Navy "..too small.." says Defence Minister

2 carriers 6 destroyers a dozen frigates and 7 attack subs is enough of a force to make virtually every other country regret annoying her Maj.

but to actually have a presence everywhere we think we need to another 30 odd frigates or extended ohps with some sort of air defence and a helicopter hanger in 1982 we had 47 frigates
 
You should have tried it out on the tank trails area at Catterick then if it was so easy. Competition was fierce to get in the RSMDT (the tours were a sh@gfest) and broken arms and legs were the usual reason for failing selection.

The bikes weren't girly 125s, mucker, they were always Triumph 750s (they had a sticking throttle, you see) and the White Helmets had a rep. for being quite a punchy bunch so, yeah, I think I'd know who I'd have put money on in a ruck.

Oh, and show me another mob that had a Captain (no-knickers-pillion) Bobby.... so, to put it, mildly, STFU, you don't have a clue about what you're wibbling about. No offence.


Fred A********, does that name ring any bells with you grumps?
 
2 carriers 6 destroyers a dozen frigates and 7 attack subs is enough of a force to make virtually every other country regret annoying her Maj.

but to actually have a presence everywhere we think we need to another 30 odd frigates or extended ohps with some sort of air defence and a helicopter hanger in 1982 we had 47 frigates
Pretty picture in the papers yesterday which showed 1 Aircraft Carrier (not operationally ready), 2 Destroyers (4 in refit) and about 4 - 6 frigates available, so 8 or so viable ships
 
While I agree that his methods and approach are very different from the last two, a key part of the equation is "what did they achieve?". If Trump had used the same "predictable, coherent and consulted their allies" methodology as Obama, then he would be at risk of achieving the same as Obama - fcuk all.

President Trump has at least got Kim to the negotiating table, something that Obama was either incapable of, or disinterested in. Obama signed an appeasement agreement with Iran, which Trump ripped up and said "that's not going to work". Domestically, Obama upended the healthcare industry, and made healthcare much more expensive for the middle class. Trump is trying to get affordable healthcare for everybody. Not just for those that had none, for everybody. Obama didn't give a fcuk about the likes of my family, an average suburban family.

On international trade, if you walk into Walmart (to use one example), just about everything there is made in China. US industry pays the price for that. So he's trying to do something about that. Not sure he's going about it the right way, it's too early to tell. But he's firmly put the issue on the table and saying "we've got to get this balance addressed".

Too many political observers and commentators are viewing what Trump has done through the lens of how his predecessors did things. He said he'd change things, and he has. Personally, after a couple years of his Administration, I think I've got his intentions figured out - "reading between the lines" has been helpful. I think his methodology is something like this:

Go for a Moonshot.
In the course of the program, you figure out how to get satellites into orbit, and have much better rockets.
You don't end up making the Moon, and never really intended to, but you're leagues ahead of where you were before with only jet engines.
But if you hadn't gone for the Moonshot, you'd be ceilinged at what can be done with only jet engines.

Obama tried one Moonshot, and it blew up on the stand. An abject failure of a presidency as compared with his pre-election promises.

Trump has shaken things up, in ways that many consider unhinged, but reading between the lines, it seems to me at least that he's got a methodology. His media critics fall for it every time. His Democratic opponents have tears running down their snowflake faces at his latest tweet, or speech, while he's sniggering in the Oval office at their stupidity in taking everything at face value.

I might be completely wrong, but it's too early to tell...
That appears to be the internal perspective of some of your countrymen.

Externally, I see US credibility decreasing.

I would in particular highlight his engagement with North Korea. Getting Kim to the table is easy and exactly what he wants so he can claim North Korea is a global power equal to the US.

Trump returned home from his initial meeting claiming he’d gained significant concessions from Pyongyang on their nuclear weapons programme. Subsequently, Kim blew a few shacks up...errr...and that’s about it.

I think he’s played POTUS for a fool.

Similarly, Trump has scrapped JCPOA and talked tough on Iran. Yet when Tehran shoots a USN MQ-4 down in international waters, Trump blinked and did nothing.

Regards,
MM
 
That appears to be the internal perspective of some of your countrymen.

Externally, I see US credibility decreasing.

I would in particular highlight his engagement with North Korea. Getting Kim to the table is easy and exactly what he wants so he can claim North Korea is a global power equal to the US.

Trump returned home from his initial meeting claiming he’d gained significant concessions from Pyongyang on their nuclear weapons programme. Subsequently, Kim blew a few shacks up...errr...and that’s about it.

I think he’s played POTUS for a fool.

Similarly, Trump has scrapped JCPOA and talked tough on Iran. Yet when Tehran shoots a USN MQ-4 down in international waters, Trump blinked and did nothing.

Regards,
MM
We shan't be agreeing any time soon, it would appear.

I am not claiming Trump is the Messiah, far from it. That he was the best candidate is a damning indictment of the Republican party. That he beat HRC is an even more damning indictment of the Democratic party.

However, I don't believe either a) Kim has played POTUS for a fool, or b) he is trying to be an equal world power to the US. But as I said, I don't expect agreement. That's fine.
 
