Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBoy]

diplomacy, not war, is the way to conduct foreign policy

To a point.  There comes a time when diplomacy either fails, or gets nowhere.

If we were all leftie wets 85 years ago, we'd all be either Ayran or dead.

At least the trains on Chiltern oppsing Railways might have run on time! 

Not with their current staff, who all would have been shot/gassed/whatever.   I'm not necessarily saying that would be a bad thing, mind.....

[STEMO]

Poor Kier. Donald has been dissing him again:

Donald Trump has just posted on his Truth Social messaging platform.
He says "the United Kingdom, our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East".
"That’s OK, Prime Minister Starmer, we don’t need them any longer - But we will remember," Trump says.
"We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!" he adds.

[Varche]

Two? Has Britain got two serviceable and all the support ships necessary…………

[Migalot]

Now Sir Keir has faced a similar issue, with successive previous government, including the Conservatives, severely cutting the Defence Budget and placing the UK in a "unready for war" state.  He now must somehow "make time" with the diminished military and he has already started the process to rebuild, after the previous Conservative Government did make a good decision; to build two full aircraft carriers.  They just need a full back up of supporting destroyers , and cruisers, let alone many more F35's. The trouble is, in the 21st century, developing and rebuilding the military takes significant time, which the issue of HMS Dragon highlights, in its own way, with time needed to build up stocks of munitions, and having no real back up to this specialist vessel.  The very issue that many European countries are now facing.  The Ukraine War has also dramatically shown, to all militaries, that the nature of warfare has changed and has led to a major review of how to conduct a modern fight for survival.

Aircraft carriers are from the 1970s. These days, they are just sitting ducks—as are most other surface ships. As for the F35s, they are inordinately expensive and are arguably inferior to other 5th gen aircraft available elsewhere.

Yes, modern warfare is has changed dramatically and is now dominated by such things as drones, hypersonic missiles (for which neither we, nor the US, currently have the technology), EMP weaponry and all sorts of advanced EW systems.

The days of battleships, lumbering tanks and ground armies will be consigned to history books—there is no place for them in future military confrontations.

Building up a sizeable defence force for the next century would be prohibitively expensive. With ex-service personnel currently living on the streets, it would be as obscenity to throw billions on committing to a larger military "for our survival". We are not under threat.

Far better to establish non-aggression treaties with as many countries as possible—but that involves diplomacy. The future for all of us on the planet depends on rational, honest and possibly even friendly, behaviour...not thinking that we know best how other countries ought to be ruled. What is that approach doing for the US?

And, these days, the UK is hardly a good example of a well-functioning democracy!

[Lizzie Zoom]

Two? Has Britain got two serviceable and all the support ships necessary…………

Well, no.  The second carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is undergoing a major refit at the moment.  As for the necessary escort ships they, like HMS Dragon and HMS Duncan, require a long notice period to be ready for action.

We just do not have, or perhaps need, a massive fleet, with a Home fleet moored at Scapa Flow, ready for action. War in the 21st century only requires a few, massive fire power ones to make the fleets of old look like pop guns! Then you have the very, more than critical, air power, that can quickly sink the battle wagons of old, and now the smaller versions.  That is why I personally worry about us sending an aircraft carrier to the Med, or anywhere else, without a full escort.  Iran may not posses any full scale submarines, only midget ones, if that, going by Trump’s claims!

But, Russia does!!  

[Lizzie Zoom]

Poor Kier. Donald has been dissing him again:

Donald Trump has just posted on his Truth Social messaging platform.
He says "the United Kingdom, our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East".
"That’s OK, Prime Minister Starmer, we don’t need them any longer - But we will remember," Trump says.
"We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!" he adds.

He wishes! 
Yet another Trumpism, when the facts are distorted to suit his feeling of the minute! 

[Sir Tigger KC]

HMS Queen Elizabeth, is undergoing a major refit at the moment.

Refit?          Already?         The paint's only just dried! 

[STEMO]

Poor Kier. Donald has been dissing him again:

Donald Trump has just posted on his Truth Social messaging platform.
He says "the United Kingdom, our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East".
"That’s OK, Prime Minister Starmer, we don’t need them any longer - But we will remember," Trump says.
"We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!" he adds.

He wishes! 
Yet another Trumpism, when the facts are distorted to suit his feeling of the minute! 

A George Dubya Bush "Job done' moment?

[Doctor Gollum]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DVjihS9joWq/?img_index=7&igsh=MXQzb2VybXd6N2RqZw==

[Lizzie Zoom]

HMS Queen Elizabeth, is undergoing a major refit at the moment.

Refit?          Already?         The paint's only just dried! 

Significant maintenance is being carried out as is the norm with modern, highly sophisticated technical warships.  There was also an issue with the coupling on one of its propellor shafts, which also affected her sister carrier HMS Prince of Wales in a different form.  Both carriers have broken down in recent years, just as the French carrier did, and the massive USA Gerald Ford had propulsion issues and broke down!

In fact it had been decided that HMS Prince of Wales would replace QE on NATO exercises because of the mechanical issues.  Now she appears to be heading for the Eastern Mediterranean.

The propulsion issues are intriguing, as it is now considered by some naval historians that this was the true reason for the sinking of HMS Hood in 1941.  It is believed, with evidence given at an enquiry given by some RN engineers and from the three survivors, that a failing prop shaft broke free from her securing bearings due to severe corrosion, apparently also evident across the ship with her urgently requiring a major refit that, twice, had been postponed due to the start of WWII. The experts stated HMS Hood desperately needed this refit, as it was in a very poor engineering condition. It had been noted for some time that there was significant vibration throughout the ship, a clue that there was a prop issue. The heavy steaming, at full speed, to intercept the German battleship is thought to have aggravated the prop fault to the point of destruction.

The theory is that this prop shaft thrashed around and smashed though the bulk head of the aft magazine, igniting the contents and blasting the stern off from the rest of HMS Hood. So the theory goes that it was not the action by Bismark or Prinz Eugen, but this mechanical failure, that sank the pride of the RN.  But the enquiry decided on the former German action that sank her, which probably suited their war propaganda / PR better!  This can never be proved apparently because the wreck of HMS Hood is in pieces on the seabed, and no evidence to support the old claim is available. So the official conclusion still holds good.

This may be history, but I just wonder if this MAY be in the minds of the RN and are now very sensitive about any prop issues with these big ships. An interesting thought, maybe!!

[Migalot]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DVjihS9joWq/?img_index=7&igsh=MXQzb2VybXd6N2RqZw==

Running out of missiles? Some people spout anything if it supports a narrative! 

[Lizzie Zoom]

HMS Queen Elizabeth, is undergoing a major refit at the moment.

Refit?          Already?         The paint's only just dried! 

Significant maintenance is being carried out as is the norm with modern, highly sophisticated technical warships.  There was also an issue with the coupling on one of its propellor shafts, which also affected her sister carrier HMS Prince of Wales in a different form.  Both carriers have broken down in recent years, just as the French carrier did, and the massive USA Gerald Ford had propulsion issues and broke down!

In fact it had been decided that HMS Prince of Wales would replace QE on NATO exercises because of the mechanical issues.  Now she appears to be heading for the Eastern Mediterranean.

The propulsion issues are intriguing, as it is now considered by some naval historians that this was the true reason for the sinking of HMS Hood in 1941.  It is believed, with evidence given at an enquiry given by some RN engineers and from the three survivors, that a failing prop shaft broke free from her securing bearings due to severe corrosion, apparently also evident across the ship with her urgently requiring a major refit that, twice, had been postponed due to the start of WWII. The experts stated HMS Hood desperately needed this refit, as it was in a very poor engineering condition. It had been noted for some time that there was significant vibration throughout the ship, a clue that there was a prop issue. The heavy steaming, at full speed, to intercept the German battleship is thought to have aggravated the prop fault to the point of destruction.

The theory is that this prop shaft thrashed around and smashed though the bulk head of the aft magazine, igniting the contents and blasting the stern off from the rest of HMS Hood. So the theory goes that it was not the action by Bismark or Prinz Eugen, but this mechanical failure, that sank the pride of the RN.  But the enquiry decided on the former German action that sank her, which probably suited their war propaganda / PR better!  This can never be proved apparently because the wreck of HMS Hood is in pieces on the seabed, and no evidence to support the old claim is available. So the official conclusion still holds good.

This may be history, but I just wonder if this MAY be in the minds of the RN and are now very sensitive about any prop issues with these big ships. An interesting thought, maybe!!

I have said all that about HMS Hood in 1941, and no doubt some will say how is that relevant to 2026 and RN ships to be readied for war.  Well, I have noted comments by certain politicians, often Conservative ones.  Well read this, and remember they were in power for 14 years up to July 2024:

https://www.navylookout.com/britain-wakes-up-to-the-condition-of-its-navy/

This makes me fume. I am usually a Conservative, but I am very angry about their failure, not Labour’s, to maintain our great Royal Navy.  This is why ships of the fleet cannot sail on short notice!  Crazy in a World full of threat.

As often said before, we are a broken nation.  We cant even rise to the challenge of any naval threat to the UK!! My RN Grandfather, who was at Jutland in 1916, and my Dad who served from 1940 to 1966, will be turning in his graves>

[Lizzie Zoom]

…..and, for those who didn’t know, the RN battleship accompanying HMS Hood was HMS Prince of Wales!
 

[STEMO]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DVjihS9joWq/?img_index=7&igsh=MXQzb2VybXd6N2RqZw==

Running out of missiles? Some people spout anything if it supports a narrative! 

How very ironic.

[STEMO]

Brent crude just opened at $101.25