Add Comment

Fear factor from idiots who would sell their granny .. Sarwar is a lucky man he makes money and plenty of it as a Liebour MP. Scotland and all industry within has riches which if used properly will produce a vibrant and very rich country. Liebour fed lies and fear ? Well the Scottish contigency of MP's will have reason to fear as the Scottish public vote them out of office.

[italic][bold]"RN's PLANNED NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS NEED RE-DESIGN"[/bold][/italic] The United Kingdom's planned new aircraft carriers are to be built with the French in a joint-project... .. Not necessarily a bad plan, but in order to ensure the resulting ships are not impotent duds, the country which for over 40-years has made the world's most capable and versatile aircraft carriers- the USA- ought to brought in to the project... If necessary, the French ought to be pushed out... UK versions of the joint UK/France aircraft carriers will be: - 10,000 tonnes lighter than the French ones; - without basic industry-standard weapons systems; and - without aircraft-launching catapults... grievously restricting the types of fixed-wing planes that can be deployed ('embarked' and flown off them) to "Harrier-type" only and needlessly diminishing their potential usefulness and competencies. [bold]The new French carriers will have catapults, thereby enabling the deploying of Airborne Warning And (weapons/aircraft) Control "AWACS" type planes.[/bold] For over 3 decades ship-deployed AWACS aircraft have been accepted by strategists as a vital requirement for countries wishing to have a "first tier navy". In order to be able to reasonably effectively conduct other than home-country littoral patrol operations, ship-borne AWACS aircraft are needed for navies/squadrons/nav al task forces to prosecute missions and defend against targets in all 4 main warfare spheres: sea-surface based; sub sea-surface based; air-based; and land-based. Fixed-wing aircraft AWACS are indispensable for "beyond visual horizon" detection and identification of possible incoming threats; weapons control; targeting and for legitimate Theatre Air Defense. Imagine a scenario where RN carriers (and the whole of the rest of the Royal Navy!!) had to be 'protected' by French carriers.... with their fixed-wing AWACS planes... planes that the RN's present- and its planned new- carriers won't be capable of using... A good example of these types of planes can be found at: http://www.janes.com /news/defence/idr/id r080611_1_n.shtml note the text: "... In 1982 the Falklands (Malvinas) conflict provided a stark reminder of the vulnerability of surface forces operating in a hostile air environment without (AWACS) AEW support"... ".... The absence of such a capability in the face of sustained air attack gave the UK Royal Navy (RN) insufficient warning to counter threats at long range, and directly contributed to the loss of several ships...." http://www.janes.com /defence/news/idr/id r060630_1_n.shtml : http://www.janes.com /news/defence/naval/ idr/idr080612_1_n.sh tml : A summary of the UK's carrier folly can by found at links below.... the pages they link to also have useful links to reputable background material... - RN aircraft carrier aircraft-type issue: http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2007/12/19/ supersonic_stealth_j umpjet_f35b_rollout/ http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2007/12/19/ supersonic_stealth_j umpjet_f35b_rollout/ page2.html http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2008/06/12/ f35b_supersonic_jump _jet_first_flight/ http://www.aviationw eek.com/aw/generic/s tory_generic.jsp?cha nnel=defense&id=news /F35B061808.xml&head line=Lockheed%20Lays %20Out%20Flight%20Te st%20Plans%20For%20F -35B - RN aircraft carrier issue: http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2008/05/18/ blighty_carrier_deal _announced/ http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2008/05/18/ blighty_carrier_deal _announced/page2.htm l : Note the text: "...So what will we taxpayers get for our £2 bn per ship? Americans spending that much money get a Nimitz-class nuclear powered supercarrier, a ship which on its own can defeat most national air forces....." "...Funnily enough, we Brits won't get anything like that..." ".... The new UK carriers, for a start, will not be nuclear-propelled... ." "... The US Navy doesn't use nuke power just for fun - there are good reasons why it makes sense for carriers. In particular, nuclear is the only kind of modern-day warship propulsion which can easily generate the huge steam power required by current catapult launch systems. There are vague notions brewing in America regarding electrically-powered cats, to go with the electric transmissions favoured in the latest warships, but electric launchers won't be ready in time for the UK..." "...As a result, the Brit carriers- though easily big enough- won't have catapults at all. This means that they won't be able to launch normal carrier planes, and thus that the UK must buy the jump-jet version of the new F-35, at needlessly vast expense....." http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2008/03/20/ v22_osprey_engine_li fe_snag_and_toss_rad ar/ note the text: ".... Ever since