scary

Assuming the war went as was expected and the Red Horde was travelling rapidly towards the Rhine, Royal's primary role would have been to insert into Scandinavia, get behind the forward line and attack the logistic elements. If all went well there could well have been an additional role of entering deeper behind Soviet lines for strategic attacks on military infrastrucure. A similar attack from the south, travelling through the Balkan states was also a possibility. Under no circumstances would Royal be used in a conventional role against such an enemy, 3 Cdo Bde isn't constructed with that intention. A small unit with no armour against a mass line of rapidly advancing armoured infantry would be suicide, that was BAOR's job.

Loathe as I am to get involved in this demonstration of Godwin's Law, I just can't let some of this wibble pass. It was one of many decisive moments in the war, without which victory would not have been a certainty. The British Empire (doesn't require inverted commas), lost its power after the war, and not embarking on an offensive in northern France had nothing to do with fear, it was because Britain wanted to win. At the beginning of the war, the British Army was not built for large scale conventional warfare, it was a colonial police force. The BEF was sent into northern Europe early with the knowledge that it would probably be beaten back, it just had to delay the Axis powers long enough to allow Britain to get on a war footing. It succeeded in doing that but lost a lot of heavy equipment during the Dunkirk evacuation. If the Allies hadn't been fighting in Europe, Africa and the Far East, the Red Army would have been a red stain. The best of the Axis troops were on the Western Front. Getting sent to the Eastern Front, was more often than not, a punishment. And who do you think was being fought against in Africa and on the Italian Front? Actually, you'll find it was the US that allowed the Cold War to develop. Churchill wanted to carry on the fight pushing the Soviets out of Eastern Europe. No it wasn't. The USSR tried to join the Tripartite pact, with the proviso that it could annex Finland. Trying to annex a country is not an act of non-aggression. Um, no, talks started in 1939 and continued until 1941. 1939 would be when the war in Europe started. Through the sea, yes. If passage was not - England would grasp for some months, as well as all Europe. What the cock has England got to do with anything? The UK, the Commonwealth and the Allies had been fighting the Axis powers at sea, on land and in the air for two years before the Soviets got involved. How long do you think the USSR would have lasted without the damage caused in those two years? Which goes to show that as well as being a coward and an evil, murdering tossbag, Uncle Joe was an idiot. Do you actually think the Western Desert and North African campaigns were small local ground wars? Buy yourself a book on the history of WWII, make sure it's a big one and slap yourself around the head with it. Hitler was responsible for the bombing of Dresden. Something to do with invading Poland, killing untermensch and the Blitz. The only thing the USSR did in the Far East was to invade Manchuria, which was a requirement of Yalta, they never got anywhere near Japan, never mind Tokyo. The only thing that picture sums up is the how inept the Soviet leadership was. War isn't a computer game where points are racked up for number of kills. The strategic victories - destruction of the Axis war machine, control of logistic routes, destruction of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine - were by the Western Allies. Not to mention stopping them from developing the A-bomb. How long would mighty Russia have lasted if instant sunshine was being dropped on its cities? The most important battlefield of WWII was the North Atlantic. Without it, British convoys wouldn't have got American supplies through to the USSR. The Soviets would have been reduced to throwing rocks - which in a lot of cases, they already were. Without the Soviets the war would have certainly lasted longer but as the Axis powers would never have got across the English Channel it would still have been won eventually. Really? And what is the most common flag on this list of military operations in S.E. Asia? Was the BPF on a sight seeing cruise? You clearly don't.

That's the new Blackhawk plate carrier which is half way between being trialled and issued. They should be in general service sometime during Herrick 8. It still used Osprey plates it just doesn't have the fragmentation filler.

A likely story. Clearly a double bluff. Just come clean and admit you were the third one on the balcony. I could, but then I'd also have to admit the only baseball cap I could find was one of those red and yellow jobbies with the helicopter blades on top. Not quite the same. Ideal for conducting a CTR at Legoland. I never have trusted them pirates, it's the eyes. Ahh, thank you, Sir. However this linky is mintier than a Colgate factory. Who's upset? It's a morale boost.

They pay a damn site more into the system than they get back and are probably the best national Ambassadors in the world, which is something money can't buy. I suspect there would be a spike in the instances of blue on blue. Go give your history teacher's head a wobble. When our Royals went to war it was for profit and territory. Except when it was with the French, they just deserved a damn good thrashing. He's a Cornet, not CDS, he was told to go and he went. Oddly enough, your average Taliban wouldn't be able to tell Cornet Wales from Britney Spears, even less so when Cornet Wales is wearing Osprey, Mk6A and a shemagh. Been there have you? Any evidence that it is villagers with AK47s protecting their land? If not, feel free to wind your neck in. I'm quite sure I get paid more than you, have no issues with dodgy equipment and Zimbabwe wanted its independance and got it. It's not our fault sub-Saharan Africa suffers from endemic corruption. France would have been a better example. What the hell is that supposed to mean? How are you damn sure? Do you have some facts or are you just guessing? When you've finished with your history teacher, turn your attention to your geograpy teacher. Afghanistan is in Central Asia, not the Middle East. Or if they were providing facilities for training Al Qaeda who wanted to fly planes into tall buildings in order to establish an Islamic planet? Wrong. Of course, there is a big conference where everyone that wants to go puts their name into a hat. I'm glad I don't have 'mates' like you. Are they really your own thoughts and opinions or are they those of the hippy, poofy the-world-is-all-fluffy-and-nice group at school/college? Have you ever spoken to Afghanis and asked them what they want? I'll have 20 on it being his imaginary friend that doesn't exist. Because point two led to point three. It shouldn't be up to the media to dictate who can do what job. It's no different than the media printing names and addresses of people serving in Afghanistan. A likely story. Clearly a double bluff. Just come clean and admit you were the third one on the balcony. Because he is a ginger and no one, not even Terry Taliban, deserves to be exposed to ginger hair. I believe it is against the Geneva Conventions. The Pashtuns make up about 1/3 of the population of Afghanistan, which means that 2/3 aren't Pashtun. Most of the current Taliban are Pakistani Pashtun and most of the Pashtun do not support the Taliban. To quote yourself, that's a load of bullshit you just posted there, quite frankly. As I'm on leave from somewhere sandy ending in 'stan', perhaps you would like to tell me what research I should do.

Do you know something the rest of us don't? Huh? The British Royal Family has an exemplary service record: HM The Queen was a driver/mechanic in WW2. Prince Philip was in the Royal Navy in WW2 earning a Greek War Cross of Valour and was MiD. Prince Charles was a fast jet and rotary wing pilot serving in both the RAF and the RN. Prince William is currently in the RAF and was a Cornet in the Household Cavalry. Prince Andrew was a rotary wing pilot in the RN and flew as chaff in the Falklands war. He was a career Officer, serving for 22 years. Prince Edward had a short lived career as one of the chosen few but failed his training. The Duke of Kent was a career Officer in the Army, serving 21 years. Prince Michael of Kent served 20 years in the Army and is curently President of SSAFA. George VI served in the RN in WW1 and the RAF at its inception. George V served 14 years in the RN. Almost all the Royals have honourary appointments across the Commonwealth that they take very seriously and a good slice of the senior positions in Armed Forces charities are held by Royals. I'd take any of the first family over the cowards in the Houses of Parliament any day. And a pox in both New Idea and Drudge.

