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.

NATO forces are already operating outside their remit. Invoking Article 5 right after 9/11 and operating under the umbrella of an UN mandate there is no problem at all for NATO forces to operate outside their usual remit. Apples and Oranges. 11th September occured in the NATO zone and Afghanistan is in the NATO zone. The US military being engaged whilst operating around Taiwan would be of no relevence to NATO. The most likely source of assistance would be ANZUS with possible assistance from some NATO nations but not under the NATO umbrella - for NATO to get involved would require the threat to be taken to the US/Europe. NATO has never operated outside its zone and is unlikely to ever do so. It's a moot point anyway as the US doesn't have the capability of conducting such a large scale operation presently and has proved to be inadequate at jungle warfare at the best of times.

Not unless Taiwan was shipped some way north it wouldn't. NATO's remit covers an area from the eastern border of Russia/some of the former USSR across the North Atlantic to the west coast of Russia. The US would probably expect some assistance from allied nations, but it would have nothing to do with NATO. When Argentina invaded the Falklands there was no NATO support for the UK because it was outside of the NATO zone.

Oddly enough I do know that the IRIN isn't blue water capable. I even know that blue water is nothing to do with depth. I also know that they can't 'probably be seen from the air', what with them operating in a deep water seaway and not a swimming pool. There are 3 Kilos, in addition to Iran's very new home built vessels. Exactly how many do you think are needed to patrol a narrow strait and the NAG, and how many do you think it needs to attack a capital ship? Kilos are not diesel, they are diesel-electric and can stay submerged for a number of days - more than enough time to approach a fleet, bang off some torpedos and retreat. And you would lose that bet - I hate having to repeat myself but, for clarity, the USN is dire at ASW, they couldn't find a boat in a bathtub, on the surface, with a big neon arrow pointing to it. The Kilos have penetrated the US fleet undetected on a number of occasions. A torpedo can sink a lot of aeroplanes if it hits an aircraft carrier. The bulk of IRIN's skimmers are fast attack craft which are not '100% vulnerable to air attack'. Hitting a 23m LOA, 4m beam Cat14 with an even smaller Radar signature that is travelling at 50 knots with a fast jet is more than a little difficult. When they swarm attack, you're in trouble. Your obsession with Silkworm is a tad annoying, if you're looking for a pat on the back because you can quote figures you have Googled, you're not going to get one. Silkworm is the least effective of Iran's missiles, pretending the others don't exist won't make it true. Iran can launch its missiles from its FACs, boats and a/c, the range of the missiles is irrelevent. Carrier does not beat Silkworm, and it certainly doesn't beat Sunburn. I suggest you get back to Google and look up Aegis, it is always in use and is an 'it', not a 'they' - if you're going to present yourself as an authority on naval warfare, it helps if you know what you are talking about. What exactly do you think the USN is going to be clearing mines with? I say again, the USN's MW capability is on a par with its ASW capability, dire. AShMs - not just Silkworm - are not going to be cleared without putting boots on the ground. The US has no access to airstrips for use of an attack against Iran without the host country's permission - no country is going to risk Iranian reprisals because the US wants to go on another jolly jape. Perhaps you should give the Pentagon and MOD the Int you've spent your life collecting regarding the IRIAF, because neither one is under the impression that it is tiny and outdated. Google again? As strange as it seems, when the Pentagon were playing those war games, they did actually know what they were doing - the amphibious ships were there as part of a battle group as they would be in real life. The Iranians aren't stupid, they would not just attack random vessels, they would concentrate their attack on the vessels with an offensive role i.e. carriers, cruisers and LPD/LPH rather than than DD/FF. You haven't got anything left to bet with. Finding all the AShMs would be a long and bloody task - unless the Iranians lob them all at the US fleet in the first few minutes, which is a probability. The US would take an awfully long time to clear mines as they are rubbish at it. And a sub is a sandwich, a submarine is a boat - people that know anything about naval warfare know that. You haven't been through BRNC, CTCRM or even Cranwell or RMAS. When you have, your assertions will mean more - until then you would be better off accepting that some people know more about these things than you. It takes more than reading moronicly poor studies by SOAS and watching 'Ultimate Weapons' on Channel Five, I'm afraid. The day I start getting instructed in the finer points of maritime, littoral and amphibious warfare by a civvy armchair Admiral is the day I go for a quiet, lonely walk with the Mess Webley. As has been pointed out in this thread and many others - he never said that or anything like it, he was deliberately mis-translated. To paraphrase simply, he said that Israel won't exist one day... because the late Ayatollah Khomeni said so. There was no threat, no mention of maps or of wiping. It is if you don't plan for it, like Rumsfeld. If you do plan for it, it works quite well, see the numerous Empires through history for examples. Did that come from Sinn Fein's 'Big Bumper Book of How Evil The British Are And How All Your Problems Are Their Fault' or was it a Hollywood film with the plucky 'Oirish' character bravely standing up to the evil British with financial assistance from a group of understanding and distressed Irish*-Americans. (* Irish in the sense that they once ate a potato) Because it's bollocks.

