snowychap Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 45 minutes ago, Xann said: if we were waving our our own willy, rather than an expensive American strap on. There are metaphors and then there are metaphors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 1 hour ago, chrisp65 said: ......with one that can land on our aircraft carrier due in 'about' 4 or 5 years time if there are no more delays - according to the Royal Navy. The f35 c variation had been landing on US air craft carriers since 2014 so that suggests the delays are from the ship end rather than the plane end ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 5 hours ago, Xann said: They can stay at sea longer and stay submerged longer as they reprocess their own oxygen. They would become hunter killers of other naval vessels rather than a nuclear deterrent. HMS Conqueror, the one Brit sub I can actually remember torpedoing anything, was such a vessel. Nuclear power, no ICBMs Actually we're rather good at sonar and radar. Our new submarine ran rings around the dismayed Yanks in sea trials, and our radar systems had a bad habit of detecting hyper expensive stealth tech. Yet with the current system we're still buying their stuff, because we don't want to properly resource our own research, because the rich don't want to contribute. I'd be less adverse to a nuclear deterrent if we were waving our our own willy, rather than an expensive American strap on. The new US fighter we're buying isn't looking brilliant either. Otherwise - Money better spent on those in misery. Nice one Corbyn You're spot on that UK sonar and radar are best in class, as is our sub fleet. For example the USN are mightily impressed with the T45 air defence Destroyers which are now regularly employed escorting US Carrier Battle Groups. Our anti-submarine guys are the best in the world. However our nuclear powered (all Royal Navy subs are nuclear powered btw) hunter killer subs (SSNs) like the old HMS Conqueror are designed and built for that role - smaller, different equipment etc. The Trident missile boats (SSBNs) are much bigger for obvious reasons and designed to hide quietly in the depths, not hunt other subs or surface vessels. It's like saying an HGV can do the same job as an F1 car because they both have wheels and an engine. If you want more Astute class SSNs to make up the numbers of hulls for the building jobs then fine, do that. Building a larger more expensive platform to do a job it isn't designed to do is pretty stupid, frankly. I get that people want to defend Corbyn but in this case it's like pushing water uphill with a pitch fork. It's a spectacularly dumb idea and he's got it wrong. Best thing to hope for is it gets filed under "senior moments" and quietly forgotten. For what it's worth the F35b represents a huge step change in capability for the RAF and Fleet Air Arm. Any blogs etc saying it's not are greatly misinformed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 5 hours ago, tonyh29 said: The f35 c variation had been landing on US air craft carriers since 2014 so that suggests the delays are from the ship end rather than the plane end ? No idea. The point was more about the incompatibility of billions of pounds worth of kit. The ship was due to be ready for 2014, then it was due to be fitted out by 2015, it's nearly ready - except the design has changed as they couldn't have the landing and take off spec they'd wanted to make it 'future proof'. It should be ready in 2018, at double the original cost estimate. It'll have helicopters, as the aircraft won't be ready. Future proof? Now the strategy is that by 2030 we think we might need something smaller, quicker, lighter as it turns out many of the conflicts we get involved in aren't against super powers! Who knew! So let's not let the military and the hawks and the experts and those that like big guns tell us what nukes we need. They appear to be cretins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 3 hours ago, Awol said: The Trident missile boats (SSBNs) are much bigger for obvious reasons and designed to hide quietly in the depths, not hunt other subs or surface vessels. It's like saying an HGV can do the same job as an F1 car because they both have wheels and an engine. For what it's worth the F35b represents a huge step change in capability for the RAF and Fleet Air Arm. Any blogs etc saying it's not are greatly misinformed. Your HGV analogy is interesting as you'd have to say the majority of the World's navies employ tractors, so the HGV would still run rings around them, but yes you wouldn't send it out against deep diving Russian subs or aircraft carriers. You could however put conventional Tomahawks in the vertical tubes, and have a vessel capable of taking on individual ships or battle groups. Indeed it could engage ships in port. It would certainly give the North Koreans and Argentinians food for thought. As for the F35, sure it's better, it really wants to be, it's stupid money. Bickering between the US armed forces has seen the price rise as specs have changed. Then there's the marrying off of aeronautics and stealth. These represent two very different shapes. The compromise doesn't suit either capability particularly well, and requires the aircraft to do much of it's own thinking to fly. This doesn't come cheap either. Adding to the F35s woes, the new generation of vector thrusting Russki jets have already shown they're worryingly capable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 15 minutes ago, Xann said: vector thrusting Russki jets have already shown they're worryingly capable. are you referring to the SU-35 .. that is also beset by it's own problems and the SU-3x family has generally failed on the stealth front but you are comparing HGV's to F1 again as the 2 planes have very different roles 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: are you referring to the SU-35 .. that is also beset by it's own problems You're right, but the 35 turned into a testbed for the PAK FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 27, 2016 Moderator Share Posted January 27, 2016 4 hours ago, chrisp65 said: No idea. The point was more about the incompatibility of billions of pounds worth of kit. The ship was due to be ready for 2014, then it was due to be fitted out by 2015, it's nearly ready - except the design has changed as they couldn't have the landing and take off spec they'd wanted to make it 'future proof'. It should be ready in 2018, at double the original cost estimate. It'll have helicopters, as the aircraft won't be ready. Future proof? Now the strategy is that by 2030 we think we might need something smaller, quicker, lighter as it turns out many of the conflicts we get involved in aren't against super powers! Who knew! So let's not let the military and the hawks and the experts and those that like big guns tell us what nukes we need. They appear to be cretins. Politics, not "the military and the hawks and the experts and those that like big guns" is the reason for all that as far as the carrier part goes. Labour ordered the VSTOL "jump jet" version of the f-35. When the tories got in, they decided to change the order to the conventional CTOL version that change necessitated modifications to the carrier design (fit catapults and arrestor hook cables. Then, later on the tories changed their mind again, and decided to go back to the VSTOL version and etc... The tories also flogged off the Harrier fleet to the Americans, leaving us with no carrier aircraft in the interim - again due to idiocy in the 2010/11 SDSR and Osborne's obsession with getting rid of "the debt" by 2015 (how did that work out?). But AWOL is spot on as regards Corbyn and his approach to Trident. There is an argument to be made not to have nukes ( I just about agree with that argument, but both sides to the argument have merit). What is totally transparent, and daft, is the Corbyn "idea" to build the Trident subs, and then not bother with the Nukes. That was said solely to address the Unions desire to protect their members' jobs. There's no military logic to Corbyn's "idea" whatsoever. Unfortunately elements of Corbyn's world view and the consequential policies are utterly devoid of any real world context or thought or factors or considerations. And the tories are just as bad, for different reasons. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Quote The Jeremy Corbyn story that nobody wanted to publish The dominant media narrative says that affluent, successful celebrities wouldn't support Corbyn - he's a loner surrounded by 'loony lefties'. ... many in the media don't want to report a story about how leading musicians, poets, film-makers and comedians support Jeremy Corbyn. It wouldn't go along with their narrative and would undermine their own credibility with their readers. They want Jeremy Corbyn to look like a loner who has little support, or only the support of people that the media have already demonized – those mysterious “loony lefties” who aren’t talented and successful celebrities. Probably best to ignore it altogether. Independent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Xann said: many in the media don't want to report a story about how leading musicians, poets, film-makers and comedians Quote There is a fantastic range of talented people who will perform or speak for Jeremy, including Charlotte Church ... Ok let me stop you right there but the list does go on .... Michael Rosen, Brian Eno, Ken Loach, Billy Bragg, Mark Steel, Jeremy Hardy, Francesca Martinez, Mark Serwotka, Shappi Khorsandi, Arthur Smith, Patrick Monahan, Janey Godley and many more. Yeah I can kinda see why it's not newsworthy Edited February 3, 2016 by tonyh29 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Brian Eno is better than Jesus, Tone. I can understand how you might not understand as the World's biggest Big Country fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 17 minutes ago, Xann said: Brian Eno is better than Jesus, Tone. I'll be honest and say I've never actually heard any of Jesus's music .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 3, 2016 Moderator Share Posted February 3, 2016 6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: I'll be honest and say I've never actually heard any of Jesus's music .... We've all got our crosses to bear... I'm too tasteful to do a Nine Inch Nails joke. oops 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 He's more famous for foot massages and fish sandwiches, but divine entities are expected to have completed their music grades and theory. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Everytime I hear Corbyn its like he is playing a game of politician. His speeches come across like he doesn't even believe himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 3 hours ago, foreveryoung said: Everytime I hear Corbyn its like he is playing a game of politician. His speeches come across like he doesn't even believe himself. Eh? I've heard Corbyn called pretty much every name under the sun, but I think you're the first person who's ever accused him of being a phony. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jon Posted February 4, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted February 4, 2016 15 hours ago, tonyh29 said: I'll be honest and say I've never actually heard any of Jesus's music .... He improved immensely when he joined The Mary Chain 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 18 hours ago, foreveryoung said: Everytime I hear Corbyn its like he is playing a game of politician. His speeches come across like he doesn't even believe himself. He's probably the most straight talking honest politician in the country.He doesn't bend with the wind like Cameron. Some of the things he believes in are politically difficult to espouse, particularly with the , by and large, right wing reactionary press we have in this country. But he has the courage of his convictions, and argues his casewith some eloquence, and without resorting to personal abuse. A man like that is very rare. I like him. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 27 minutes ago, meregreen said: He doesn't bend with the wind like Cameron I may be wrong here but a politician who doesn't change with the wind is likely to be one that's out of office very quickly so you'd be hard pushed to find any that don't .... And Corbyn sorta did bend to public opinion on issues like the National Anthem , the Privy Council even Trident - though that was half arsed and to panda to the unions rather than the public at large TBH , He strikes me as a man of principle , even if those principles are misguided and deluded ... For that I do admire him a little He may not be as shamelessly opportunistic as Milliband was , but I doubt he isn't foolhardy enough not to bend to public opinion when its looks like a vote loser .. Possibly Syria he kept true to himself ( though public opinion wasn't clear cut on that one so he didn't have to ) but even then he U-turned and gave a free vote when it was obvious he was about to get humiliated by his party if he didn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Why can't we have a party to vote for covering all parts of the spectrum rather than a bunch of parties all crammed into whatever is currently represented within the Overton window which is currently pretty far right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts