Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Chit-Chat => Topic started by: justboatonic on October 18, 2010, 10:09:07 pm
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593
The Royal Navy's flagship, the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, is to be scrapped early as part of the government's defence review, the BBC has learned.
The move is part of the price paid by the Royal Navy for the decision to go ahead with two new aircraft carriers.
Launched in 1985, the Ark Royal will be decommissioned almost immediately, four years earlier than planned.
-
Dunno what they are on about, the bit about the JSF at the bottom has always been the case as far as I know, BUT WHY? Scrap a newer ship than Illustrious? What the heck are these cretins smoking? I would love some right now!
Paul...
-
Just when I thought this country couldn't sink any lower!! The Ark, seriously...im baffled by the complete lack in common sense with these lunatics! Nuts honestly. %%
-
Dunno what they are on about, the bit about the JSF at the bottom has always been the case as far as I know, BUT WHY? Scrap a newer ship than Illustrious? What the heck are these cretins smoking? I would love some right now!
Paul...
One of the 2 new carriers will be modified for French jets that arent VTOL. So I guess that means catapult launch instead of a ski jump? Earlier reports suggested Invincible would be used as 'spares' for the Ark and Illustrious. Is the Ark coming up for a refit so savings on that cost too?
-
Cretins is right Paul, haven't they just spent a fortune on refitting her? That just leaves Illustrious as Invincible is just being cannibalised for spares.
The problem with this Government is that none of them have any experience, all wet behind the ears. Mind you, the last one wasn't any better.
Colin
-
It sounds like miss information, out of the two new ones at the moment, one may possibly be built as a helicopter carrier while the other one being a full blown carrier with a "MAG launch" catapult rail, this has always been the case, plus a ski ramp. Invincible has been the Illustrious's and Ark's source of spares for quite some time.
Paul...
-
Dont worry, it gets worse!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8072041/Navy-aircraft-carrier-will-be-sold-after-three-years-and-never-carry-jets.html
One of the Navy’s new £3 billion aircraft carriers will never carry aircraft and will sail for only three years before being mothballed and possibly sold, ministers will announce on Tuesday.
Ah well. I didnt vote for them O0
-
I just can't beleive they will be this stupid!
Bring on the revolution, this is just foolish, I don't think we will even qualify to be a member of NATO soon, the Americans are warning them, if they carry on, we will have nothing left at all and the door will be open for foreign invasion militarily very soon.
Paul...
-
I think we will not know the truth until tomorrow
but I would be looking to bin the JSF and build the carriers with navalised Typhoons
it would keep british jobs for the Typhoons and they are cheaper than the JSF and more capable
and as for building the carrier then selling it did they not intend to do the same with Invincible?
-
Untill the Falklands happened, then what? THEY realised they didn't have enough ships, even towed some of them down there THAT WERE DUE TO BE SCRAPPED as they couldn't sail under their own power, just for gunnery with generators lashed to the decks for electricity power etc.
OH YEAH! We had twice at least as many ships back then!
Paul...
-
And since when did logic have anything to do with government policy??
-
That was what I thought Paul
So hopefully we will get the 2nd carrier
-
In the last few weeks I saw an announcement that MoD(N) were happy to take FA18 as an alternative to JSF
as they could buy two for the price of one and lets face it the 18 is a brilliant aircraft - just needs Catapult gear etc
That could be one of their better decisions but they may nbot get the chance to get any yet.
Geoff
-
The Americans are in the same sort of position as us regarding aircraft, the FA18 is approaching being obselete itself, they need a new airdraft, which leaves only two types at the moment that will work on one of these ships, either a navalised Typhoon, or the French Rafeyell, or however you spell it. What was wrong with harriers for "CAP" patrol etc, is beyond me, they have just binned the most versatile jet in the world, these people are just STUPID MORONS!
Paul...
-
Hmm, I think there is some smoke and mirrors going on here.
The Navy will do almost anything to get these two ships as it is the only chance they will ever have in the foreseeable future. Remember the cancellation of CVA01 in 1966? (Well I do anyway!)