I take it you've not been involved in a study of Iranian military capabilities or the planning of military action against Iran? Iran has D/E Kilos, one of the quietest boats in service, equiped with Hoots, the fastest torpedo in service - this is in addition to their own build midget, minelaying and SDV boats. Iran has no need for SSNs as it doesn't require extended submergence. Iranian Kilos have penetrated the US fleet in the Gulf on numerous occasions. Iran's surface fleet includes large quantities of missile craft, semi-submersible attack craft, fast attack craft and speedboats with crew-served weapons, all suitable for swarm attacks. Iranian Noors(Saccade) are as good as US Harpoons, Kowsars are incredibly difficult to track and intercept and Moskits(Sunburn) are probably the best AShM in service and were specifically designed to beat Aegis. Iran has large quantities of each, far more than the USN can effectively deal with. You clearly don't understand the difference between 'maritime defence' and 'blue-water navy'. In a recent war-game conducted by the US, simulating an attack on Iran, the USN/USMC lost half their fleet, with 16 major war vessels on the seabed, 5 of the 6 amphibious assault ships were lost, as were numerous carriers and large cruisers - and 20,000 KIA. These war-games are notoriously slanted toward US victory and they only included known Iranian equipment. The USN is woefully inadequate at ASW and MW and is absolutely reliant on allied navies for the provision of both. The VMF is a hodge-podge mix, primarily of death-traps, with a huge lack of support infrastructure and not enough money for fuel. There hasn't been an exceptional navy in the world since the 50s/60s before NATO re-allignment divided responsibilities - PLAN may develop one ever the next 20 years unless other nations try to compete. Which shows how little knowledge you have of strike operations. US carriers aren't going anywhere near Iran unless the AShM threat etc. is eliminated. Flying from other countries would require their permission, which would be unlikely considering potential Iranian retaliation, and long-range strategic bombers would be sitting ducks to the IRIAF without fighter escorts. This is why uninformed civvies shouldn't plan military operations. And repaired within a week at substantially less cost than a splashed B-52/F-117. They do - and are probably in the process of developing their own version. The best thing to do with Iran would be to leave them alone, then the population would vote for someone slightly less nuts than Ahmadinejad. But that would let loose a Euro oil bourse on the world and the US wouldn't like that.

You don't know what you're talking about. Actually, yes I do. Actually, no you don't. Depending on which definition is used, a Third World country is undeveloped or has a low standard of living. Neither definition applies to Iran. As the HDI map below shows, Iran has a medium standard of living and it is not undeveloped - it is a Second World country. The same applies to Saudi Arabia, whilst Taiwan and South Korea are both First World Nations. Iraq had nothing in comparison to Iran's military: Iran has probably the best maritime defences in the world; Iran is mountainous so there would be no big, sweeping tank battles a la Gulf War I; Iran has a very well defended border utilising those mountains; there is no easy route into Iran to provide logistical support; Iran's strategic targets are mostly underground, out of reach of PGMs/TLAM; there is very limited intelligence regarding the location of mobile Iranian missile defences; Iran is also a damn sight bigger than Iraq. Any attack on Iran would result in massive losses to the US of both personnel and capital equipment that the US population and Government would have no stomach for unless they were experiencing a direct threat, which they aren't. These plans are nothing new, every country with an expeditionary military has contingency plans for attacks on most countries/groups of countries. They will have various plans for attacking Russia, China, South Africa, France... the more likely the war, the more often the plans are updated, it doesn't mean there will be another war next week. Besides, all this persistant sabre rattling is mutually beneficial to both the Bush adminstration and ArmadillosJacket, a war wouldn't be.

