Britain not doing enough to fight international terrorism
-
See it as a funding.
Bribing people with their own money is not sound economics. Maintaining our ability to develop weaponry requires government subsidy, but not waste and graft on such a massive scale.
jhwurmbach wrote:
No. I read that being 345M$ (F-22) and 80-100M$
You read wrong (though all military costing is up for interpretatation), incremental cost of F22 to the USAF is $133 million, we sold Typhoon to the Sauds for £120M an aircraft. What the flyaway price of a Raptor would be is hard to guess, as the US isn't selling.
jhwurmbach wrote:
cut off the world from global positioning.
They can now regionally degrade the signal. If you want a competitor for the GPS system to support your paranoid fantasies, pay for it with your own tax money, not mine.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
You read wrong
I read wikipedia, mainly. Change it there, if you can back up your numbers. "In April 2006, the cost of the F-22A was assessed by the Government Accountability Office to be $361 million per aircraft." Thats costs of the whole programme divided by the number of planes built. 137M$ per additional plane is given as a number. For the Eurofighter/Typhoon, the flyaway-costs for a third-party-country (like Austria) are 63M$ (and 100M$ for a system).(German wikipedia[^]) That is still about half the costs.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" -
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Not for the price or the delivery date, it was a good aircraft in 1985.
In fact you are right. Thats what I meant: The plane is quite OK but all the development costs that have run up make it enormously expensive. But OTOH you had a lot of people working in the arms-companies. See it as a funding.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
It's now comparable in cost to the F-22 ($120M)
No. I read that being 345M$ (F-22) and 80-100M$ (Eurofighter for Austria, somewhat cheaper for Germany, as they co-funded the development). Frances Rafale[^] is much cheaper, because they have dropped some stupid requirements earlier.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
and far far less capable as an air superiority fighter.
A little less. Esp. When it comes to Stealth. But OTOH, the Eurofighter has some remarkable imprivements in "usability". The pilot has more time fighting and less work actually flying the plane.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
The next massive EU c*** up in an attempt to me too the Yanks will be Gallieo
Bah! This is absolutely needed, to be able to act when the "dumb man at the trigger"[^] is told by his superiors in the military-industrial complex to cut off the world from global positioning.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" -
Its reprehensible that we have such close dealings with the Sauds and their disgusting theocracy, one that is also the primary source of funding for the dissemination of the Salafi Islam that provides much of the ideological justification for 'international' terrorism. Brownshirt is happily continuing to sell our soul to offload a few crappy eurofighters from a program we should have dumped a decade ago. Good on the Liberal Democrats for refusing to meet the delegation.
What you fail to understand is that pumping millions in to this project gave employment to thousands of MOD employees. Would you rather see it go to the US? It is imperative that the UK has its own military industry and it is better that it is allied with the rest of Europe than the US. Why? Because it is impossible for a UK firm to win a US military contract in return.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
So will either of you be going to the showroom with money in your pocket? :rolleyes:
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
No point ;P Bloody authorities don't allow private fast jet ownership in the UK, spoilsports.
-
What you fail to understand is that pumping millions in to this project gave employment to thousands of MOD employees. Would you rather see it go to the US? It is imperative that the UK has its own military industry and it is better that it is allied with the rest of Europe than the US. Why? Because it is impossible for a UK firm to win a US military contract in return.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
Why? Because it is impossible for a UK firm to win a US military contract in return.
BAE being the exception that proves the rules with the JSF I assume?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
What you fail to understand is that pumping millions in to this project gave employment to thousands of MOD employees. Would you rather see it go to the US? It is imperative that the UK has its own military industry and it is better that it is allied with the rest of Europe than the US. Why? Because it is impossible for a UK firm to win a US military contract in return.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
It is imperative that the UK has its own military industry and it is better that it is allied with the rest of Europe
Why? their equipment is generally inferior and more expensive. Not to mention being wrapped up with a project that threatens our sovereignty. Of course there are multiple considerations in military spending, including preserving a native defence industry, but pork barrel shouldn't be the main one..
fat_boy wrote:
Why? Because it is impossible for a UK firm to win a US military contract in return.
You are talking bollocks, we do plenty of defence subcontracting with the US. Complete major projects like a fighter jet, no.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Why? Because it is impossible for a UK firm to win a US military contract in return.
BAE being the exception that proves the rules with the JSF I assume?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
fat_boy wrote:
It is imperative that the UK has its own military industry and it is better that it is allied with the rest of Europe
Why? their equipment is generally inferior and more expensive. Not to mention being wrapped up with a project that threatens our sovereignty. Of course there are multiple considerations in military spending, including preserving a native defence industry, but pork barrel shouldn't be the main one..
fat_boy wrote:
Why? Because it is impossible for a UK firm to win a US military contract in return.
You are talking bollocks, we do plenty of defence subcontracting with the US. Complete major projects like a fighter jet, no.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Why? their equipment is generally inferior
That is generalisation that I know to be applicable to certain items. The SA80 is kack, true, but alot isnt. I hapen to know that UK SONER is the best in the world.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
expensive
But its money spent in the UK, so its not a problem.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
You are talking bollocks
Only if firms but out a US company as aparnter/front. Else the US defence business is a closed game.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
fat_boy wrote:
It is imperative that the UK has its own military industry and it is better that it is allied with the rest of Europe
Why? their equipment is generally inferior and more expensive. Not to mention being wrapped up with a project that threatens our sovereignty. Of course there are multiple considerations in military spending, including preserving a native defence industry, but pork barrel shouldn't be the main one..
fat_boy wrote:
Why? Because it is impossible for a UK firm to win a US military contract in return.
You are talking bollocks, we do plenty of defence subcontracting with the US. Complete major projects like a fighter jet, no.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
we do plenty of defence subcontracting with the US.
But it is carefully seen to that *any* knowledge stays in the US. That is only slightly more so with the US than, say, with the UK or France. Defence is a delicate subject in every country, packed with liability-type people left over from the cold war.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" -
Ryan Roberts wrote:
we do plenty of defence subcontracting with the US.
But it is carefully seen to that *any* knowledge stays in the US. That is only slightly more so with the US than, say, with the UK or France. Defence is a delicate subject in every country, packed with liability-type people left over from the cold war.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"In the UK the biggest policy skew on the whole thing is nothing is allowed to go ahead unless it fosters reliance on some other EU member country, either through joint ventures or black box sub contracting. The British army went into Kosovo with 5 rounds of ammunition per man because the Belgians, who disagreed with the intervention, failed to supply us JIT with ammunition. We apparently can't even make bullets anymore or more likely signed an exclusive supply contract when we bought Belgian guns or some such nonsense. Polititians who put lives at risk with this sort of insanity should be used for target practice.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
In the UK the biggest policy skew on the whole thing is nothing is allowed to go ahead unless it fosters reliance on some other EU member country, either through joint ventures or black box sub contracting. The British army went into Kosovo with 5 rounds of ammunition per man because the Belgians, who disagreed with the intervention, failed to supply us JIT with ammunition. We apparently can't even make bullets anymore or more likely signed an exclusive supply contract when we bought Belgian guns or some such nonsense. Polititians who put lives at risk with this sort of insanity should be used for target practice.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
We apparently can't even make bullets anymore or more likely signed an exclusive supply contract when we bought Belgian guns or some such nonsense.
Actually, that must have been an omission on the part of UK supplies. And you choose the Belgian gun because it is pretty good, wheras the British one is presumed to be crappy.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Polititians who put lives at risk with this sort of insanity should be used for target practice.
Thats the way wars are fought. The politicians could simply stop attacking other countries just out of being the poodle of an agressor state.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" -
In the UK the biggest policy skew on the whole thing is nothing is allowed to go ahead unless it fosters reliance on some other EU member country, either through joint ventures or black box sub contracting. The British army went into Kosovo with 5 rounds of ammunition per man because the Belgians, who disagreed with the intervention, failed to supply us JIT with ammunition. We apparently can't even make bullets anymore or more likely signed an exclusive supply contract when we bought Belgian guns or some such nonsense. Polititians who put lives at risk with this sort of insanity should be used for target practice.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
We apparently can't even make bullets anymore or more likely signed an exclusive supply contract when we bought Belgian guns or some such nonsense.
Actually, that must have been an omission on the part of UK supplies. And you choose the Belgian gun because it is pretty good, wheras the British one is presumed to be crappy.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Polititians who put lives at risk with this sort of insanity should be used for target practice.
Thats the way wars are fought. The politicians could simply stop attacking other countries just out of being the poodle of an aggressor state.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" -
fat_boy wrote:
It is imperative that the UK has its own military industry and it is better that it is allied with the rest of Europe
Why? their equipment is generally inferior and more expensive. Not to mention being wrapped up with a project that threatens our sovereignty. Of course there are multiple considerations in military spending, including preserving a native defence industry, but pork barrel shouldn't be the main one..
fat_boy wrote:
Why? Because it is impossible for a UK firm to win a US military contract in return.
You are talking bollocks, we do plenty of defence subcontracting with the US. Complete major projects like a fighter jet, no.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
their equipment is generally inferior and more expensive
:laugh:
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Not to mention being wrapped up with a project that threatens our sovereignty.
UK sovereignty? :laugh: :laugh: Even your atomic deterrence in in the hands of the US.
Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Syndicalism is the opposite. Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has accused Britain of not doing enough to fight international terrorism. He's got a good point. Hang on a minute though... where did those 911 hijackers come from again? :doh:
You always pass failure on the way to success.
Out of Osamas arse?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist
