heyford.

The French AF then moved F-100s into Toul and the French Army moved into Laon with Pluton tactical nuclear missiles.

Earlier. the French had also caused much nugatory work and expense for the USAF by requiring the relocation of nuclear strike assets out of the county. For instance, in July 1956, the 50 TFW moved into Toul from Hahn AFB, West Germany with the 74 x F-86H. From May 1957, 50 TFW started converting to 75 x F-100D/F with a primary mission of tactical nuclear strike but by December 1959 were relocated back to Hahn AFB !

[ericferret]

Paying the EU off shouldn't be such a problem, 60 years to pay off the WW2 debt and a 100 years for WW1. So a repayment schedule of 70 to 80 years should do.

[Basil]

I read the letter by ACM Sir Michael Graydon.
Hit, Nail, Head! :ok:

We will always be the rosbiffs, island monkeys etc.
They hate us because we always win. :cool:

[Willard Whyte]

I would like to see less public school, more state school in the better jobs.

I'd like to see the best person for the job, and if they're from public, or grammar, schools then so be it.

[MAINJAFAD]

The Labour govt initiated the Nimrod Mk 3 project in 1977. It was cancelled under a Conservative govt in 1986.
The signal sent out by the JTU after each sortie used to end with the following words:
Assessment of operational capability: Nil
Assessment of training capability: Nil.
It was far from being on the cusp of delivery.

Actually put forward and costed by Heath's mob in 1973 (it says that in the Files on UKAD improvements during the 1970s at Kew (RAF wanted the E-3)).

[Tankertrashnav]

60 years to pay off the WW2 debt

I was unaware that they had even started to pay off their debt to us for saving their backsides in WW2 !

[Arclite01]

TTN

That is us who have been paying the US for the last 60 years. I am unsure if anyone in Europe has been paying...................

Arc

[A_Van]

TTN

That is us who have been paying the US for the last 60 years. I am unsure if anyone in Europe has been paying...................

Arc



Russia still owes the US about USD 100M, is paying in small slices and the payment schedule ends in 2030. Not really a burden.

[Arclite01]

I am assuming this is repayments for Lend Lease stuff and direct purchases of materials...........

Arc

[Hangarshuffle]

Funny thing Melchett you nailed it = they are saying the same today, its all about May, other Tories have totally submerged lately.
William- a short story. In the hard faced field I now work in, a young guy (my boss at the time) told me a tale about how he wanted to join the RN as an officer. He was a comprehensive school boy from a very unglamorous northern industrial town. With an accent that would confirm his origin... he was totally rejected as such, but tried to be steered towards tiff. Which he rejected.
So now he's a very senior guy at a young age with the same accent, a young uber talented pro and would truly run rings around many or most of the RN officers I worked with or for.
Wiki up the present guys in charge of all aspects of the military and a clique emerges, a cabal. Think some recognise this and want change, better diversity that reflects us all.
Don't say they cant do it - WW2s Bomber Command intake says differently.

[engineer(retard)]

HS,

You and your boss should have joined a younger service that doesn't have those restrictions.

[racedo]

Wiki up the present guys in charge of all aspects of the military and a clique emerges, a cabal. Think some recognise this and want change, better diversity that reflects us all.
Don't say they cant do it - WW2s Bomber Command intake says differently.

WW2 Bomber Command were expendable.

Eton, Marlborough, Stowe plus others were seen as supposdly providing the officer corp.

Problem with that is by limiting intake you draw from the same shallow gene pool and ignore those who have better ideas because they are not the establishment.

A USCG/USN/USMC recuiter I knew in LA said some of his best recruits were people who had grown up in gang territory. He couldn't recruit direct if they were in gangs but some of the people he recruited were ones who hadn't been drawn in through a mixture of courage / cunning.
He viewed it that if you could survive 5-6 teen years in Gang territory in LA then you had a bit of backbone, couple of years in, USMC especially, then you could survive in any hell hole in the world.

[engineer(retard)]

Great theory, providing you ignore the 91 apprentices that made air rank including Frank Whittle.

[Avitor]

Great theory, providing you ignore the 91 apprentices that made air rank including Frank Whittle.

Some throaty roars came from Frank's brick shed at lutterworth in the 50's, I once saw a Lancaster take of with its 4 Merlins and a pipe protruding from where the rear turret was. It made rapid climb.

[ShotOne]

I'd love to see some evidence for this cabal theory. There was (I think) just one public school fellow on my BFTS course. And how would an "affirmative action" programme for non-public school educated officers actually work anyway?

[Tankertrashnav]

Similar thing on my squadron in the 70s - I think there were no more than four or five former public schoolboys out of 50 plus aircrew (one of whom is one of our contributors).