Think that's why the post just refers to RAF, rather than British airmen. Pilots from all over the Commonwealth and occupied Europe (and I believe other places as well) flew under the RAF during the Battle of Britain. It wasn't just the RAF, some flew for the RN too. Don't forget the Senior Service.

I wouldn't read too much into the bit about multi-player games, it's just really badly worded is all. No one is about to be court-martialled for playing BF online. However they probably would if they told D3ath2Infidel$ that the 3rd Foot and Mouth would be at X on the Y whilst playing. There is no lack of a right to free Speech in the UK. Everyone has the right to free speech within certain limitations, the same as it is in any other liberal democracy, including the US. No country has total freedom of speech. No you don't. Indeed, but as this isn't the case in the UK it is irrelevent. Protests against Bush were not banned, they were simply not allowed down Whitehall for security reasons, which was incidentally at the request of the (not so)Secret Service. They went ahead elsewhere. It is not difficult to understand that policing tens of thousands of people within rock throwing range of one of the most unpopular people in the world would be rather difficult. I've yet to see a mass protest on the lawn of the Whitehouse. Similarly, protests against the Chinese Premier were not banned. Here is a picture of some of those protestors on The Mall waving the (banned in China) Tibetan flag. Civil liberties groups whinged that the public weren't given Hu's exact itinerary, but civil liberties groups do just tend to whinge, it is still not a ban. Wrong. The Government enacted some bollocks legislation to save themselves some embarrassment, but it is hardly difficult to overcome the minor restrictions. Brian Haw is not an Iraq War protestor. He has been there since the 2nd June 2001, quite some time before Iraq, Afghanistan and even September 11th. Unless he is a new Nostradamus, he is just an evangelical fruitloop that has spent most of his life trying to paint the world pink and fluffy when he should really get a  job instead of being a professional protestor bankrolled by the British population. Again, wrong. Under clause 132 of the SOCPA, authorisation must be sought from the Commissioner of the Met for protests within 1km of Parliament Square (with an exemption for Trafalgar Square) six days in advance, unless that is not reasonably practicable then no less than 24 hours. As long as the protest is correctly organised authorisation cannot be denied. Gordon Brown has said he intends to repeal clauses 132-137. Brian Haw has not been denied authorisation and was not taken away by the police. Brian Haw was given authorisation to protest with plaques totaling no more than 3 sq metres. As this picture shows, he has a habit of taking over the pavement with his badly written placards as well as wailing into a loudhailer. Because of this some of his placards (not him) were taken away by the police. As he is still there with his loudhailer and now sub 3 sq metres of placard, 'they' haven't done a very good job of shutting him up. Try again. The Criminal Justice Act 2002 covers the following Part 1 makes amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 such as extension of powers to stop and search. Part 2 makes certain provision in relation to bail, such as grant and conditions. Part 3 contains measures in connection with conditional cautions given by the police. Part 4 deals with the charging and release of persons in police detention and introduces a new method of instituting proceedings. Part 5 makes various provision with regard to disclosure, including initial duties of disclosure by the prosecutor, defence disclosure and contents of defence statement. Part 6 makes provision related to the allocation and transfer of offences, for instance, the transfer of cases to the Crown Court. Part 7 makes certain arrangements in connection with trial procedure, including application by the prosecution for complex or lengthy trials, or where there is danger of jury tampering, to be conducted without a jury. Part 8 deals with the provisions necessary to enable live links to be used in criminal proceedings, including matters relating to rules of court. Part 9 is about prosecution appeals and includes restrictions on reporting and offences where this is contravened. Part 10 makes provision for retrial for serious offences and covers matters such as new evidence, the interests of justice, restrictions on reporting and offences where this is contravened. Part 11 on evidence, consists of three Chapters, the first in relation to evidence of "bad character", the second dealing with hearsay evidence and its admissibility, and the third is supplementary. Part 12 on sentencing, consists of 8 Chapters. Chapter 1 makes certain general provisions about sentencing, such as its purpose, reductions in sentences for guilty pleas, increases for racial or religious aggravation, definition of community sentence, etc. Chapter 2 deals with community orders and Chapter 3 with prison sentences of