Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Witcha
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jun 2010
    • 1241

    Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
    250 millions aren't paltry in time of budget cuts at home. But if tou want to spend them to help poor people, do NOT give them to India. India has by far an economic power and budget that can surely take care of its own population. I remind you their massive arms race and their space program for a fast example.

    Money given to Pakistan makes already more sense because it has a strategical importance in ensuring Pakistan support in the Afghanistan effort. And it is meant to make the Pakistan government capable to get back in force in the currently uncontrollable area at the borders with Afghanistan.
    Money given to India seems to be far less effective for helping british interests, and coupled to the might of India itself... They don't need that money. The british overstretched budget would bless it.
    How old are you? You're seriously deluded if you think military might and defence budgets have any bearing on the economic well-being of a nation's people.

    And determining a multi-billion political bribe as more important than a quarter-billion of poverty aid further shows how illogical your idea of money well-spent is. Hack 250 million of the UK defence budget and at most the RAF will lose 3 Eurofighters. Hack 250 million off Pakistan's large economic and military aid and it'll make no great difference to their economy. Withhold all the aid you're giving to India and thousands at least will die. The Indian government isn't immediately going to substitute funds to the various programmes and NGOs affected. That's how it is in the third world.
    Last edited by Witcha; 15th July 2010, 21:30.

    Comment

    • StevoJH
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jun 2008
      • 1024

      And 3 Typhoons per year over 10 years is 30 Typhoons, or roughly two badly needed fighter squadrons.
      Can't wait to join the 'real' world. Hopefully only one week to go....

      Comment

      • LordJim
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jul 2005
        • 343

        What I cannot get my head around is that people say that thousands will die if we cur aid to countries like India but India os spending huge amounts on defence and space programmes. Shouldn't they be looking after their own rather than relying on others. IF they can build and launch satalites they can afford 250M to feed its own population.

        The money should go to nations that really need it not allow countries to avoid looking after their own people. The same goes for China, Brazil and other high growth nations.

        Comment

        • Witcha
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jun 2010
          • 1241

          Originally posted by LordJim View Post
          What I cannot get my head around is that people say that thousands will die if we cur aid to countries like India but India os spending huge amounts on defence and space programmes. Shouldn't they be looking after their own rather than relying on others. IF they can build and launch satalites they can afford 250M to feed its own population.

          The money should go to nations that really need it not allow countries to avoid looking after their own people. The same goes for China, Brazil and other high growth nations.
          There'll always be people making arguments like 'XXX is poor, why spend anything at all on defence/space/technology when you can spend on feeding them?' It kinda applies to the wealthy nations as well to some extent. That said in India's case the defence budget is necessary(and as as much as is spent, insufficient) to replace the block obsolescent equipment of the world's fourth largest military. With two nuclear-armed neighbours and constantly hostile borders it can't afford not to spend money on that, poverty or no poverty.

          The Indian government does spend money on poverty alleviation programmes; more than it spends on defence and space put together; but it simply isn't enough, even without factoring in factors like corruption.

          To SteVO: that's a flawed analogy. You can't time-travel Typhoon's from different time periods to keep an operational squadron. 3 Typhoons lost is 3 Typhoons lost.
          Last edited by Witcha; 16th July 2010, 01:40.

          Comment

          • Liger30
            Armed Forces supporter
            • Jul 2010
            • 901

            Originally posted by Witcha View Post
            How old are you? You're seriously deluded if you think military might and defence budgets have any bearing on the economic well-being of a nation's people.

            And determining a multi-billion political bribe as more important than a quarter-billion of poverty aid further shows how illogical your idea of money well-spent is. Hack 250 million of the UK defence budget and at most the RAF will lose 3 Eurofighters. Hack 250 million off Pakistan's large economic and military aid and it'll make no great difference to their economy. Withhold all the aid you're giving to India and thousands at least will die. The Indian government isn't immediately going to substitute funds to the various programmes and NGOs affected. That's how it is in the third world.
            I don't get your point.
            I did not say that people is rich because the nation spends billions on defence. But, if India was to spend a little less for defence, it could A LOT in terms of welfare. While the weapons they buy from US or Europe are paid in WESTERN costs, the life in India is incomparably cheaper than it is here. With a bunch of dollars in welfare to person, they could sustain millions of their poor people.

            As to Pakistan, the aid is not targeted to the well being of people as it is targeted to ensure that Pakistan keeps working with the alliance for the Afghanistan crisis and to try and allow Pakistan to regain control of the border area, that's a sanctuary for the talibans and a direct threat to Pakistan's nuclear facilities as well. Months ago, the talibans were less than 50 miles away from a nuclear plant, and had to be URGENTLY fought backwards. In this scenario, that aid is strategically relevant to british interests first of all, and this is what matters the most.

            And as to India having so urgently to rearm itself... Really? But people doesn't keep saying that wars in the globalized world are a no-no by now? That we are not going to see state-on-state warfare?
            Everyone is ramping up weapons production and acquisition, from Brasil to China to India to Russia which is launching all sorts of programs for new weaponry... Yet, the UK and Europe keep disarming. "There's no risk!", they say. We can spend that money on something else.

            Which means, basically, saying "we are smart. That people spending so much on weapons is stupid."

            Can you see the flaw in the reasoning? It is a MASSIVE flaw.
            Yet, we should burden the weight of India's welfare, while we can't bear the weight of our own massively inflated welfare bill, to allow India to lease Akula SSNs, build missiles, have a space program aiming for bringing men on the Moon, build two aircraft carriers and acquiring force-projection assets like landing ships and 10 C17.

            Those as well are needed against Pakistan?
            India is aiming to have the chance to rule over the Indian Ocean area and possibly beyond.
            In a globalized world, this may one day clash with our own interests.

            So, no wars in sight. No one needs weapons. But everyone buys them in stocks. Save for Europe.
            Smart planning. The disarmed man in a room full of people with loaded guns. You know, if something bad happens, even not directly targeted at the disarmed man, he's very likely to get injured at the very least.
            "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

            Comment

            • StevoJH
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jun 2008
              • 1024

              Originally posted by Witcha View Post
              To SteVO: that's a flawed analogy. You can't time-travel Typhoon's from different time periods to keep an operational squadron. 3 Typhoons lost is 3 Typhoons lost.
              No. A cut to the procurement budget of that magnitude, would result in 3 less typhoons purchased every year of the program. Assuming a program length of 10 years, that is a total of 30 aircraft.

              T2 and T3 will be produced for quite a few years yet.
              Can't wait to join the 'real' world. Hopefully only one week to go....

              Comment

              • Liger30
                Armed Forces supporter
                • Jul 2010
                • 901

                Originally posted by StevoJH View Post
                No. A cut to the procurement budget of that magnitude, would result in 3 less typhoons purchased every year of the program. Assuming a program length of 10 years, that is a total of 30 aircraft.

                T2 and T3 will be produced for quite a few years yet.
                The RAF is probably going to see 48 Typhoons, the Tranche 3B, cut altogether already, anyway. But i hope that will be the end of the cuts to the Typhoon force.
                Too easy to call it a Cold War relic. It is not.

                If the industry is very lucky, the impact of the decision will be softened by 24 Typhoons for Oman and 24 more for Saudi Arabia. The negotiations are already in place.
                Then there is, of course, the potential India contract for 126 Typhoons, which would secure thousands of jobs for years, and keep the aerospace industry on the move.
                "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                Comment

                • Witcha
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jun 2010
                  • 1241

                  Liger30, before you shut yourself off in your 'Us poor Europe, us defenceless, our interests wawoo' mentality just remember these two points. I have nothing more to say beyond it.