1. You've linked to the BBC. Apparently, it must be reliable when its coverage agrees with your agenda, but when it doesn't it is all some liberal lie. 2. The BBC is not a business, it makes no money, not a penny. It is owned by the British public, in essence, it is a socialist media entity. The whole capitalist world, yes. The whole capitalist world doesn't care about Cuba. If it was hit by a meteor tomorrow, no one would notice. Because your argument is that Cuban socialism is the best form of governance, not that there are countries worse off than Cuba. I could argue that Mont Blanc is the tallest mountain in the world, as long as we only compare it to smaller ones. All of the people you are trying to convince that Cuba is their salvation live in the countries that are better than Cuba. Guess what - none of us want to live in a worse country. All of your 'Cuba, it's not as shit as Somalia' bollocks is fooling no one. See above. You are making yourself look stupid. The BBC is NOT a business. I'd explain exchange rates to you, but I don't think it would help. Big carribean islands. What do we read under haiti? http://www.nathnac.org/ds/c_pages/country_page_HT.htm Dominican Rep: http://www.nathnac.org/ds/c_pages/country_page_DO.htm Then check Cuba: "No risk of malaria". Pretty funny. Isn't it? Wonder why. The neighbouring island has a lot of malaria. Cuba had it, but no longer. No malaria on slands pfft. Just admit you're wrong. Are you for fucking real? You must be being deliberately obtuse as no one could possibly be this dense. I shall repeat: 'the only Carribean island with malaria is Hispaniola'. Hispaniola is the island of Haiti/Dominican Republic. Repeating exactly what I have just said but using different words does not prove me wrong, especially as I am not. Malaria is not native to the Carribean; there is only one Carribean island with malaria - that island only has it because there is no policy between the two countries on it for eradicating the disease as one of those countries is far too busy being in an almost permanant state of civil war; Cuba not having malaria means bugger all, in the same way as Canada not having Yellow Fever. If Cuba was the medical utopia you want us to believe, it would have eliminated the other mosquito borne disease of Dengue Fever that is actually endemic to the region - but they haven't. Your first photo is of a market, not a house. The big sign on the side saying 'Bronx Terminal Market' gives it away. Your next two pictures are of derelict buildings, not houses. The shutters on the doors, grass were people would be walking, and the absence of people and signs of life give it away. You do understand the difference between an empty building and a habited one? There is nothing wrong with the Greek house, it has a roof and presumably windows behind the shutters. It could do with a touch of paint, but that is cosmetic, not structural. It certainly won't have a family to a room. No, the definition of slum is: A heavily populated urban area characterised by sub-standard housing and squalour. There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never! We've seen the photos of sub-standard housing and squalour. You are not talking to your brainwashed commie minions. If you're representative of the communist movement, I don't think we have anything to worry about. I think it's remarkable that someone could say something so stupid. A third world country is not doing better than a first world country, being first world is better than being third world. The third placed football team in League two is not doing better than the 9th placed team in the Premiership. Is it ever going to sink in that people do not want your socialist utopia. I am an adult, I neither need nor want the state babysitting me. If or when I get to the point where I can't sustain my own existence than I will do what all other animals do and die. The day the state thinks it can decide what I need is the day I start a very bloody coup.

From the FCO: Cuba is a one-party state. Â There is a high level of social control and a strong police presence. Â There are widespread restrictions on freedom of speech, association and assembly for Cuban nationals. Â Political demonstrations or gatherings not sanctioned by the government may be broken up and should be avoided. Â The Cuban government discourages Cubans working in the tourist industry from developing personal relationships or accepting gifts from foreign nationals. Â The Government is however clear that it continues to welcome British tourists, and there has been no hostility shown to individual British visitors. Castro is both head of the executive and head of state. There is absolutely no separation of powers. Castro, therefore, gets to make all the decisions. Sure, here's a link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3344489.stm [...] More than 260 deaths in one week in east of england. Now be proud and wave your flag. As -snafu- has pointed out, Winter Fuel Payments. No one has died because they couldn't afford heating, they died because they were old/ill. That's how nature works, things are born, get weak, and die - even in Cuba. Bitter, much? Do you think people find businesses in a christmas cracker? People work to start a business, they work to develop products and services, marketing, distribution, suppliers, administration, they're not sat in their mansions, having another prole thrown on the fire whilst being fed freshly peeled grapes by nubile Amazonian twins. I should do, I've been to enough of it. Endemic corruption is why most of the third world is third world, not me. My bold. Do you see what you did there? Trade is kind of the point of capitalism. Look it up on Wikipedia if you don't believe me. Hmm, should I retire to Cuba or the BVI? Collapsing hovels and nutty dictator or Pusser's Rum and bikini clad ladies? On a small island? How do you make Cuba a small island? And why didn't they do that program before Castro? Why did literacy increase dramatically (and now at a rate higher than the developed country Sweden). It's the same reason. It being a piece of land surrounded by water, which is quite small is what makes it a small island. As opposed to Australia, which is a large island, or Switzerland which is not an island. Not possible, I'm never wrong. In fact, I foresee a Wikipedia link. The map shows two Carribean islands. Is that really your idea of evidence? Here, for your delectation, is a lesson in evidence: Clicky clicky. Jamaica had some isolated cases of malaria in the last year caused by infected people travelling to the island, other than that the only Carribean island with malaria is Hispaniola. If you didn't spend your time chasing 'information' on Wikipedia on the fly and, instead, concentrated on learning you would, perhaps, be less clueless. It's a slum. I've been to Greece and the US and no, they haven't the same standard.