We shan't be agreeing any time soon, it would appear.

I am not claiming Trump is the Messiah, far from it. That he was the best candidate is a damning indictment of the Republican party. That he beat HRC is an even more damning indictment of the Democratic party.

However, I don't believe either a) Kim has played POTUS for a fool, or b) he is trying to be an equal world power to the US. But as I said, I don't expect agreement. That's fine.
Happy to agree to disagree; I didn’t expect anything else. You may wish to consider however that I doubt my views are unusual outside of the US; it genuinely saddens me deeply watching your Nation’s values being eroded.

I would however agree that it was damning that Trump ended up as the Republican candidate. In many respects, I sense he didn’t so much win the election as the Democrats lost it. By that, I mean that if they’d have had anyone else but Hillary running against Trump, the Democrats would have won.

Regards,
MM
 
Happy to agree to disagree; I didn’t expect anything else. You may wish to consider however that I doubt my views are unusual outside of the US; it genuinely saddens me deeply watching your Nation’s values being eroded.

I would however agree that it was damning that Trump ended up as the Republican candidate. In many respects, I sense he didn’t so much win the election as the Democrats lost it. By that, I mean that if they’d have had anyone else but Hillary running against Trump, the Democrats would have won.

Regards,
MM
They would have. But they did not, and Trump beat out HRC.

The Democrats now have a problem with branding and marketing. As the "squad" has become the face of the party... I am sure it makes Pelosi want to bury them deep in the woods.

But the America the world seemed to love was the America many here were disenfranchised with... I wonder why??

America and the rest of the world generally don't see eye to eye on to many things and hence we have the state of the hate/hate relationship.
 
Happy to agree to disagree; I didn’t expect anything else. You may wish to consider however that I doubt my views are unusual outside of the US; it genuinely saddens me deeply watching your Nation’s values being eroded.

I would however agree that it was damning that Trump ended up as the Republican candidate. In many respects, I sense he didn’t so much win the election as the Democrats lost it. By that, I mean that if they’d have had anyone else but Hillary running against Trump, the Democrats would have won.

Regards,
MM
I agree with the last paragraph for sure.

On the first paragraph, I would counter that nobody doubts that "Make America Great Again" was always going to come at a cost of ruffled feathers elsewhere, so this is not really surprising.

On the subject of genuine sadness at other nations' demise, I share that too, the three countries dearest to me are the US (where my present and future is), the UK (where I am from) and Germany (where I served). All three have suffered immensely in the last decade or so, for different reasons.

In particular, the German more-or-less unlimited immigration has changed the face of the population immensely, similar to what the UK experienced in the 50s-70s. In the UK, Brexit was a triumph of democracy in action and an absolute political and economic train wreck that is unfolding in real time, however slow-motion.

So it's ALL shite really :)
 
That's the thing, cheap for you - not for everybody.
Why should they be cheap or everybody?
Not everybody "needs" their functionality, nor do they have the potential to deserve having others subsidise such a thing.
 
Happy to agree to disagree; I didn’t expect anything else. You may wish to consider however that I doubt my views are unusual outside of the US; it genuinely saddens me deeply watching your Nation’s values being eroded.

I would however agree that it was damning that Trump ended up as the Republican candidate. In many respects, I sense he didn’t so much win the election as the Democrats lost it. By that, I mean that if they’d have had anyone else but Hillary running against Trump, the Democrats would have won.

Regards,
MM
They didn't have anyone better so even with someone other than HRC as their candidate, they'd still have lost.
 
Do the Army still have those bloody motorcycle team equivalent of the Red Arrows who used to be on Blue Peter when it was OK to touch kids? They could give them the chop.

I assume the Navy has a water skiing equivalent that can get chopped too?


The royal signals white helmet motorcycle display team, were dis-banded in 2017.

The RN had the Field Gun competition, held annually at the Royal Tournament. It got binned in 1999.
Well we do have the “Black Cats” too, but they’re also just 2 helos that are part of an operational unit (825 NAS)

Black Cats (Royal Navy) - Wikipedia




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tbf Hillary got way more votes than trump so there's that.
Just the american system thinks letting the people actually decide who they want in charge is wrong.
 
Tbf Hillary got way more votes than trump so there's that.
Just the american system thinks letting the people actually decide who they want in charge is wrong.
And it seems that he same is happening here in the UK...you can have a vote but we will tell you if you made the right decision.
 
Tbf Hillary got way more votes than trump so there's that.
Just the american system thinks letting the people actually decide who they want in charge is wrong.
The US Federal election system is designed around how the states vote, not the individual. It's to stop populous states marginalising rural states and dominating government agenda.
Given the way London and Scottish agendas dominate over the rest of England and Wales, its perhaps something we should learn from.
 
Last edited:
Tbf Hillary got way more votes than trump so there's that.
Just the american system thinks letting the people actually decide who they want in charge is wrong.
If you were from say Idaho, would you want only a few high population states to set the agenda? Especially if you don’t agree with it? The electoral college prevents the outright domination of the country by a few states.
 

Latest Threads

Top