                  -'Welfare' in Western terms means unemployment allowances, social security and subsidised healthcare. In third-world terms like these don't even exist in the common man's dreams. Here welfare means providing just enough food and shelter to countless homeless(or slum-dwelling), penniless and starving folk to enable them to continue surviving.

                  -The aid you give to Pakistan(Which, btw includes billions in economic aid given via the IMF and World Bank; want to cut that too since it doesn't serve your idea of 'British interests'?) does no more than to maybe reduce their casualties from perpetual anti-terror operations that will likely go on indefinitely. Their nations is no great threat of being conquered by ill-equipped gorillas.

                  BTW those funds which are according to you meant to privide anti-terror equipment are more often spent on AWACS and fighter planes for conventional war on India. I see you have no problem with letting a few thousand indian villagers die of starvation starve to buy more Eurofighters but will absolutely refuse to consider slashing a few of Pakistan's 40 new freebie F-16s and 3 E-2C Hawkeyes. Ever wonder what they, an even poorer country, need with all that expensive hardware?

                  And no, my post is not intended to be anti-Pakistan. I'm clearing Liger's moral pretentions on his views(which, of course, he's welcome to, so long as he isn't fooling anyone). Denying aid to the neediest on such flimsy and inconsistent grounds is not rational.
                  Last edited by Witcha; 16th July 2010, 08:53.

                  Comment

                  • Liger30
                    Armed Forces supporter
                    • Jul 2010
                    • 901

                    Originally posted by Witcha View Post
                    Liger30, before you shut yourself off in your 'Us poor Europe, us defenceless, our interests wawoo' mentality just remember these two points. I have nothing more to say beyond it.

                    -'Welfare' in Western terms means unemployment allowances, social security and subsidised healthcare. In third-world terms like these don't even exist in the common man's dreams. Here welfare means providing just enough food and shelter to countless homeless(or slum-dwelling), penniless and starving folk to enable them to continue surviving.

                    -The aid you give to Pakistan(Which, btw includes billions in economic aid given via the IMF and World Bank; want to cut that too since it doesn't serve your idea of 'British interests'?) does no more than to maybe reduce their casualties from perpetual anti-terror operations that will likely go on indefinitely. Their nations is no great threat of being conquered by ill-equipped gorillas.

                    BTW those funds which are according to you meant to privide anti-terror equipment are more often spent on AWACS and fighter planes for conventional war on India. I see you have no problem with letting a few thousand indian villagers die of starvation starve to buy more Eurofighters but will absolutely refuse to consider slashing a few of Pakistan's 40 new freebie F-16s and 3 E-2C Hawkeyes. Ever wonder what they, an even poorer country, need with all that expensive hardware?

                    And no, my post is not intended to be anti-Pakistan. I'm clearing Liger's moral pretentions on his views(which, of course, he's welcome to, so long as he isn't fooling anyone). Denying aid to the neediest on such flimsy and inconsistent grounds is not rational.
                    You are a bit of an arrogant, my friend. You believe to know so much of the world, and you assume that others don't.
                    I'm utterly in favour of cutting aid on India, yes. We have better uses for that money, either in helping someone else who's not getting ready to send men on the Moon, or to help the budget crisis at home. Or even to ensure we have the proper balance of force needed.
                    Indian villagers are a responsibility of India, and India definitely has the possibility to look after its own people. It does not have the will , this is the difference. If less aid comes from abroad, they may finally consider taking care of their own people. Because, even accepting your flawed vision of Pakistan being such a massive threat to India, i must point out that India already has the force to erase Pakistan ten times over. The fact is that India's ambitions go far beyond that. And we have no real interest in shouldering the burden of their own population to allow them to become all the faster a global, and no more regional, superpower.

                    Pakistan is in no risks about Talibans? Tell that to Pakistan, which is still struggling to gain control of the northern valleys and regions at the border with Afghanistan. Talibans are a problem for US, UK and NATO, and not for Pakistan in your mind? Man, you have a weird vision of the world.

                    As to aid money use, it is perfectly possible that Pakistan uses that for more expensive and not directly counterterror-related kit for its armed forces. Possible, but not certain. Probable, undoubtedly.
                    But that is a politic matter: adequate control and pressure is in the US and UK's interests to make sure that Pakistan pays the needed attention to the crisis at the northern border.

                    As to "poor" nations buying billions-worth of weapons (we could easily include Venezuela too), this is just a proof of how flawed concepts like "poor" and "international aid" are.
                    Give them money and see it spent on weaponry it is not just a waste of taxpayer's money: it represents a direct threat to national security and interests.

                    Other than this, i can't say. You'll keep loving the Guardian and its dreams anyway. And this is NOT, as people already said many times over, the correct post for this phylosophy. Here we should be talking of the CVFs. And that's what i'll try to do from now on.
                    "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                    Comment

                    • kev 99
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Aug 2008
                      • 1535

                      I thought this thread was about CVF

                      Comment

                      • Liger30
                        Armed Forces supporter
                        • Jul 2010
                        • 901

                        Originally posted by kev 99 View Post
                        I thought this thread was about CVF
                        It is. But we got carried out on a tangent by one of those demented proposals of certain press that's all about sacrificing British military to give even more international aid.

                        Something that, very evidently, i utterly hate.

                        However, it would be awesome to have some news on the work in progress on QE... but lately there have not been great announcements in that direction.
                        "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                        Comment

                        • Witcha
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jun 2010
                          • 1241

                          Nice. Seeing your hypocrisy utterly exposed you change tactics to attack the arguer instead of the argument and hide behind the prentention of staying on topic. Getting back to topic, I wonder how many of the CVF's F-35Bs are going to get cut as a result of the first batch of F-16blk52s that will be delivered to Pakistan in a few days. No, I don't even want your answer, just wondering, Liger.

                          And... An account of the work being done on the Queen Elizabeth's bow section and propulsion system:
                          http://www.theengineer.co.uk/blog/qu...003401.article
                          Powering the QE Class
                          The Power and Propulsion (P&P) for the two aircraft carriers is provided through an Integrated Electrical Propulsion (IEP) system. This comprises six electrical generators, four driven by Wartsilla diesel engines and two by Rolls Royce MT30 Gas Turbines. The electrical power is generated at High Voltage 11kV and is used to provide propulsive power through four 20MW Advanced Induction Motors arranged on two propeller shafts. However, it also supplies the carrier’s mission systems and hotel services through ship service transformers which convert the voltage down to 440V for distribution around the ship. The system builds on the experience gained by the Royal Navy through the electrical propulsion systems used on assault ships HMS Albion and Bulwark and the IEP systems on the Type 45 Destroyers. The QE Class use very similar equipment fitted to that of the Type 45 Destroyers, but of course are much larger.



                          Two of the Wartsilla diesel generators have also been delivered to the BAE Systems’ shipyard in Portsmouth where they will shortly be installed onto their seats in the Forward Machinery Room that is being constructed there. Currently the Machinery Room looks like a huge empty space with lots of pads for machinery seats, holes in the decks and bulkheads ready for pipes and cables. However, once the diesels are installed and the major pipe runs and walkways are fitted ready to be closed off by the structural units above the engine rooms will really start to take shape.

                          ...
                          Last edited by Witcha; 16th July 2010, 09:40.

                          Comment

                          • Liger30
                            Armed Forces supporter
                            • Jul 2010
                            • 901

                            Originally posted by Witcha View Post
                            Nice. Seeing your hypocrisy utterly exposed you change tactics to attack the arguer instead of the argument and hide behind the prentention of staying on topic. Getting back to topic, I wonder how many of the CVF's F-35Bs are going to get cut as a result of the first batch of F-16blk52s that will be delivered to Pakistan in a few days. No, I don't even want youranwer, just wondering, Liger.