No. But as he was a Prime Minister, not a President, that is hardly surprising. You clearly have no idea how a parliamentary democracy in a constitutional monarchy works. If Cuba are so opposed to torture, why do they lease Guantanamo Bay to the the US? Well, read the newspapers carefully this winter. If this has been reported in the newspapers in the past it will still be on their websites. It is up to you to verify your claims, not me, so you provide the links. Unfortunately, you will find it difficult to link to figments of your imagination, so rather than have you waste your time I shall point out the obvious: I live in the UK so, therefore, know damn well what the climate is; that the major source of heating is gas, not electricity; the cost of living; the cost of utilities; minimum levels of income, etc. Me spending all of today, in December, outside, in a t-shirt, without freezing to death, is not part a liberal-media-supra-governmental conspiracy designed to bring about the downfall of Cuba - they didn't change the weather or my perception of it, I'm not dead and I didn't have a small fire burning in my underpants to keep me warm. Jamaica has achieved a hell of a lot more than Cuba. Not being Cuba is an achievement in itself. Help, help, I'm being oppressed! It's a good job you're here as a beacon of all things that aren't nuts, to save me. Although I'm confused - first you tell me to read the newspapers, but then you say that it is all a conspiracy by the liberal media. Or is it just a conspiracy when their reporting disagrees with your agenda? Great, one of the highest in the third world. A pile of horse manure might smell less than a pile of cow manure, but it's still a steaming heap of shit. Embargos should have no effect on a communist country as said country shouldn't be trading, otherwise it becomes state capitalist. As the US is the only country that observes the embargo, are you saying that Cuba cannot survive without the US? What the chuff is 'capitalist aggression'? Were they offering to buy things in a threatening manner? If there is terrorism then there are clearly some unhappy people in Cuba - I wonder why that could be. Cuba's third world status is Cuba's fault. Adults accept something known as personal responsibility, that way they know how to improve. Children blame everyone else for all their woes. Why don't you compare Cuba to any of the countries that do better than it? Is it because their existence destroys your argument? People arrive on the island with malaria, through a simple program of anti-malarial drugs and quarantining malaria is eradicated. It is a very easy thing to do on a small island. Try doing some research on how many Caribbean islands have malaria instead of comparing Cuba to South America, which is not an island and to which malaria is native. Being communist isn't immunisation against malaria and Fidel Castro hasn't driven all the mosquitoes out of Cuba. That many Americans are obese. That people die when they get old. Life expectancy is not going to rise exponentially, it will reach a plateau. Late seventies/early eighties is probably that plateau. Did you even look at the photos? A house with its roof caved in is not 'fine'. People in all parts of Europe and Asia don't live in buildings with windows bricked-up and they don't live a family to a room. You can argue that black is white all you want, it won't change the fact that this is a slum: Plenty more images of Cuban slums here. Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_American_plc It's a good idea to read your own links. First, from the same page as your wiki quote: And Secondly, from your Anglo-American link: Sir Ernest Oppenheimer being a German emigre to South Africa. So your 'proof' of British and American collusion is linking to a South African company started by a German. What about WW2? Vietnam? Volunteers? Draft? Everything isn't Iraq. It's an exception. The UK wasn't in Vietnam and hasn't had subscription since 1960 - and that was due to the aftermath of WW2. As the UK has been on active operations every year since WW2, Iraq is not the exception, it is the norm. In the whole of its very long history, Britain has had conscription for a grand total of 24 years. Every single British soldier, sailor and airman of the last 47 years has been a volunteer and conscientious objector status existed for the periods of conscription, which, despite your back-pedalling, completely refutes your assertion that:

