New Russian Submarine
Discussion
Well its good to see more bombers being launched, I wonder how it will compare to other countries boats. Fingers crossed!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20977512
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20977512
Mojocvh said:
Are you out of your tiny little mind ?
In terms of national security properly not that much of an issue. It may even encourage those in No 10 to reconsider spending on similar stuff.If is only chest beating by the Russians as they can afford to spend the money. I would be more worried about other regimes spending.
We buy to much gas from them anyway.
ALawson said:
In terms of national security properly not that much of an issue. It may even encourage those in No 10 to reconsider spending on similar stuff.
If is only chest beating by the Russians as they can afford to spend the money. I would be more worried about other regimes spending.
We buy to much gas from them anyway.
Are you not aware of the spending on Successor? Hundreds of millions committed and only just out of concept design. An excellent investment in both our defence capability and engineering industry.If is only chest beating by the Russians as they can afford to spend the money. I would be more worried about other regimes spending.
We buy to much gas from them anyway.
The Borei class has been horrifically delayed and there is no way on earth that the actual unit cost of that boat is £472m.
MonkeyBusiness said:
"The navy will get 51 new warships and 24 submarines by 2020"
Blimey.
Not quite entirely accurate, it includes vessels already constructed so is more like 25 years worth and smaller boats that you normally wouldn't call a 'warship'.Blimey.
But never fear our half cancelled / half worn out navy is more then a match.. well if they ever get those weapons they are 'fitted for but not with'.
ALawson said:
In terms of national security properly not that much of an issue. It may even encourage those in No 10 to reconsider spending on similar stuff.
So it's good news that a foreign power have launched more submarines, because it will encourage us to spend more money on our submarines to counter the foreign submarines? Have you thought about this?trashbat said:
o it's good news that a foreign power have launched more submarines, because it will encourage us to spend more money on our submarines to counter the foreign submarines? Have you thought about this?
One might argue that people need an 'enemy' to help focus their minds. We have always had one or more enemies since the days of the Vikings. Saladin, the Dutch, French, Spanish, Americans, Germans, Japanese, Russians and more. You knew what they were and what the threat was. But since the Wall came down it's just been a few vague brown types in caves and the country has lost its way. Whether that is coincidence I'm not sure.Simpo Two said:
One might argue that people need an 'enemy' to help focus their minds. We have always had one or more enemies since the days of the Vikings. Saladin, the Dutch, French, Spanish, Americans, Germans, Japanese, Russians and more. You knew what they were and what the threat was. But since the Wall came down it's just been a few vague brown types in caves and the country has lost its way. Whether that is coincidence I'm not sure.
That may or may not be true, but we're unlikely to see a reward for such behaviour, unless 'we' are BAE Systems.I believe this is one of the reasons for the fight against climate change, it's just another scare because those that would do us harm at the moment aren't that great a threat. However, I also believe that the threat to our security is again on the increase, from a few directions.
And of course Bae Systems are the only ones to benefit from a healthy injection of funding to the defence budget!
people regularly look at the defence defecit and moan about how costly it is, they forget that we have been fighting conflicts since '91, and rfemaining on a peacetime budget. This was always going to be impossible. But we can't have the public having to make some sacrifice for our foreign "tours" can we? It wouldn't do for Johnny to go without his i-phone because some squaddie might a flak jacket!
Plus defence spending wouldn't spiral out of control if those that did the buying stopped changing their minds about what they want to buy and when they want it delivered. It's all the private companies fault for trying to stay afloat and retain it's expertise for the next big job.
Rant over.
And of course Bae Systems are the only ones to benefit from a healthy injection of funding to the defence budget!
people regularly look at the defence defecit and moan about how costly it is, they forget that we have been fighting conflicts since '91, and rfemaining on a peacetime budget. This was always going to be impossible. But we can't have the public having to make some sacrifice for our foreign "tours" can we? It wouldn't do for Johnny to go without his i-phone because some squaddie might a flak jacket!
Plus defence spending wouldn't spiral out of control if those that did the buying stopped changing their minds about what they want to buy and when they want it delivered. It's all the private companies fault for trying to stay afloat and retain it's expertise for the next big job.
Rant over.
Godalmighty83 said:
MonkeyBusiness said:
"The navy will get 51 new warships and 24 submarines by 2020"
Blimey.
Not quite entirely accurate, it includes vessels already constructed so is more like 25 years worth and smaller boats that you normally wouldn't call a 'warship'.Blimey.
But never fear our half cancelled / half worn out navy is more then a match.. well if they ever get those weapons they are 'fitted for but not with'.
trashbat said:
AshVX220 said:
And of course Bae Systems are the only ones to benefit from a healthy injection of funding to the defence budget!
Please show your working.Let's take one project, the one I'm on would be easier.
I work for Bae Systems, on a project made up of 5 major companies, out of the 10,000 plus people working directly on the project, maybe half those are Bae Systems, the rest are from the other cmpanies and organisations.
On top of that we have our suppliers, who provide all sorts of stuff (these aren't Bae Systems), then their suppliers and so on and so forth. Stretching to what has been estimated to 25,000-30,000+ people, all employed from this one project.
Let's not forgot also, that Bae Systems are just one defence company that provides equipment to the UK Armed Forces. For example today's press about the new pistols, nothing at all to do with Bae or even one of it's subsidiaries, unfortunately Glock isn't even a UK firm (however their weapons are first class).
ALawson said:
Mojocvh said:
Are you out of your tiny little mind ?
In terms of national security properly not that much of an issue. It may even encourage those in No 10 to reconsider spending on similar stuff.If is only chest beating by the Russians as they can afford to spend the money. I would be more worried about other regimes spending.
We buy to much gas from them anyway.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff