2.5% is a relitivly low level, it's only returning us to 2010 % levels. That makes zero sense. Relative to what? If in 2010 we paid 2.47% of GDPR, and less since, then that makes 2.5% relatively high. As high as 2000, too. 2.5% would make us 6th highest in NATO. So relative to what is 2.5% low? It'...

NHS funding had gone up by 50% since 2010! Err yeah, that's not surprising when you consider heslthcare inflation and population health. The NHS is poorly run, it's vast administrative arm is something akin to the Soviet Union, where different General hospitals have a small army of administrators, ...

"It's been stated time and time again." They haven't stated anything at all, it's all political hot air and absolutely zero substance.... I suppose all Starmer has to do is carry on waffling about vague this and vague that and hope most don't realise that Labour haven't god a bloody clue,...

NHS funding isn't in disarray it is higher than it has ever been, and that includes billions added by the Tories. Most cuts in government spending in the 14 years have been LAs, who are responsible for social care and the roads. That's such a false representation. The NHS is under increasing pressu...

14 years of Tory austerity and "there's a lot of money that could be moved around". Are you aware of the state of local authorities going bankrupt? The NHS is funding disarray? Schools falling apart? The state of the roads? The lack of big infrastructure projects? Tell me about about Labo...

NHS funding isn't in disarray it is higher than it has ever been, and that includes billions added by the Tories. Most cuts in government spending in the 14 years have been LAs, who are responsible for social care and the roads. That's such a false representation. The NHS is under increasing pressu...

Because the public accounts are FUBAR….. It’s not that simple. HMG has little fiscal headroom because it is choosing not to reallocate funding to different priority areas. UK GDP is now more than £2.2Trillion. Government spending equates to around 45% of that figure. That’s a lot of money that coul...

LMAO. So the Tory fiscal policy is to lose the election by making unfunded promises they can't afford, so that Labour then have to make cuts, which in 5 years might influence an election. That's your joke, right? Really pleased I gave you a laugh but it’s no joke. Why would a policy to increase def...

mrclark303 wrote: ↑15 Apr 2024, 17:54 2.5% is a relitivly low level, it's only returning us to 2010 % levels.

That makes zero sense. Relative to what? If in 2010 we paid 2.47% of GDPR, and less since, then that makes 2.5% relatively high.

As high as 2000, too.

2.5% would make us 6th highest in NATO.

So relative to what is 2.5% low?

Because they can't fund it…. They don’t need to fund it long term, they just need to make it policy at the next fiscal event which will be just before the election. If the first thing a new Labour administration has to do is cut defence spending from 3% of GDP to 2.2% of GDP it will be a disastrous...

They refuse to commit to the relitivly low level of 2.5% on defence. How is a 25% increase, and more than most other NATO nations, a relatively low level? The part I can’t understand is why the Conservatives aren’t raising defence spending at the eleventh hour to set up a fiscal straitjacket for La...

tomuk wrote: ↑14 Apr 2024, 17:15 But sticking 155mm Howitzer on Boxer is feasible?

Different transport concept, clearly.

If any additional armaments shall be considered, it shall better be "optional". In other words, keep the hull system itself simple enough to handle fishery protection and EEZ patrol. No, managing a fleet within a fleet is stupid. If we have a ship go technical at the last moment we've sho...

If any additional armaments shall be considered, it shall better be "optional". In other words, keep the hull system itself simple enough to handle fishery protection and EEZ patrol. No, managing a fleet within a fleet is stupid. If we have a ship go technical at the last moment we've sho...

I'm not suggesting massive changes to the River Class. An airbust capable cannon and lightweight missile system is sufficient.

Given the reduction in platforms, I would argue a UK based OPV class that can act as a USV/UUV mothership is not a low priority luxury it’s essential. For what purpose? To do what the B1 Rivers to right now - EEZ patrolling, anti terrorism, anti drug trafficking and supporting littoral operations. ...

Repulse wrote: ↑07 Apr 2024, 08:34 Given the reduction in platforms, I would argue a UK based OPV class that can act as a USV/UUV mothership is not a low priority luxury it’s essential.

For what purpose?

Markam wrote: ↑07 Apr 2024, 06:02 Something like the French POM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrouilleur_Outre-mer) would be great value for money @￡31m a ship.

But the POM neither has the sensors or the armament (or the magazine) to be any improvement or even comparable to the RB2. It's lightly armed coastguard ship.

https://www.twitter.com/hms_spey/status/1776030294887497983?s=46&t=uxMT95H5Nr9jAEmCklKdgA Nice video. I can understand those who post on improving the lethality and sensors of the B2, but thankfully the debate about turning them into some sort of 21st century Panzerschiff has died down of late....

mr.fred wrote: ↑27 Mar 2024, 18:58

RunningStrong wrote: ↑26 Mar 2024, 21:15 Wouldn't this be better done by Airlander?x

A Chinook could land almost the same amount vertically*.

If Chinook could have parachute dropped aid off the ramp I would think that would be more accurate than a400m. But, I don't think chinook has the volume underslung or internally for aid drops.

Tempest414 wrote: ↑27 Mar 2024, 14:22 Even better still take a Bay class from Cyprus with 2 x Mexeflote and a LCU drop thousands of tons right on the beech and make a real difference

Agreed. But clearly there's issues with "boots on beaches" that US Military have been trying to address.

Ron5 wrote: ↑27 Mar 2024, 12:52 Send a big balloon over a war zone. Sounds a good idea (eyes roll).

Who would be shooting at it? With what weapons?

taking less? Being more vulnerable? taking a day to get there? Airlander 10 carries 10t, the same as this A400M dropped. But also a significant part of that airdrop was ruined due to failed parachutes, poor landing spot or poor impact. Let's not pretend this is a timely delivery, it's months late. ...

Fair point. I'm not a fan of Boxer as a scout vehicle either, I was thinking more along the lines of the French Jaguar EBRC. I guess cross country performance will be the deciding factor. Lets just hope once it's in service it can put all of its development woes behind it. Bwaahahaha. Have you see ...

Plans to start production? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-68639876 Wouldn't this be better done by Airlander?x https://twitter.com/RoyalAirForce/status/1772583805062160747?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1772583805062160747%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_...