And how would people freeze to death due to unpaid electricity bills in a country that rarely gets cold enough for people to freeze to death? And how would not paying an electricity bill stop people from using their gas central heating? Perhaps you could link to where you 'heard about' these hundreds of people that no one else has heard of. Although it may be difficult to link to figments of your imagination. (about sustainable development) ? Do you know what "fact" means? I'll take that as a no, you don't know what that means, then. And fact would be the opposite of fiction; fiction like Robin Hood and frozen people. Well, thanks for that, Sparky. I am quite capable of using Google for myself, though. As you clearly need the meaning of this explaining to you, what the WWF is saying is that a country with virtually no industrial capacity and very limited car ownership is environmentally friendly, something that would be obvious to anyone that hadn't been repeatedly dropped on their head as a child. Cuba's third world economy would be Cuba's fault, no one else's, due to its brand of socialism. Just think how well Cuba could do with an economy. And worse than the evil capitalist pig-dog that is Europe. And parts of Asia. And Canada. And Aus/NZ. By a month, which is statistically meaningless. And I'd rather live a month less at US standards of living than live a month longer at Cuban standards of living. But I get one year and one month more than Cuba at a higher standard of living than the US, so there. You're not very bright, are you? Cuba is an island, malaria is distributed by infected Anopheles mosquito which are not native to Cuba and don't swim. Many of the Caribbean islands don't have malaria and the ones that do have got it from accidental introduction by man. France has rabies, Britain does not, despite them being within viewing distance of each other. Do you think that is because Britain has a far superior health service and economical system or because it is an island? Of course they have real homes. Who cares if the roof has fallen in, or being crammed one family to a room in a delapidated, bricked-up hotel. Cuba is just great. Unless you're going to back up your drivel with evidence of other industries, Cuba has tourism and cigars, nothing else. Apart from the financial sector, service industry, petro-chems, entertainment and high-end manufacturing, it must be tourism that makes the UK the fifth largest economy in the world. Â I call Godwin. Nobody told us to play world sheriff in 1939 either, but we did. Or perhaps neither is a puppet, both have similar aims and, therefore, work together to achieve them. Co-operation, it's the future. Apart from the UK being the first country to sever relations with South Africa after the PM publically condemned the Apartheid policies in his Wind Of Change speech made in the South African Parliament in 1960. Very supportive. After being coerced out of the Commonwealth trading bloc? Try again. As long as you like the Henry Ford model of democracy: you can vote for anyone you want so long as it's me. Really? I seem to remember volunteering. Much be the decadant Western media and government propaganda affecting my memory. Who made Cuba the world sheriff?

Near the top? In what way? Like when people freeze to death every winter because they can't pay their electricity bills? Unemployment? Is that good? People freezing to death? What are you wibbling about? Aside from the fact that the UK rarely gets cold enough for people to freeze to death, when it does get that cold it is nothing that a thick pair of socks and a wooly pully can't deal with. People did manage to survive in much colder climates long before the invention of central heating. And not one person doesn't receive enough money to pay reasonable utility bills. The UK has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world, there are approximately 600,000 job vacancies at any one time - enough for more than 1.6% of the working population. Anyone unemployed in the UK that is capable of working is unemployed out of choice, people aren't migrating from Eastern Europe for jobs that don't exist. Do you even know what that means? And there are 27 countries with lower infant mortality rate that Cuba. All of them Western Democracies. By 0.1 years, which is statistically meaningless. And there are 36 countries with higher life expectancy that Cuba - some of them US territories. The Antarctic has no health care provision or economic system at all but has no Malaria. I don't think the presence of mosquitos is very relevant to how good a country's political system is. Instead of being homeless, people get to live in wriggly tin shacks. Great. If Cuba's economic growth doubled in the next year it would still be a third word shit heap. And most of its growth is from tourism - Western tourists bringing their ill-gotten gains from exploiting the all the poor people of the world. Indigienous African tribes are environmentally friendly too. It comes from living in mud huts or shacks and having limited or no means of production. Those who own and rule the country? Back here on planet Earth, no one owns or rules the country. Last time I looked we ranked substantially higher than Utopian Cuba for standard of living and have one of the highest levels of social mobility. Have you ever been outside your own little world of propaganda - or are you just a spoilt rich kid rebelling against daddy? Jealousy is such an ugly trait. Because we have many global commitments and prefer expensive quality over cheap quantity. Everyone needs a hobby. We'd be its dad, as it happens. Tens of thousands in a castle? I suppose if they were herded in like cattle and didn't mind sharing a bed. Personally, I just can't move for all the frozen, unemployed, homeless people. Someone really should do something about them, they make the place look untidy. I must have missed the bit were my income was asked for when using the NHS or schools. When they invaded, robbed and oppressed the satellite states to provide Mother Russia with a really big human shield. I've heard that Gulags weren't that comfortable either. Erm, yes. What with the whole 'robbing from the rich to give to the poor' thing being a fairy tale. Not being able to separate fantasy from reality happens to you a lot, doesn't it? Yes, they look pretty. We tried the whole Republican thing once - we didn't like it. Rather a lot of countries have done the same. Why do you think so many independant countries of the former Empire have retained the Monarchy? I've been there more than once, sweety pie. I've spoken with Afghans. You haven't. We're tri-service, if you don't mind and have control over the whole of the north. The resistance is being steadily pushed towards Pakistan, and we don't have that many helicopters there. We have even less tanks, somewhere in the region of none. Besides, it's my war-face and 1,000 yard stare that frightens them off. We don't often have hostages, it being quite pleasant here (apart from corpses of the frozen, unemployed, homeless, of course).Did you go to the same school of propaganda as Comical Ali?