Mind you, not for nothing were we known as tanker trash ;)

[Martin the Martian]

Some throaty roars came from Frank's brick shed at lutterworth in the 50's, I once saw a Lancaster take of with its 4 Merlins and a pipe protruding from where the rear turret was. It made rapid climb.

4 Bristol Hercules and a pipe. 'Twas a Mk.II.

[ShotOne]

Nobody could accuse all the parties of holding the same positions on defence. Labour's election campaign chief Andrew Murray, a fully paid-up Communist until 5 months ago, reveres Stalin, has praised and expressed solidarity with North Korea and delighted in "the swift and stunning military triumph of ISIL fighters", or Ms Abbot who as well as not being great with numbers, campaigned to disband MI5 and Special Branch at the height of the Troubles. At least we know!

[Hangarshuffle]

Got the Labour Manifesto tonight downloaded. Defence is down on page 120 and to be honest I think its pretty reasonable on defence.

Labour Manifesto (http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017)

Funnily enough I cant see anything about ******* off the Public Schoolboys for more plebs and proles (which is a pity, it reduces the class war pitch of the manifesto) but there's much more about retention, why so many are leaving generally.
Yea maybe I was a bit hard on the Public Schoolboys, not all are bad I admit it. In retrospect, in these days if you've had the privilege of a public school education (and all that that buys in with the network) and you volunteer for the military, you aint right in the head anyway

*1 minute on the internet shows me the head of the navy and the head of the army both attended public schools. Maybe the nets wrong? No idea about the crab, me suppers burning I've got to go . What percentage of the UK working population went to public school anybody?

[Ken Scott]

Current CAS was educated at Kilmarnock Academy, a state secondary, the last public school CAS was Jock Stirrup. Of the last 11 CASs going back to Michael Beetham 4 were ex-public school.

Proportion of public school educated children is 7% in the UK.

Percentage of socialists with chips on their shoulders I have been unable to quantify but I believe it's much higher.

[keith williams]

Unless things have changed drastically since I retired, a significant number of children from service families also go to Public Schools. And they are not all the children of officers. Are they also to be despised in the pursuit of a fairer Britain?

It really is time to get away from this politics of envy and start behaving like grown-ups.

[Finningley Boy]

Got the Labour Manifesto tonight downloaded. Defence is down on page 120 and to be honest I think its pretty reasonable on defence.

Labour Manifesto (http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017)

Funnily enough I cant see anything about ******* off the Public Schoolboys for more plebs and proles (which is a pity, it reduces the class war pitch of the manifesto) but there's much more about retention, why so many are leaving generally.
Yea maybe I was a bit hard on the Public Schoolboys, not all are bad I admit it. In retrospect, in these days if you've had the privilege of a public school education (and all that that buys in with the network) and you volunteer for the military, you aint right in the head anyway

*1 minute on the internet shows me the head of the navy and the head of the army both attended public schools. Maybe the nets wrong? No idea about the crab, me suppers burning I've got to go . What percentage of the UK working population went to public school anybody?


It is quite reasonable position to take, the thin ice would be the SDSR which everything will get poured into should the election go to the Labour Party. There has always been the Marxist and centrist elements, the Defence manifesto remains as it was under Ed Millibnd. However, that it has not changed radically is because Corbyn's probably understands that now is not the time. Once in office and through the review, that is when the sharp knives will come out.:eek: Just an observation!:E

FB:)

[MACH2NUMBER]

To add to KWs comments, both my children went to fee paying schools, not because I wanted to send them, or because the RAF helped pay, but because we moved 5 times during their secondary schooling. It broke our hearts to part, but it was a necessary evil. No kids can cope with this sort of turbulence without a major effect on their education and future.

[teeteringhead]

And while all Public Schools are fee-paying (generally), one would not say that all fee-paying schools/Boarding Schools were Public Schools.

Son-and-heir and Snr Daughter boarded at a State School for a couple years while Milady and self were away. Continuity of education you see.......

But I'm just a grammar school oik, so what do I know...........

[Danny42C]

teeteringhead is right, I spent nine years at a Boarding School, whose Headmaster would have been sent round to the Servants' Entrance had he dared to appear at the Headmasters' Conference.

But they taught me well, and turned a mummy's boy into a capable young man. After that, the RAF was "a piece of cake !"

Danny.

[Hangarshuffle]

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/5909d4366ad575794c000000/attachments/original/1495011039/manifesto.pdf?1495011039

Possibly the longest linky ever-this is the Liberal Party manifest.
Page 84 for defence.
In a nutshell-
3 three new nuclear bombers instead of 4 four. Downgrade their state of readiness.
10k golden hellos for new joiners (only engineers officers though).
2% UK GDP spend on defence.
Standup to Russia over Ukraine (and launch wave after wave of Typhoon fighter bombers in suicide missions at Moscow from Poland if it gets tasty).
Cancel arms trade with Saudi because of Yemen. (Get in)!

