Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
The US can't afford them it seems given the axe taken to their budget.
**British Armed Forces Discussion Thread**
- Thread starter bakes0310
- Start date
The US can't afford them it seems given the axe taken to their budget.
They are the most insane that is for sure........When teaching them low level airborne insertion, one asked if they got a parachute because he didn't think he could fall that far and still be effective in combat...and he was absolutely serious. Also I occasionally go running with a group of Gurkha's based up in Blandford and they run for around 5 hours and then go play football, in their spare time!!! I'm knackered after a couple of hours.
You seem to assuming that these ships operate in isolation, they do not. I would also like to see the links to the source information on the assessments of our strategic aims?
It also doesn't answer the question as compared to who?
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 396
Who cares, Syria is next anyway.
Heard a story once, went along the lines of betting a Gurka to beat this other guy in a bleep test and if not to draw his knife. Crazy Gurka drew his knife after losing and cut himself without flinching.
But then you know how stories go in the Military. Why let the truth get in the way of a good story?
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,646
No they're not.
Much of this is assumption, speculation and your opinion. For example ASTOR certainly isn't a confirmed chop in 2015, it's possible saving grace being Libya. That and I think it's probably the only project that ever came in under budget.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
You have the floor. Go on.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,646
From my personnel experience with them, they are average at best but I've not met them all. The ones I've worked with were lazy and only out for themselves, only doing any work when someone of importance was watching.
If you're on a course with them you can expect them to do well as usually a Ghurka instructor will come in and chat away in Nepalese to them throughout any tests.
They just seem to live on this reputation of being 'Brave mountain men - who volunteer to fight for Britain'. It's not like they do it for free, they do it for the money and better living conditions.
which bits? everything ive said is true at the current situation, the last decision made so far on ASTOR is that it will be cut, FRES is no nearer completion, we are planning a stopgap for FSTA as the vc10's are currently getting chopped up and we have 1 serviceable FSTA which last we heard couldnt refuel a tonka.
its a fact we have sold our tranche 3 spaces to the saudis for typhoon and the budget overruns on the a400m means we will be getting less of them but paying the same original contracted price. its also public knowledge the kc135's we are buying to replace R1 were built in the early 60's and have over 20,000 flying hours on them.
none of that is opinion, that is all easily researched facts.
im not assuming isolation. sdsr plans for up to 3 different conflicts of over 1000 people commited, if they all required air defence of naval units you would have to split 4 or 5 destroyers 3 ways, 4 ways if you still want to cover the falklands assuming that isnt one of the operations.
actual source for strategic assessment, well its sdr 98 which introduced the type 45 and recommended 12 be built even accounting for nato help. it should have been a 1 for 1 swap with the 42's.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/65F3D7AC-4340-4119-93A2-20825848E50E/0/sdr1998_complete.pdf
the review to only built 6 was not backed by a strategic assessment and cut inbetween the two last sdrs in 2008 when we went into recession.
and like i said in my last post, the only really comparible ship is the dutch De Zeven Provinciën class of which they have four despite much smaller commitments.
Last edited:
Hmm, maybe "fact" as far as published quite openly but that information has to be taken with a pinch of salt, for example, the scrapping of ASTOR isn't 100%, it's a plan but it doesn't mean it's going to happen, the ground elements probably, but like I said, Libya might have just saved that capability. People read one thing and assume it means something else. Mind you it isn't like the government tends to make any logical choices on scrappage, it's hardly as if binning the Nimrod so soon was a wise choice, just look at the two downed Tonkas last week!
Last edited:
most likely the same as every other army career, dull and boring for the most part the rest a drunken blur!
.
It would be best for the Uk if it stopped believing it was still in the 19th century and that the uk had trade interests to protect- instead of being a country that cannot survive without the imports of practically everything it uses. The Uk has survived on running a Banking casino but the casino aint what it was. If the UK axed its military down to that of a country with a similar GNP then the money for looking after the aged would be addressed in no small measure. Instead of having the largest armed forces in Europe. Can you imagine what would happen if they brought back National Service - with "Multiculturalism" and the totally unlimited immigration policy the UK has (only one in the whole wide World!!) If one goes into some of the Officers Messes you could look up on the wall and expect to see the Old Queen - Victoria staring down. If the UK had a conflict with any country other than Syria/ Lybia et al it would in the name of "Fair Play" have to ask the other side to send them some skilled workers for the armaments factories - perhaps in exchange for some graduates with social work/ media studies degrees - when you touch down in the UK it becomes apparent that this is not a first World country
As opposed to?