                            And... An account of the work being done on the Queen Elizabeth's bow section and propulsion system:
                            http://www.theengineer.co.uk/blog/qu...003401.article
                            If i wasn't the polite person i am, i'd reply pointing at your utter stupidity with stinging malice, but since i'm a correct person, differently from you at what i see, i'll avoid doing that.

                            Anyway, i'll give you a satisfaction. If you want to call me evil because i'd rather spend on ships than in aid (supposed to go) to villagers, do it.
                            Because i'd definitely do it. Aid should used strategically in accordance with the nation's interests in foreign policy, since it comes out of taxpayer's money. Who wants to help villagers can do it on its own, and receive the apprecciation of everyone. But it is his own choice.

                            End of the matter.
                            "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                            Comment

                            • Witcha
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jun 2010
                              • 1241

                              The bulk of my problem isn't that you'll spend on ships over villagers. It's that you'd willingly finance one foreign nation's defence programs at the cost of your own and then turn around and say you want to finance your defence programs at the cost of another foreign nation's economic aid that unlike the previous case is actually helping to make the world a better place. Therein lies your hypocricy. Get it?

                              Comment

                              • swerve
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jun 2005
                                • 13610

                                Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                                Seems it is official now: the review will include an analysis on the capabilities that could be shared, pooled or interdipendent with France.
                                It may be good news for the Taranis drone, and it will probably end up with the French buying hours out of 6 of the 14 new Uk air tankers.

                                Will some sort of cooperation touch the carriers as well...? We'll see, i guess.

                                Here is the news article:
                                http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...29&c=EUR&s=TOP
                                I think it's more likely to be good news for Mantis than Taranis. Mantis is a good fit for both British & French requirements in the next few years, & France has no real equivalent. Taranis is very similar to Neuron, which France appears committed to.

                                Since the AdlA has already expressed its preference for A330 MRTT tankers, i.e. what the UK is getting, pooling resources there would be easy.

                                There's already been co-operation on carriers, but it ended when France postponed PA2. Co-operation of the kind suggested in the press recently is not practical.
                                Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                Justinian

                                Comment

                                • Liger30
                                  Armed Forces supporter
                                  • Jul 2010
                                  • 901

                                  Originally posted by swerve View Post
                                  I think it's more likely to be good news for Mantis than Taranis. Mantis is a good fit for both British & French requirements in the next few years, & France has no real equivalent. Taranis is very similar to Neuron, which France appears committed to.

                                  Since the AdlA has already expressed its preference for A330 MRTT tankers, i.e. what the UK is getting, pooling resources there would be easy.

                                  There's already been co-operation on carriers, but it ended when France postponed PA2. Co-operation of the kind suggested in the press recently is not practical.
                                  Perfectly right. I wanted to write Mantis, but i was still thinking about the recent presentation of Taranis and so i wrote the wrong name.

                                  But there may be some space for Taranis as well, you know. It fits in the same class of the Neuron project, very ambitious program but one that made slow paces considering all the money spent on it. I wouldn't be too sure about France's commitment to the Neuron. Of course, though, it is far more likely that we'll see collaboration on the Mantis, because France has a very urgent requirement for a drone of that kind, it is not really happy of the possibility to buy american and an european solution may be appealing.
                                  While for the UK, Mantis is the ideal answer to the Scavenger requirement.

                                  As to the carriers, you know well that i've pointed out more than once that as things stand now there's no way in Hell to do what press suggests. But i'm not willing to rule out an agreement of some kind before this review in the review is carried out.
                                  After all, i just read that the RAF seems willing to refuse the Nimrod MR4 now that it is ready to go, and proposed to ground all Tornado GR4 in five years time.

