The money spent on the Typhoon was invested back into our own economy, if we had bought F-15E fighters from the US we would have been helping someone elses, so in reality buying a foreign aircraft would have been more expensive for the economy overall. Also the F15s are being slowly replaced with the F22 raptors which are a similar cost to the Typhoon. The lastest phase of the Typhoons are also multirole and far more advanced than the F15E.
Poll: 2nd Leaders debate - Live tonight at 8pm on BBC news and SKY news
- Thread starter robgmun
- Start date
- Status
The money spent on the Typhoon was invested back into our own economy, if we had bought F-15E fighters from the US we would have been helping someone elses, so in reality buying a foreign aircraft would have been more expensive for the economy overall. Also the F15s are being slowly replaced with the F22 raptors which are a similar cost to the Typhoon. The lastest phase of the Typhoons are also multirole and far more advanced than the F15E.
So the UK should buy more expensive, less capable military equipment because it supports a few jobs in the UK. That's the same thinking that is seeing the RAF being forced to buy A400Ms they don't want.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Public sector job losses 'inevitable', says Alistair Darling
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-losses-inevitable-says-Alistair-Darling.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-losses-inevitable-says-Alistair-Darling.html
I don't think the US are buying anymore Raptors because they cost too much.
I think the F35 is next on the shopping list.
The eurofighter used to be a lot cheaper but seems to have gone up a bit.
The A400Ms like the eurofighter are part of a european project which always ends up a lot more expensive than if you go it alone. Govts do it to keep their foot in the door of the required technology.
What would you do if the US suddenly decided not to sell you anything? or refused to update the planes?
Are you actually going to follow that up with a comment or just post random headlines and hope that bold and yellow text will do the job for you?
Here are the results taken from above at 15:55 23ARP10:
And if the country voted like that, here's what we'd get:
I didn't realise OcUK's readers were quite so unrepresentative of the country! In reality, Labour are on more like 27% not 7%!
And if the country voted like that, here's what we'd get:
I didn't realise OcUK's readers were quite so unrepresentative of the country! In reality, Labour are on more like 27% not 7%!
Why do we need all of that though? We are an absolutely tiny nation compared to the current super powers and the USA's tech and army size literally dwarfs ours in comparisson. We don't need to send a silly amount of resources, troops and time at foreign wars if our military was smaller than it is at the moment. Take france and germany's military forces in afganistan compared to ours. Its abit of a joke.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
I don't need to add anything else to it. It was in response to some naysayers here, who claim that the government has to grow money on trees and keep the public sector massive to keep people 'in jobs' (in some kind of crude state-employment-as-welfare setup).
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
You must be one of the few people I have heard of who seems to suggest that the Lib-Dems are likely to be able to form a government.
Much more worrying is the very real possibility that Cameron and Osborne might con their way into a position of power . . . although I suspect that Cashcroft and Murdoch would tell them what to do
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 909
You must be one of the few people I have heard of who seems to suggest that the Lib-Dems are likely to be able to form a government.
Much more worrying is the very real possibility that Cameron and Osborne might con their way into a position of power . . . although I suspect that Cashcroft and Murdoch would tell them what to do
Con their way? If there getting in their getting in because they invited the Lib Dems in
.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Firstly, Lord Ashcroft isn't taking any ministerial role (he has said this and the Conservatives have said this). Secondly, what makes you think that Murdoch and Cameron/Cons have hidden deals?Much more worrying is the very real possibility that Cameron and Osborne might con their way into a position of power . . . although I suspect that Cashcroft and Murdoch would tell them what to do
It was Blair and Campbell that went to Murdoch cap in hand to court him for support. Cameron and Osbourne haven't done so - because they are smart enough to realise Murdoch is a businessman, and will only ever back a winner.
A lot? Both the Typhoon and the A400M costs have rocketed, and in both cases the product doesn't meet the military requirements. What is the point of an A400M that is going to cost about the same as a C17 when it can only carry half the cargo? For shorter haul you could get 3 C-130Js for the price of a single A400M.