Thank you very much, sir. Although, having defended crabs and matelots makes me feel dirty. There is a lot of misconception regarding the Navy, not only because most of its work is done out of the public (and media's) eye, but because it has the singularly worst PR known to man. L, D and D certainly did point a lot of people in the direction of defence procurement, and the premise of giving the public an insight into the business is a good one, it's just unfortunate that the book was tainted with the author's prejudices. Money savings in procurement could come from giving back the power the services used to have, thus trimming the civil servant bean-counters out of the equation who will, on submission of project 'x', be quoted a cost of, say, 100 million, reject the design of 'x' - a piece of equipment they have no experience with - order it to be redesigned, which costs 6 million, and the now redesigned 'x' is quoted at 98 million, so the whole thing costs 4 million more than if they kept their mouths shut. Take a look at CVF for an example: civil service interference repeatedly changing the design and then settling on something very similar to the original has cost more than one of the hulls will. Other savings could be made by returning what were traditionally service jobs to the services instead of paying companies like Sodexho, Flagship etc. to do them badly. Pay doesn't actually come out of the same budget as procurement, it is a ring-fenced separate fund and has no impact on the size of other areas of the budget. It's a good job this is anonymous because I would get strung up otherwise, but I don't think a pay rise is the way to go. To be honest, I don't think the overall package is that bad. There aren't many places were you would be taken on as a trainee with no qualifications for 12.5k, rising to 15.5k after initial training. When allowances, additional pay for AdQuals and length of service, trade pay and retention bonuses are taken into account, coupled with the comparatively low cost of living and add on the military pension, the pay does compare quite favourably with civilian jobs. Recruitment isn't the issue, retention is where the problems lie, especially among SNCOs. Welfare has the negative effect on retention, in that many people, especially as they start getting into the properly grown-up age bracket, don't want to spend months of their life away from their families, whether on ops or exercise. The modern world is a fairly easy place to live quite comfortably in and many people place quality of life above money. What the answer is, I haven't got a clue, it's way beyond my payscale. Ahh, Page's other bee in his bonnet. If you take a look here, specifically at table 2.8, you will see the relative changes across all ranks in the Armed Forces over the last 17 years. You will notice that OF4 and above hit certain numbers and remain fairly consistent despite the overall number of personnel falling slightly over the last 10 years, but there are good reasons for this. Firsly, some professionally qualified personnel, such as surgeons, enter with rank that allows them to compete with civilian pay - they usually enter at OF3 or 4, which skews the figures. Secondly, many posts are not suitable for JOs. Rather than just being camps/ships etc. COs, Senior Officers also have positions in tri-service command, NATO, EU, Government advisory, Liason Officers with foreign militaries, theatre command, project management and as Defence Attaches at Embassies. Thirdly, there is the strategic element. In the event of there being a major shooting match that requires the use of reserve forces or perhaps even general conscription, it is very easy to fill the low ranking positions, it is not easy to fill the posts that require 15+ years service. Finally, there is retention. If a glass ceiling is created, whereby good Officers are kept in lower ranks, then they will leave. Not many people that could easily command a 6 figure salary on civvy strasse would be happy being stuck at OF5 for 10 years. It's better to have an SO3 doing a SO2 job than to have no one doing the SO2 job. When taken as a whole, we are short of Officers just as we are short of Other Ranks. Are there Officers riding an easy desk until retirement? Some, but not many - I worked for a 2* for a while and he worked solidly from 0800 to 1800 and then took his laptop home, often finishing around 2200. There was a 2 month waiting list on his calendar for anyone wanting an appointment likely to last an hour.