The top crab went to Kilmarnock Academy and not a private school then - good man and good for him.

[Ken Scott]

Probably not his choice but that of his parents.

I don't see that his school background is relevant or a cause for celebration. He achieved his position as 'Chief of the Air Staff' (rather than the patronising & frankly rather insulting 'top crab') through his ability, had he happened to have reached the top job via an independent school on the back of the same said ability I don't think would be justification to condemn him - or though no doubt you do.

There are good and bad state schools but would you condemn someone who happened to go to the former? Is it only admirable to achieve success on the basis of maximum hardship & deprivation?

A good school, whether state or independent, can only do so much with the material presented, the individual needs the innate ability to have a chance of success. It's not simply a matter of purchasing a path to the top.

As many of the previous posters have said a great many parents are looking for a stable education for their offspring which would be impossible via the state system (although there are a few state boarding schools) rather than just inserting their progeny into the first rung of the old boy network.

[A_Van]

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/5909d4366ad575794c000000/attachments/original/1495011039/manifesto.pdf?1495011039
....
(and launch wave after wave of Typhoon fighter bombers in suicide missions at Moscow from Poland if it gets tasty).
......


:rolleyes: The writer of such statements should obviously stop smoking too hard stuff... :)

[Finningley Boy]

I would like to second Avitor's assessment, sorry Beagle, but you can't expect a manifesto which scratches everyone's itch. What a lovely expression! however, I think the Lib Dems would now make a more realistic HM's loyal opposition than the Marxist Students' sit in party.

FB

[engineer(retard)]

If the Lib Dems do win, can we have another general election this year in case we change our mind?

[Out Of Trim]

Hmm, Oh dear!

I was going to Vote Conservative until todays manifesto. Now I'm not so sure. The proposed changes to Social Care do not sit well with me. I think the grey vote may well be lost across the country. It only raises £1.3 Billion, yet risks losing many votes to bonkers Labour!

I tried to download the manifesto, but it won't display properly on an iPad.. Another own goal!

[cornish-stormrider]

Sorry
Zelda and her death tax whereby having over £100000 in assets including your house at death means any social care you need to start stumping up for......


That would be the same social care you paid for throughout your working lives would it?

I'm impressed - they can say anything and you'll keep putting the boot into Corbyn.
May and the TerrorHawks have done so well recently in running this nation that she decided to go back on her word again to bring a snap election on..

While I am here, legalising Cannibis will do a great deal of good. It has great medical potential and is far less damaging than alcohol in both direct and indirect costs and a well organised taxation scheme would mean a significant upswell in tax coffers.

But that's just the weed talking isn't it

[Wrathmonk]

Cornish-S

As I understand the current rules the threshold is £23250 so surely "Zelda" has improved your lot.

capital is the phrase used to describe the total amount of your savings, any property you own and any shares you might have. It does NOT include your pension and benefits you might be getting

Over £23,250..You must pay full fees (self-funding) [Snipped from the table below the quote above]

Paying for permanent residential care | Care homes | Age UK (http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/paying-for-permanent-residential-care/)

[Out Of Trim]

Wrathmonk,

That is only true if you go into a Care Home. However, many elderly folk are cared for in their own homes. This new Death Tax for those suffering from dementia will now have to pay from not only their savings, but also now include their house equity down to their last 100K. So, someone with early onset dementia could end up paying hundreds of thousands for this care in their own homes.

Whereas, someone living in a council house would have their care paid for them. It does seem rather unfair. It would be better to add the cost to National Insurance

I may have to do the unthinkable.. Vote Labour for the first time in my life!

It would appear that all Politicians have gone bonkers.. :ugh:

[Tankertrashnav]

The way I undertsand it, even if Mrs TTN and I both require home care paid for by the state, the bill can be deferred until we both snuff it. The state then steps in and claims the balance from the proceeds of our house sale, leaving £100k to be divvied up between our kids (3 in our case). That's more than either of us inherited from our parents, so I'm sure they'll survive. People will say that they should have the right to leave all their money to their children if they want, and of course nobody is taking that right away - just pay for your own care in old age and the state wont touch your money. But don't expect to have your cake and eat it.

[Fonsini]

Isn't there a 7 year rule on transfering assets to your kids, or has that disappeared now? I clearly recall that at one time mummy or daddy only had to live 7 years after asset transferral to avoid any payments for residential care.

Terrible that we have to think of such things. Oh and yes, Corbyn struck me as being as mad as a hatter and so did that liberal chappie, Jeremy Thorpe was more my era, and the less said about him the better !