Once they are afloat, reasons will be found to hang onto them and to make them as versatile as possible.They don't have to operate strike jets, they are massive weapons platforms which can be used for all sorts of purposes just as the Invincible class were originally designed as helicopter carriers but ended up with a Harrier strike role. These two ships are designed to be in service for 40 years like the US carriers and their size enables them to be adapted to meet evolving threats. Restocking the frigate force at a later date will not pose insuperable problems when the politicians realise that they have allowed the Navy to become too small.
The problem with politicians and ignorant people who don't know any history is that they can only think short term. During the 1930s Britain was engaged in various 'brushfire'wars such as insurgency in the Middle East which was not dissimilar to the Afganistan situation. The real threat was Nazi Germany and Japan and the cuts between the wars very nearly left this country open to invasion anhd defeat. When the chips are down you cannot rely upon your 'allies'. America has never been quick to support European democracy when it comes to open conflict and France will always pursue her own interests to the exclusion of anything else.
The threat of conventional warfare in the next few years is fairly remote but after that all bets are off. There are any number of pressures which could result in conflict. There will be competition for global resources as the Russian efforts to establish sovereignty over the mineral rights around the North Pole have already demonstrated. Global warming, if it happens, will mean that nations with temperate climates such as the UK will be envied and under a degree of threat. The lessons of history are clear, if you are not able to defend yourself you will be crushed. The end of the Cold War has not necessarily made uis safer as many people think, the nature of the threat has just changed, that’s all. History shows that major international crises can blow up out of almost nowhere and that will not change either.
I saw a report recently that said we don’t need aircraft carriers to protect our interests as the RAF would always be able to obtain base and overflying rights from nearby countries. Just what planet are these people on?
Colin
-
Sorry Paul my mistake should have given its full title fa18E or F is certainly not obselete only started coming into service
1999. Got at least 25-30 yr life span they state.
Geoff
-
Yeah, it's fly by wire, just another version, newer airframe, same aircraft, out of date mate. A mate of mine on the Ragen, says, the USN are not too happy about no new aircraft comming along, they are not even designing anything new according to what I hear.
Paul...
-
Well put Colin, yes I remember the CVA01 project - the ship I am presently building was scrapped as a result
- no Carrier so no need for a Radar picket destroyer - the Americans have proved just how useful their carrier
force is - how else can they get aircraft to where they areneeded quickly without them
Geoff
-
The Americans are in the same sort of position as us regarding aircraft, the FA18 is approaching being obselete itself...
Perhaps not obsolete, but too long in the tooth for US military needs. A common practice is to carry on manufacturing (jobs) and sell them to 3rd world powers (soon to be UK).
With my politically cynical head on.
Perhaps we are really moving towards an EU combined forces military commitment. This could be the same strategy achieved using the same strategy as we saw with the Post Office.
15 years ago everyone was outraged by the idea of selling off the Royal Mail, 'a sell off too far'. Since then it has been run down so much, and services have become so bad, that many people have said it is time for the PO sell off and/or an end to their protected status. I think most of us use DHL etc now.
Today the idea of an EU combined service is outrageous. However, in 15 years time when Britain no longer has an effective military capability we will perhaps accept the notion.
Sad reality.
At the end of the day, UK must cut spending drastically. The alternative is that we end up going bankrupt, and have to go to the IMF. Then the IMF will be making the decisions based on economic criteria, and in their interests more than UK's.
-
Hi Guys.
Although we are aware that the politicians have looked at the figures and told us what is going to be cut next year and what they can`t afford. Funny thing though have we not heard anything about money that goes out of the country being cut all the millions they call overseas development aid or less money being paid to the EU mandarins. If we can`t afford things why should they get cash.
I would like to see some of the politicians develop a spine and get half the foreigners out the country which would cut the benefit bill considerably. I heard on the news recently that one of the English cities told the govt that they had no spare housing capacity left for asylum seekers. I am not uncharitable or homophobic but as we are going to have a few years in the economic red I think its time we shut the door and looked after our own.
You can see on the news the yanks are having it just a bad as us. They have reported a 25% drop in giving to charities which for the U.S. is unheard of.
frank..
-
Goodness........I have walked on the hallowed deck....& engine rooms of this vessel.......... :-))....with respect .....Derek
-
Personally, I tend to agree with your sentiments Frank.
Sadly, there is not much chance of any of that happening.
{:-{ :(( <:(
-
Simple answers from so many accountants. Cuts in various areas are OK until it affects one directly. "Close the gates"? Super idea, but since we've been bludgeoned into being a "Multicultural society", money would still pour out of the country.
Perhaps this is the price for vast stretches of the Atlas being red in the not too distant past? How many ships do we really need to protect the British Isles? and more importantly who is going to pay?
Regards Ian.
-
Having been "involved" on deployments with all 3 of our "Through Deck Cruisers" ( as they were initially designated!), I have to say that the most unreliable of the 3 was always the "Ark". Something or other to do with massive vibration from the back end. Perhaps that's why she's to be scrapped, no-one is willing to buy the thing.
Darlek:- I must have missed something here. Please tell me which ships had to be towed to the Falklands as they were incapable of going under their own power. The only ship that I know of that wasn't originally going to the Falkalands was either "Tidespring" or "Tidepool" (I forget which), that was en-route to her new Chilean owners with a reduced crew aboard. She was halted, fully manned up and went on to be a valuable asset during that conflict. HMG finally realised her worth, and she continued in RFA service for a number of years post 1982.
Pugwash:- Geoff, yes the USN Carrier force is formidable. But each carrier force covers an awful lot of ocean with her outlying (and close in) escorts and fleet train. Plus having a lurking submarine to hand. Sending one of our new thingies to sea without proper escorts and supply train is a recipe for disaster. But then again, perhaps they will be limited to patrolling around the UK coastline and so be able to re-fuel and buy some fresh veg/meat etc as they pass local ports. I don't imagine for one miute that the RN is very happy about having to rely on the RAF for protection! BY.
-
It’s incredibly shortsighted on the part of the treasury department that forced the axing of the Ark Royal at this time. Having said that and contrary to opinion the Navy are divided on the cost allocation and air group provision for the new CVFs as the budget has already eaten into any prospect of replacement in the near future of the Type 23s or other smaller warships. Having a carrier force for power projection is great if you have the will and the way with all to deploy such large assets, if you can not do either it then becomes a liability. There are many within the RN that see the replacement for the type 23s as the top priority. As we still rely largely on sea borne trade the object is to protect that vital link. Frigates and large ocean going corvettes are seen by many as more useful to that end than large fleet carriers. That's not to say carriers are of no value, yes they are if you can provide all the vessels necessary to protect and supply the core asset your big carrier. In the number crunching game that means you need to replace or provide for a replacement for many of the aging RFA vessels within the next 10 years or default on the ability to deploy your carrier task group as and when it is required. Presently the MOD are engaged in a convoluted refurbishment program of many of the older RFA ship. The plain fact is the MOD are unable or unwilling to replace ship for ship of our aging RFA fleet the most vital component for warships at sea. The whole concept of procurement and modernization is to provide a balance naval force. The issue of carrier replacement has been badly thought through as they say there has been little joined up thought when the design work started 10 years ago. Even when the first carrier is completed the lightly hood is there will remain a delay in embarking a suitable air group.
The plain truth is it's not about carriers or frigates or any other vessel it's about a Navy that does the job efficiently and cost effectively and taking a long hard look as to what is required to defend the UK and its seaborne trade. If the carriers are needed so be it but not at the expense of every other type of ship.
Bowwave >:-o
-
Think the headline in today's Times says it all really 'HMS Ignominious'. Instead of a proper strategic defence review it's the usual shortsighted cost cutting. If I've read the reports correctly we will be building 2 new carriers, one of which will be immediately mothballed, and the other won't have an air group to operate. You just couldn't make this stuff up . . . . .
-
* The Ark Royal, launched in 1985, will be decommissioned almost immediately, rather than in 2014, as previously planned
* The construction of two new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, will go ahead, as it would cost more to cancel the projects than proceed with them
* The navy will lose 4,000 personnel and its surface fleet will be cut from 24 to 19
* Some squadrons of RAF Tornado jets will be saved - although some air force bases will close
* The Army will have to cut up to 7,000 or so personnel over the next five years, and lose 100 tanks and heavy artillery
* The Ministry of Defence itself will face substantial cuts to its civilian staff
* The Nimrod MRA4 reconnaissance plane is to be cancelled, the BBC understands
A lot of jobs lost for a government that is desperate to cut the welfare bill and wont be felt worse than in Moray with two air bases on the verge of closure and the loss of employment for Forces and civilian contractors would be the equivelent on 70,000 in London ,not good for the local economy
-
... the door will be open for foreign invasion militarily very soon.
Utter rubbish.
Andy
-
I would hate to be a Falkland Islander reading the latest news or listening to BBCWS
Ned
-
the door will be open for foreign invasion militarily very soon
This presupposes that there is the desire amongst foreigners to actually invade, when all they need do is make an offer to the accountants running the show.
I would hate to be a Falkland Islander reading the latest news or listening to BBCWS
I would certainly be looking for a Linguaphone Spanish edition.
-
no Carrier so no need for a Radar picket destroyer
We did however build Lincoln Chichester Salisbury and LLandaff.
I spent some time on the old 'Plumduff'
These were diesel driven Aircraft Direction Frigates
Ned
-
Utter rubbish.
Andy
Falklands, case in point!
-
Falklands, case in point!
Still waiting for which ships had to be towed 8000 miles. BY.
-
Wait all you like, I never said all 8000 miles, read your history and go find out! ;D
-
Don't know what anyone expects. As the retiring labour minister said in his note "there ain't no money left."
If you ran your personal finances like the last government ran the countries finances you would be in jail.
As to the MOD they should sack the lot, top to bottom and start again with people who know about contract law, purchasing power etc. We might then just get value for money.
Colin H.
-
Colin,
Value for money, contract law, sure if you want your equipment from Tesco's.
Can you put a price on an anti-ship missile killer that hasn't been developed yet, then of course give a through life maintenance contract for something that hasn't been developed or built, THEN give a final contract price?
The point of new military equipment is to stretch what is considered feasible today to what will be common in 25 yrs time, and of course price it.
Bob
-
Ned only just seen your post - yes we had the "Cathedral" class but they were never designed as close escort for the
Carriers because being diesels they were too damn slow their job was to be out in the direction of the threat far in front of the task force
The battle conversions were a ship that could stay with the carrier when she went to flying off speed and were a stopgap measure until
all the Bristol Class came on line( well we know what happened to that class)
Mod (N) was trying to copy what the Yanks had in the fight up to Japan but unfortunately the Cathedrals would have been overwhelmed
in minutes with their 2 x 4.5 and one twin bofers. AT least the yanks had the sense to make their radar picket screen of heavily armed
AA Destroyers and still they suffered very badly.
Geoff
-
DIDNT JOHN NOTT TRY SOMETHING SIILAR BACK IN '82
{:-{ {:-{ {:-{ {:-{ {:-{ {:-{ {:-{ {:-{ {:-{ {:-{ {:-{ {:-{ {:-{ {:-{
-
Bob whilst I agree with you in some respects the MoD buys a lot more equipment than just weapons.
Desks, stools, pens, paper, lap tops on and on. With the buying power of the MoD these items should be bought in bulk at a massive discount.
This does not happen one dept buys an item from one supplier, whilst another dept will buy the same item from another supplier. Usually at vastly varying prices.
That old saying "The bigger the backhand, the bigger the price" comes to mind.
Colin H.
-
For some reason the Mod is not allowed to use it's buying clout to drive down prices and hammer suppliers for the paper,pens, computers, office furniture etc.
-
Colin,
Many moons ago I ordered a small coffee table for my ship.
After a while it arrived, well packed and in good condition.
The price of this £20-00 table was well over £100-00, so I decided to investigate this further.
What transpired was the cost of the table was £18-00, a very reasonable cost.