less than 12 months. Chapter 4 makes further provision about orders given under Chapters 2 and 3, such as the duties of a responsible officer, unpaid work requirement, drug rehabilitation requirement, etc. Chapter 5 makes provision in connection with dangerous offenders and, for example, specifies relevant offences. Chapter 6 deals with the release of prisoners on licence and includes provision for recall. Chapter 7 makes other provision about sentencing, such as deferment, and Chapter 8 is supplementary. Part 13 miscellaneous, contains various provision such as guilty pleas and non-attendance at court, jury service, etc. Part 14 general, deals with matters such as orders and rules, commencement, etc. Nothing in there restricting congregating in a public place. There is also no mention of it in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984, which would be irrelevent anyway as it was only a temporary emergency act that had to be renewed every year, was amended in 1989 and replaced completely by the Terrorism Act 2000, which was itself replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which has been amended as the Terrorism Act 2006 for Section 3 being in breach of the ECHR. There is nothing in that, either. No they cannot, which is why you haven't seen it, unlike in the 'free' US where there are laws against loitering. Do keep up, old bean. The rave scene was around in the late 80s/early 90s and was halted by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which specifically defined raves, it also criminalised some previously civil offences but did not extend to restricting lawful protest. Actually, it brought about a military dictatorship ruled by a puritanical religious nut. Hence, the Restoration. Who on Earth would consider the Russian Revolution advantageous to the population? No it isn't. Despite the nonsense espoused by the NRA of America, the Second Amendment was a way of providing a cheap (essentially free) Army/Police for a new, and therefore poor, country. There is a clue in the 'necessary for the security' part. England had (and technically still has) the same law. An oppressive regime could easily overturn the Second Amendment by a 28th Amendment  limiting arms to a blunt mango. Other countries stop abuse of power by having a separation between the State and the Executive, which is why the UK has a Parliament and a Monarchy. The Government may pay for the military but the military work for the Monarch. I don't think poisoning the oppostion would go down too well here either. Although poisoning all three main party leaders would perhaps get a quiet hurrah. Probably because we don't need one. No, we have the NF and Combat 18 instead. Say what? You just can't move in North Korea for all the protests Financial freedom requires political freedom. Odd that it is provided at bases, in theatre, on board ships, etc. No, they are seeking to clarify things after the Government cocked up the post Cornwall incident media ops to stop any future embarrassment. And not forgetting the fake photos from the beginning of the war. With the current problems with retention I really don't see the MOD banning chatrooms and other forms of contact with families and friends, it really wouldn't be good for morale in hot, sandy places. I'm sure LIAG have all that in hand. They're rather good at these things. Approximately 500,000 people are involved in the UK's defence. One Corporal giving minor information to a country we are not at war with is good reason not to trust them all, is it? Heads up for you: not only was he caught, he was caught by soldiers trusted to make informed decisions for themselves. Do you see how that works? Well, thanks for that bit of ignorant, classist bigotry. Later, I may go play with traffic. I probably won't make diatribes that assert waffle as fact, though. Of course, when I say 'play with traffic' I mean pulling civvies out of the 2 metres of flood water they have just driven their small car into. Yes, it's definitely us that take the Queen's shilling that lack CDF. Well, I've never been given an order I didn't understand, nor have I given any that haven't been understood. There is no ignoring in either direction, either. I take it you are not basing that on all your years of military experience? Because, to be blunt, it's nonsense. We are not fighting WWI, the infanteer is not just a bullet sponge, it is a technical trade with lots of shiny things that go bang. It has not been a hole of any kind, the rules have always been there they have just been updated to specify modern technology. It is not going to be at all unpopular. All members of the British Armed Forces are well aware of the importance of OpSec and PerSec. Pretty much everyone has been on operations and many have had plenty of exposure to the Troubles. After decades of service personnel and their families being targetted by Nationalists, no one is stupid enough to not understand why there are restrictions. Some of us still have our little mirrors to check for car bombs. Now after that awfully long post I must dash. It's high tea here in polite society.