                                  After such a shocking read, my fears about the SDR can only grow exponentially. And i don't dare trying to imagine what will come.
                                  "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                  Comment

                                  • Liger30
                                    Armed Forces supporter
                                    • Jul 2010
                                    • 901

                                    Originally posted by Witcha View Post
                                    The bulk of my problem isn't that you'll spend on ships over villagers. It's that you'd willingly finance one foreign nation's defence programs at the cost of your own and then turn around and say you want to finance your defence programs at the cost of another foreign nation's economic aid that unlike the previous case is actually helping to make the world a better place. Therein lies your hypocricy. Get it?
                                    You did not get a single concept of my reasoning, man about Pakistan and India's matter. You are making your own conclusions bending at your will what i said. In this way, you could pretty much make me say anything.
                                    "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                    Comment

                                    • pjhydro
                                      Rank 4 Registered User
                                      • Apr 2009
                                      • 886

                                      Originally posted by John K View Post
                                      Your use of the "R" word is as inevitable as it is laughable. You seem to be the one in fear of what black people will do to you, not me. I rather think that most black people in Lewisham would rather have their taxes spent on their welfare, not that of foreigners, and I would hope that any who disagree with me would do so peacefully.

                                      As it happens, for most British people, the only "benefit" they got from slavery really was cheap sugar, and not much else. Dr Schama may say otherwise, but his views are not gospel. He thinks Obama is wonderful, and I disagree with him on that too!
                                      I thought we had moved on? Are we still at this? You are entitled to disagree, we have laboured the point between us and I think we are boring people. Nobody's view is gospel, you can disagree with academics, you can diasagree with whomever you like, you are right wing, I am left wing, I care about Africa, you don't, I think the Industrial revolution was paid for with capital accumialated under slavery, you think it just gave us sugar. One of us is right, or maybe we are both wrong.

                                      we both want the CVF to be built, lets move on.

                                      Comment

                                      • MisterQ
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jan 2008
                                        • 475

                                        Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                                        Perfectly right. I wanted to write Mantis, but i was still thinking about the recent presentation of Taranis and so i wrote the wrong name.

                                        But there may be some space for Taranis as well, you know. It fits in the same class of the Neuron project, very ambitious program but one that made slow paces considering all the money spent on it. I wouldn't be too sure about France's commitment to the Neuron. Of course, though, it is far more likely that we'll see collaboration on the Mantis, because France has a very urgent requirement for a drone of that kind, it is not really happy of the possibility to buy american and an european solution may be appealing.
                                        While for the UK, Mantis is the ideal answer to the Scavenger requirement.

                                        As to the carriers, you know well that i've pointed out more than once that as things stand now there's no way in Hell to do what press suggests. But i'm not willing to rule out an agreement of some kind before this review in the review is carried out.
                                        After all, i just read that the RAF seems willing to refuse the Nimrod MR4 now that it is ready to go, and proposed to ground all Tornado GR4 in five years time.

                                        After such a shocking read, my fears about the SDR can only grow exponentially. And i don't dare trying to imagine what will come.
                                        Nothing much will come of the Co-op talks (I imagine that we may share certain design program etc, and we all know how well they work out), and anyway the SDR will take place long before any deal can be hammered out

                                        Comment

                                        • Liger30
                                          Armed Forces supporter
                                          • Jul 2010
                                          • 901

                                          Originally posted by MisterQ View Post
                                          Nothing much will come of the Co-op talks (I imagine that we may share certain design program etc, and we all know how well they work out), and anyway the SDR will take place long before any deal can be hammered out
                                          Actually, the article suggests that by November such analysis on cooperation will be concluded. The SDR is expected around that period, perhaps in October, but it could well come in November.
                                          As to what will come out, we'll know when it comes out. Very likely, there will be at the very least something about the air tankers, because the rumors have been numerous already about that and because the RAF is not going to find a civilian air force paying to use the 6 air tankers that in the contract are available only on call.
                                          These 6 tankers will be leased to the french in a pay-for-hour fashion, and it would make perfect sense to do so: after all, the PFI contract anyway talked about having those planes serving as civilians aircrafts when not needed by RAF already.
                                          "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X