But in those days non productive costs were added, these included costs for storage, stores staff, security staff and administrative costs.
This was actually a completely fictitious figure required by Govt accounting.
Since then there has been at least 2 value for money initiatives which has changed the accounting procedures and procurement procedures.
When I worked at our HQ I had a maintenance budget of £12 million a year, with all the checks and balances there was now way I could divert 8% (£1 million) astray.
We even had to declare any "gifts" ie lunch provided.
I am not saying it never happened but certainly not on the scale assumed.
As to economy of scale, this does happen, but there are only approved suppliers that can be used.
This is because the MoD has responsibility to politicians who don't want to be embarrassed by associated suppliers and also want a cast iron audit trail.
Most of my colleagues were trying to do a good job under Govt rules which did and still will increase costs, but overall a pen still costs 12p
Bob
-
tobyker,
Yes we are as long as we use approved suppliers, for 1 example the Army are responsible for the purchase of all Office Furniture and most departments have their own budget for things such as stationary equipment.
Bob
-
Bob, thats where the wheel comes off. the army navy and airforce should get exactly the same desk, chairs whatever and have combined
buying power as should all govnt departments. Perrfect example in the police - if they all bought uniforms personal radios etc in bulk order
quality should be the same price will come down Philip Green has been checking on various depts and showed where you could make savings
which build up into big money with no loss in efficiency. The other problem is the senior staff of all three services and the civil service are far
too cosy with the main defence contractors, there are too many of them get jobs in the defence industry when they retire. My last captain
left the navy went to Bae and within a few years he was the Chairman of Bae.
Geoff
-
One problem with the system is the scale.
Take pens as an example.
Roughly 500,000 in Mod and services.
Allowance of 1 x per a month totals 6 million pens (of 1 colour).
These have to be stored and delivered.
But delivered where?
Afghanistan, Belize, Falklands etc and accounted for.
You will soon see that the distribution system costs far outweigh the cost of a pen.
Even posting will quadruple the cost in packaging and postal costs.
Bob
-
Having worked in logistics in the Army. It is amazing how long and convoluted the supply chain can be, and how many pairs of hands both the item and the paperwork have to go through.
Necessary, because of all the light fingers.
But it has an associated set of costs.
-
Taking the coffee tables - if you want to buy in bulk, you will get the benefit of bulk pricing, but you then have to pay for storage and any/all handling between storage and end point as opposed to buying from Tesco homeware when they have to bear those costs and stick them in the price, and, of course, delivery charges.
To make an in-house system work smoothly, you always need surplus capacity in the system, which, in turn, has to be paid for unless the concept of long delays is acceptable. The downside there is human nature, under Parkinsons Law, which ensures that the needed surplus capacity will always be taken up doing something pointless. My addition to this law is that this pointless filler will become the main objective, and to fulfil the real objective, the department size will "need" to be increased, and along with that, its budget. The process is beloved of senior management, and is known as empire building.
Then there is the cast iron audit trail, very necessary given the human acquisitive syndrome, but it has to be remembered that cast iron is known to be brittle.....
-
In all this shambolic and non strategic defence review one thing has struck me as being deeply ironic and that is the bleating in certain quarters that the new carriers are 'too big'. If there is one thing that hindsight teaches us it is that we tend to build our ships too small and any initial savings are wiped out by long term costs and operational limitations.
The type 42 destroyers are an example, the design length was reduced in the first batches to save money. Subsequently the later ships were given longer hulls to improve seakeeping and to make room for additional equipment and weapons. The first ships were thus not really satisfactory and couldn’t be upgraded. With the old County class cruisers it was the other way round, they were considered to be large and over expensive ships when built but in wartime they proved their worth. Two diminutives, York and Exeter, were built to save money but they needed the same power plants, had only 75% of the main gun power and had markedly worse endurance. So for a relatively small saving you got a significantly inferior ship.
If you build to meet today’s minimum requirements then your ship will have a relatively short life as a frontline unit as it cannot accommodate updated weapons and equipment fits. So then you need to build a replacement! When you make a design bigger the internal space and carrying capacity goes up disproportionately to the external dimensions. Running costs come down disproportionately too, a ship twice the size doesn’t need twice the crew nor does it need twice the power for a given speed and it’s got a heck of a lot more space inside. Anyone who has been aboard an Invincible class carrier will be struck just how small the hangar space is. By comparison, in the assault ships Bulwark and Albion, HMS Eagle and indeed the Mounts Bay RFAs, the internal hangar and garage areas seem huge.
There have been signs in recent years that this lesson has been taken on board with the Darings, the Astute class subs and the big RFAs which have been designed with a margin for future proofing and thus long term savings but I do wonder if this will continue with the new Type 26 frigates. Economy in this context usually means second rate and short lived, maybe OK in wartime when you need to build lots of Flower class corvettes to meet an immediate threat but not for vessels that are expected to serve for 35 years or more.
Colin
-
Future proofing didn't do much for the Shiney Sheff and Alacrity.
Regards Ian.
-
Future proofing didn't do much for the Shiney Sheff and Alacrity.
Which were both excellent examples of non future proofing designs and prove my point!
Colin
-
Take out of the purchasing equation all weapons and life saving equipment and stick with the other requirements of the MoD. There are still vast savings to be had if and only if the staff are capable and can be bothered.
It would seem that some staff are incapable and not many can be bothered. Its not their money after all is said and done. ITS MY MONEY!
When I was a contracts manager for the largest central heating installer in the UK. I would ofter run sites of 1100 or 1200 installations. My buyer would contact the suppliers with a specification, place the order with the best quote and away we went.
I never had in store more than a weeks worth of materials at any time that was the job of the supplier. I placed my orders on a weekly basis and the supplier scheduled his deliveries to suit. The main difference was that the more money I made the company the more money I earned.
The public purse is not bottomless as we are now finding out to our cost.
Colin H.
-
Sadly the JIT (Just In Time) system of ordering would not work in the military. The supply chain is too long, and there is also a need to keep obsolete spares for vehicles and equipment that nobody else still uses.
When I left the Army 20 years ago our unit still had AEC 10 Tonners and Milicents, the oldest of which dated back to WW2, and we still had to carry spares for them. And there were other spares parts that are specific to vehicles or equipment that nobody else uses, e.g. Landrover with a 24v system, 1 ton Landrover, Stalwarts, Saxon.
Add to this the military equipment, including artillery pieces. The usual supply chain management (seen in civy street) is not appropriate.
Although the specific vehicles may have changed, I am sure it is still true today.
-
Which were both excellent examples of non future proofing designs and prove my point!
Don't matter how future proof the pointy end of an Exocet is looking at, and yes, if they'd bothered to fit a Gatling gun it might have helped.
I never had in store more than a weeks worth of materials at any time that was the job of the supplier
Ah yes, the wonderment of "Just in time" supplies. Someone else has to store it and errode their rates budgets and interest rates on a when and IF I want it basis. :-))
Regards Ian.
Edit. Yes Tiger and when the Bridgenorth depot burned down, we were asked to qoute on the replacement of some items going back to the fifties.
-
Colin,
JIT (Just in Time) is a fine commercial concept which works well but I have yet to find any supplier prepared to deliver to a war zone.
That is left to your incapable and can't be bothered civil servants staff.
The size of the project(s) isn't the problem, usually delivery is.
That is why I find it so disappointing that people who have rum large contract(s) like yourself compare the Mod to a civilian, stable, UK based contracts.
It may surprise you but delivery drivers tend to get quite reluctant to carry out their deliveries in places like Helmand Province, but the ground troops still require stores to function.
This system has to be in place 24/7 because the areas of operation are not known until something happens.
Almost all my ex-colleagues in MoD tried to give a good efficient service, but with the politicians interference you will NEVER get it.
Bob
-
One of the benefits of globalisation is that no serious, technologically advanced country can now stand alone. We're all part of a interrelated network of trade, supply, services and goods, all reliant on one other.
I'd argue that it's therefore inconceivable (within any short-to-medium term timescale) that we could see this country directly threatened (Paul's "invasion") by any other. For that reason, any "hot war"/"cold war" military force of a scale we've seen in the past is an unaffordable nonsense.