I think these are all very relavent points in the current debate as the leaders are talking about supplying what the UK military needs but these purchases are political, maintaining a small number of jobs at the cost of providing troops with the equipment they need. Which of these two is in fact more important, because at the very least the current government is saying one thing and doing something else.
And on the point of relying on the US both the Typhoon and A400M are stuffed with US equipment that they would need to service on the UK's behalf, buying a euro consortium plane isn't making us any less reliant on the US.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I don't think anyone with a brain would believe anything that the Tories said about Cashcroft.
Yes, quite so . . .
. . . and you know this how
Sadly, I suspect that you may be wrong in your certainty that the Tories can't win the election . . . hopefully you will be proven right.
And about time too!! Our defence spending is ridiculous, it's crying out for a sledgehammer.
Code:
— World Total $1464.0bn
1 United States $607.0bn
2 People's Republic of China $84.9bn
3 France $65.7bn
4 United Kingdom $65.3bn
5 Russia $58.6bn
6 Germany $46.8bn
7 Japan $46.3bn
8 Italy $40.6bn
9 Saudi Arabia $38.2bn
10 India India $30.0bn
11 South Korea $24.2bn
12 Brazil $23.3bn
13 Canada $19.3bn
14 Spain $19.2bn
15 Australia $18.4bnMy manifesto would cut defence spending by ~$15bn (23%) over the coming decade. We are an island nation - this should make things cheaper. We are allied with NATO, with the US inc. technology share, we're part of the EU for heavens sake. Looking at that list, I see no reason why we are wasting billions maintaining a defence budget so much higher than Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy...
So, if the hundreds upon hundreds of posts I have read here over the last few weeks are to be followed, I think I can pretty much sum up many peoples view here in one straight forward, simple post.
Conservative voter - Cameron\Tory is the right way to vote, everyone who votes someone else doesnt know what they are on about and are wrong. I am right.
Labour voter - Brown\Labour is the right way to vote, everyone who votes someone else doesnt know what they are on about and are wrong. I am right.
Liberal voter - Clegg\Liberal is the right way to vote, everyone who votes someone else doesnt know what they are on about and are wrong. I am right.
With that analysis complete, I think the election for me is essentially done and dusted
Conservative voter - Cameron\Tory is the right way to vote, everyone who votes someone else doesnt know what they are on about and are wrong. I am right.
Labour voter - Brown\Labour is the right way to vote, everyone who votes someone else doesnt know what they are on about and are wrong. I am right.
Liberal voter - Clegg\Liberal is the right way to vote, everyone who votes someone else doesnt know what they are on about and are wrong. I am right.
With that analysis complete, I think the election for me is essentially done and dusted
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Because, like Blair had to, it would have been declared to Parliamentary Standards.. . . and you know this how
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Parliamentary Standards require that every time a politician speaks to Murdoch they must declare it
Does that apply JUST to Murdoch or do they have to advise the Parliamentary Standards Committee whenever they bid the postman Good Morning as well for example
So, if the hundreds upon hundreds of posts I have read here over the last few weeks are to be followed, I think I can pretty much sum up many peoples view here in one straight forward, simple post.
...
With that analysis complete, I think the election for me is essentially done and dusted
The message I've been trying to get across is that people should spend some time thinking about the issues, select their preferred candidate and above all else vote. Even if you can't find a candidate you agree with then please still vote and spoil your ballot - don't let the political class write off your views as apathy.
I've made no secret that my preference is for the LibDems at the moment, but I view votes for other parties as equally valid points of view that I just happen to respectfully disagree with. My main concern right now is the apparent effort by the bulk of the mainstream media to subvert the democratic process by spreading lies in order to benefit their preferred candidate.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Sorry, I didn't mean Parliamentary Standards, I meant the Commons' Register of Interests.Parliamentary Standards require that every time a politician speaks to Murdoch they must declare it
And yes, anything which much presents itself as an outside and potential conflict of interests needs to be declared.
- Status