Taken from the Iraq Thread, this conversation is more appropiate in here. Of course the L85 wasn't perfect when it first entered service, nothing is. When the AR-15 was first issued it was truly awful, it has taken over 40 years to get to where it is now and the two standard variants combined perform less well than the single L85A2 that has only gone through one major upgrade even though the AR-15 has gone through many. At the strategic level, being self-supporting is hugely important. Being reliant on a foreign manufacturer isn't a good thing when you have a tiff with that country. We don't know who our friends will be next week, never mind in the next decade. No we are not. At the moment we are choosing to co-operate with other countries with certain items for financial, political and other reasons. However, we retain the capacity and capability to manufacture those items on our own if necessary. No more than we could stop them. Why not? It has never stopped us before. BAe's overseas business is because they are buying other companies out, not because work is being transfered abroad, even then, it's profits make themselves noticed in the UK. Around 1 million jobs in the UK are involved in defence, it is our largest area of manufacturing and accounts for a substantial part of our GDP. BAe isn't the only company that gets to play in the UK's military theme park, anyway. Many of these things are interlinked. Dividing lines are blurred. That would be preparing for tomorrow's wars, which is what we do. Fight today's war, prepare for tomorrow. Also, much of this equipment does have uses in today's arenas. Lots of myths in here I'm afraid. For starters, Eurofighter is the company, Typhoon is the aircraft. The Typhoon has worked out to cost on par with other similar aircraft. The reasons its cost grew are down to the Germans moving the goalposts on an almost daily basis, and to a lesser extent, the Spanish who are also responsible for some of the delays (which are minor in the grand scheme of things, if necessary it could have been brought in service more quickly). Now for the major mythbusting. The RAF always required the Typhoon to be swing role, they were alone in the partner nations for this requirement as the intention was for it to also replace Jaguar. From the very beginning of its development it was required to have a ground attack capability on par with its fighter capability. More money need not have gone on ground attack jets because it is a ground attack jet. More money was not forked out for a CAS version, CAS development just happened to be after fighter development for whatever reason the shiny arsed air jockeys decided. Block 5 planes are coming with all the capabilities as standard, the older planes will be upgraded incrementally. This type of spiral development has been standard for many years because of the complexities of modern avionics and systems software. The RAF bought some of the excess planes that the Germans reneged on as it was financially expedient to do so. It kept the per-unit cost down, eliminated (a very large) cancelation penalty and means the RAF has all of the aircraft it requires for its service life which is cheaper than replacing them as they wear out/crash into welsh hills/get hit by nasty men. What we have, if you ask any FAC that has been training with them, is the best CAS asset on the planet - which is a good thing. The fact that the Merlins have an anti-submarine role is neither here nor there. All large ships carry a helicopter for various roles one of which is ASuW. The additional cost of equipping them for ASuW is negligable and it is mush better to have and not need than need and not have. Merlin is that good a helicopter that POTUS is replacing his Marine 1 fleet with them. I don't know where you've got this idea that submarines are good at destroying other submarines, they're not, they are good at sinking skimmers and a few other tasks, but ASuW is not one of those. The RN knows how to conduct maritime warfare, it's been doing it succesfully for nearly 1,500 years and even took over the world for some time. Subs are sandwiches, incidentally, submarines are boats. Capital ships without protection are just big targets. Without a DD/FF screen, any enemy would just put you and all your equipment at the bottom of the oggin before you became a threat. Big floaty tin boxes are relatively cheap, stuff for sinking big floaty tin boxes is even cheaper, defending big floaty tin boxes is where the cost comes in. DD/FF are the Naval fleet's body armour. What you are essentially saying is that we should stop protecting sailors because soldiers are more important. If we did that, Terry Taliban and Alvin Qaeda and their friends would turn their attention to cutting off the logistics tail of the coalition. Wars are won primarily with logistics and intelligence, the RN are the main providers of both. Without them any ground force would be unarmed and blind. Iraq - Initial invasion was amphibious. Amphibious operations don't happen without naval bombardment. DD/FF screen prevented Iraq from putting LPD's, CVS, etc. with all their warfighting equipment in Neptune's icy hands. Currently provide Comms relay, SIGINT/COMMINT etc., protect vital oil platforms from attack (which have been attempted), provide an open seaway for the delivery of essential supplies. If an emergency evacuation is required, ensure that ground forces don't have to swim home. Afghanistan - See Iraq apart from amphib. landing. Sierra Leone - Provided fleet protection for HMS Invincible and HMS Ocean. HMS Norfolk landed the rescue party for President Kabbah. Numerous missile locks were recorded on the fleet in addition to receiving small arms fire. Kosovo - Provided fleet protection for both the RN and the Charles de Gaulle carrier group. HMS Argus was used as a casualty reception facility. East Timor - Provided vanguard for INTERFET. Provided the SBS troop that led the landings. How well would the Falklands have gone without the RN? Type 23s use towed arrays that don't give away the position of the vessel and search much larger areas of the ocean than the dipping sonar on a helicopter can. The Type 23 is the best ASuW platform currently available. Helicopters and aircraft cannot do the job better, they are complimentary and alone are easily defended against. The RN bought more frigates in the 90s because it cannot operate with 50 year old vessels. The RN currently has 17 frigates, in 2005 there were 19, in 2000 there were 21, in 1990 there were 35, in 1980 there were 53 and in 1960 there were 84. I think there may be a pattern in there that suggests your supposition of the RN being obsessed with frigates is somewhat wide of the mark. There is a simple equation to all this: the Royal Navy needs ships, the Army needs men, and the RAF needs planes. Sniping at any one of them to attempt to improve another is detrimental to the whole.