nice bit of kit that... Absolutley hoofing bit of kit, they've shrugged off a few RPGs with barely a scratch and they are the only vehicle that hasn't got stuck in the ground. And the air-con works. The Cloggies recently put in an order for ~70, some of which are a new ambulance variant, which is good news. As Royal essentially designed them, the RN own almost 50% of the intellectual rights and gets a nice little paycheque in return. A procurement scheme with BigAndExpensive that actually worked out financially beneficial has got to be a first. Vectors look good to me. I doubt I'll get to use one as they're a pongo thing but, as I said before, our unarmoured/marinised version is excellent. I've seen the Vectors being thrown around and they seem quite happy with all the armour. Extra windows in the back would probably have been useful, or perhaps an extra hatch for top cover. Mastiff I'm not too sure about. They're well armoured but they're enormous and I doubt their weight and suspension won't severely hamper them x-country. One of the considerations was that they should be less intimidating than CVR(t). Obviously no one actually looked at one, they just assumed that tracks=straight from the fiery pits of Hades; wheels=cute and fluffy. The other offering from Force Protection appear much more useful to me, Cheetah looks like an ideal alternative to SNATCH. Bulldog is probably the best option while waiting for FRES which is likely to be at least ten years away. It provides a familiar vehicle with a vastly improved power pack, steering unit and armour. It even gets a more warry name. As da12thMonkey said, Panther is just part of a normal procurement program, unlike the UOR of Mastiff/Vector. There was a round hole noticed years ago and Panther is the round peg to fit it. I doubt many will be deployed in Iraq, possibly a few will be in AFG, but most will be in UK/Germany and probably a batch in BATUS. Ahh, but don't forget what the masters in the ivory tower said: 'FRES, CVF, JSF' - choose two. A confusing thing to say considering the latter two are totally reliant on each other. We could end up with a bicycle, a canoe and a pigeon. No it wouldn't, they're a completely different class of vehicle. You don't need a 20tn chuffing big thing to carry a few comms systems when a much more discreet and mobile 6.5tn vehicle can do it. Because of the terrain and roads in AFG, Mastiff is pretty much not an option there anyway. It depends on what future plans the country has: they may want the option of multiple variants for different roles, and especially with a smaller military, it can work out cheaper to buy one expensive vehicle in six different variants than to buy six different cheaper vehicles. If they only have the one vehicle in different variants covering many roles then it only requires one support infrastructure to operate and maintain them all and one training facility for the crews. Six different vehicles would require six different support infrastructures and six different training facilities and they wouldn't be able to swap crews between vehicles without additional training.

1999, at the last Royal Tournament. A team of ex Field Gunners have had a couple unofficial races. This is them, they've got some videos on there too. The Bottom three are of a full race, but you may need binoculars to see it properly. The Royal Navy have been doing a pull-it-and-make-it-go-bang race, which is nowhere near as good, but this year they are supposed to be bringing back the proper 'Cliff and Chasm' at Collingwood, I think from March to June. If they've got any sense, they need to make it a regular thing, they've just got to keep Health & Safety away.

I wouldn't worry about Defence Spending Reviews, every year they look at scrapping something that cannot be scrapped only to decide that they could never scrap it. It's just paying lip service to the bean counters in the MoD. Next year it will be boots or rifles or something which they'll discover they can't do without, and end up finding a paperclip supplier that is 0.005% cheaper than the current one. The Red Arrows budget is only 5.6m pounds and considering how powerful a recruiting tool they are, how much of an advertisment for UK Plc they are and how high profile they are, that is exceptionally cheap. Just for recuitment alone the RAF would have to spend substantially more than that on an advertising campaign to compensate. They RAF moved Australia just to prove a point, they'll not lose the Crimson Crabs any time soon. Now if we could only bring the Field Gun run back...