That said, there are threats:
Peak Oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil)
Peak Water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_water)
Human-influenced climate change
Ideological terrorism
Denial of Service cybercrime
Drugs and organised crime
Much of our current navy - or for that matter, the two new aircraft carriers - will not have an essential role to play in most of the above. Worse, for those roles where we could see some benefit to having a fleet, there are other - often cheaper - methods of force projection and delivery.
We might like to think of those days where the British Empire covered the globe and was reliant on a large Navy, but it's a total fantasy in the modern age.
Andy
-
Again TT I agree with some of what you say. I to spent ten years in theRoyal Armoured Corp so I know supplies at that level can be difficult especially in the field.
But it would seem that some people are in denial about the glaringly obvious fact that there are saving to be made within the civilian side of the MoD.
During my time as a contracts manager I spent most of my day at the private/public sector work interface. Working for local council's and for the MoD in married quarters etc.
Everyone always added 5% to those jobs because everyone knew we would be hide bound by fools in suit's. Running round changing specs and generally making a nuisance of them selves.
I don't think there will be much sympathy for the civil servants this time round.
Colin H.
-
Colin Bishop
HMS Eagle had a complement of 2700 when I was on it in 67-69
Probably half of the future Navy strength!
Ned
-
NO there will be no sympathy now.
We are running like a 3rd world country where everything is graded by the Lowest Common Denominator.
As we watch the rich get richer, the gap between average earnings is widening again.
Bob
-
I would hate to be a Falkland Islander reading the latest news or listening to BBCWS
Ned
I'd love to see Argentina try, as a current serving member there is a lot of finger pointing and some really stupid comments floating around here. people are even saying things beyond stupidity which our government only goes as far as not making sense but never stupidity.
Lets just remember this country has been sucked slowly of money for years since the early 80s and with MPs getting all this money for doing a job that many of us could happily do for 30k a year and what about the 8-9 Billion a year we send to Africa which goes nowhere.
The GREAT will be stripped of this countries name soon.
-
Colin Bishop
HMS Eagle had a complement of 2700 when I was on it in 67-69
Probably half of the future Navy strength!
Ned
Yes, the older ships were a lot more labour intensive! Must have been quite an experience for you.
I have just been looking up the figures for the Ark Royal and QE2 classes.
Ark Royal: Crew 685; Air Group 366
QE2: Crew 600; AirGroup 900 with 40 aircraft (which may never now happen!)
Interesting to see there is an actual reduction in crew numbers. Have you any idea of the crew number on Eagle excluding the air group?
Colin
-
From Private Eye:
(http://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/captions/nelson_review.jpg)
%)
-
And this was for baling the banks out!
-
No, this was for spending more than we earn.
Regards Ian.
-
I think you're wrong, Ian. The banks got into trouble for dodgy dealing, mortgages on properties that weren't worth it, and sticking their trotters into huge bonuses, and - after a month or two of ire - WE, the public, end up quietly paying for their errors with all these cuts, whilst it's business as usual for them. >>:-(
Andy
-
A nice Ideas but in the reality governments have an obligation to parliament to ensure the banking industry is "properly regulated through the FSA. Unfortunately this undertaking was slackened and allowed the banking industry to run amok. In simple terms if you own a rottweiler make sure you have it on a lead . .
Bowwave
>>:-(
-
You can go back 15 years or more to the root of this problem....... SHE is to blame, the start of the 'loadsa money' age...... everyone look after No.1 and ***k the rest........., and we have all been well and truely *****d!
-
Excellent, sailorboy61!
I'll be seeing you on the barricades. :-))
Andy
-
You can go back 15 years or more to the root of this problem....... SHE is to blame, the start of the 'loadsa money' age...... everyone look after No.1 and ***k the rest........., and we have all been well and truely *****d!
Oh yes the evil one! ha ha!
-
"How much do we want to borrow??? Oh, yes, £25000"
"And we still had enough left to go on holiday" %) ;D
Regards Ian