We do appear to be veering towards a discussion on the wider view of UK defence procurement so I will answer your points in the European Politics thread later. The two books, whilst certainly not light reading, are very good. The author (linky for short bio) is very highly regarded and spent the best part of 20 years at the top end of procurement. He has also written a third, more recent book, 'Dinosaur in Permafrost' but I haven't got around to reading that one just yet. Don't mention it, you'll make my head swell.

Page's book is about as well researched as the part of the map that says 'here be dragons'. The man is a bitter and twisted passed over former MCDO that has never been to sea on anything other that a minesweeper. He has no experience of frigates, destroyers or capital ships and a very limited view of RN operations, never mind land and air ops. He left on a low note after being told he would have to serve on larger vessels if he ever wanted promotion. After 11 years in the Andrew he was a Lieutenant and he has a chip on his shoulder the size of Ayers Rock because of it. What exactly is it the fighting forces don't have? Let's look at the blurb on the back of his book: WHY are British Soldiers sent off to war to put their lives at risk, with some of the worst guns around? What worst guns would they be? All of the British Armed Forces guns are amongst the most highly rated in the world, some are the most highly rated. And what the toss would a Clearance Diver Junior Officer know about guns anyway? WHY are decisions being made by the MoD with an eye above all for the interests of British Aerospace? The strategic importance of maintaining high tech defence manufacturing capability. The cost effectiveness when business taxes and employee taxes are taken into account. Keeping people off the dole queue. The fact that they can and do make some bloody good equipment. There is a reason that the UK is the world's third largest defence manufacturer. WHY are we still fighting yesterday's wars? Err, what? Yesterday's Wars? Are we waiting for the 3rd Shock Army? Are we manning the trenches at Ypres? Are we giving the French yet another damn good thrashing? No. WHY is our tax money being wasted on useless, insanely expensive toys? What useless, insanely expensive toys would they be then? There aren't many things in HM's trainset that haven't been used in the last 5 years. The RN hasn't ordered a frigate since 1996. And I do seem to remember them being used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and East Timor since then, not to mention the evacuation of British Citizens from Lebanon and various other instance of humanitarian assistance. Far from useless. Force protection, guarding oil platforms in the Gulf, SIGINT, keeping the logistics route open, providing a safe HQ, emergency force extraction and they had a rather important part to play in the initial invasion. They also have to do all the things they did before the low intensity urban conflicts and be ready for all the things they may have to do in the future. Huh? The RN is the world leader in ASuW. The primary role of the RN in NATO is ASW and MW/MCM. All FFs are equiped with Sting Ray and have the best detection equipment available. Factually correct ones? Indeed there is, but not by using that book. I would suggest he doesn't. If the paper was more absorbant he would possibly find it useful, but as it is the author has zero understanding of the tri-service environment and very little understanding of the single-service one. Junior diving Officers on minesweepers also tend not to have much involvement with the procurement process. In reality, British defence procurement, whilst certainly having problems, is the most open in the western world. If you want to see real procurement blundering, look at the US or France. In essence, L,D & D amounts to 'British manufacturing is bad, buying American will solve all procurement woes.' He is under the impression that large scale procurement is akin to nipping to the shops for a new washing machine. It is an ill-informed rant that may make for good soundbites on Sky News, but offers no real substance or even anything new. If you want some genuine insight, try Bill Kincaid's 'A Dinosaur in Whitehall' or 'Dancing With the Dinosaurs'. Typhoon is being deployed for CAS in Afghanistan shortly, JSF are doing a dandy job right now. While the RAF may be Brylcream wearing crustaceans liable to throw a hissy fit if they're in anything less than a four star hotel, they are very good at CAS.