the Falklands - where the lack of a flying radar was a major factor in the UK taskforce's heavy losses to Argentine air attack - the RN has struggled along with an unsatisfactory helicopter-mounted solution..." "... Helicopters can't get as high or stay up as long as ordinary planes, and an airborne radar needs both height and endurance..." "... Britain's new aircraft carriers, though easily big enough, will not be equipped to launch and recover regular fixed-wing planes. This is so as to save money...." "Unfortunately, it means that Blighty must buy exceedingly complex and expensive aircraft to fly from the ships, such as the new F-35B supersonic stealth jumpjet...." "... And the RN, needing to replace its current, aged radar Sea Kings, would probably rather have Ospreys than another unsatisfactory helicopter.... "... They'd probably really rather have a much better E-2D Hawkeye carrier-radar plane for a fraction of the price, but the decision to buy slightly cheaper carriers (NOT NUCLEAR POWERED; WITHOUT BASIC, INDUSTRY-STANDARD DEFENSIVE WEAPONS SYSTEMS; AND WITHOUT CATAPULTS, r.v.l.) rules that out...." http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2008/01/08/ osprey_v22_iraq_oper ations_ok/ http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2008/03/27/ defence_report_nimro d_chop_maybe/ The Royal Navy has zero (fixed wing: Harrier-type) aircraft for its remaining aircraft carriers... HMS Illustrious is 'on patrol' without Harriers- they're ALL in Afghanistan... Illustrious was recently on exercises with the Indian Navy (and other countries in that part of the world) contributing only helicopters.... http://www.reuters.c om/article/blogBurst /investing?type=hotS tocksNews&w1=B7ovpm2 1IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B 7pJeHult9GszE37UXlSp mUm&src=blogBurst_in vestingNews&bbPostId =Cz7MRMBsk1nP8BDbYKP c05d4aBFAUsiQgnjRQB8 VcBgLPWwD4&bbParentW idgetId=B7gSUbux1hpb z8uOa7TWsLnV : "Indian Navy and Royal Navy in Konkan 2008 Exercise..." April 18-2008... "...The Royal Navy will field the aircraft carrier HMS ILLUSTRIOUS (with six Merlin helicopters), guided missile frigate HMS WESTMINSTER.... The Indian Navy will be represented by guided-missile destroyers INS MYSORE and INS RAJPUT, the guided missile frigate INS GOMATI, Fleet Replenishment Tanker INS ADITYA and the submarine INS SHISHUMAR........" Same with Illustrious's 'operational' sister- HMS Ark Royal, recently reported on BBC pages- no fixed-wing (IE 'Harrier-type') aircraft: http://news.bbc.co.u k/1/hi/england/merse yside/7439245.stm http://www.royalnavy .mod.uk/server/show/ ConWebDoc.12975 ... "HMS Ark Royal is currently... configured to carry Sea King, Chinook and Lynx helicopters, and up to 400 Royal Marines, which together provide a powerful amphibious force...." "The ship is the UK's high readiness Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) and Command Platform..." (IS NOT!! The RN's only (LPH) is HMS Ocean->> HMS Ocean has been out-of-service for 1-year. HMS Ark Royal is a 'fixed-wing type' aircraft carrier. r.v.l.) "... at short notice to deploy to any of the world's current trouble spots......" and able to do what????? Illustrious's other 'in service' sister, HMS Invincible is not capable of putting to sea, although not decommissioned... In September-2007, HMS Ocean- the RN's, only dedicated helicopter carrier- was taken out-of-service for over 1 year for un-planned repairs: http://www.mod.uk/De fenceInternet/Defenc eNews/EquipmentAndLo gistics/HmsOceanInLi neForMajorRefit.htm Contrast the above with the USA's approach to aircraft carriers: http://www.defensene ws.com/story.php?i=3 529451&c=SEA&s=AME : "Shipbuilding Funds Added to U.S. Navy Budget" : ... "An amendment regarding F/A-18 Super Hornet procurement also was adopted by voice vote at the urging of Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who warned the Navy won't have enough fighters as planes age." "Aircraft carriers are nice things to have and float around, but without airplanes they are not very good," Akin said...." Below links have recent info regarding the under development F-35 aircraft that are planned to be deployed on the UK’s new aircraft carriers.... http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2007/12/19/ supersonic_stealth_j umpjet_f35b_rollout/ http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2007/12/19/ supersonic_stealth_j umpjet_f35b_rollout/ page2.html http://www.aviationw eek.com/aw/blogs/def ense/index.jsp?plckC ontroller=Blog&plckS cript=blogScript&plc kElementId=blogDest& plckBlogPage=BlogVie wPost&plckPostId=Blo g%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42 d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7 Post%3a3460ee22-8582 -4dab-8eda-8a4c183db d40 : ".... As for shipboard operations: when the UK decided in 1998 to build a second carrier, their Lordships in the Admiralty were thinking of a 40,000-tonner, something about twice the size of today's Invincible-class. But they soon found that to sustain independent operations, the carrier force needed to be able to launch combat air patrol (CAP) and strike missions at the same time..."... "That drove sortie rate, which drove the number of embarked aircraft, which drove the size of the carrier. By 2002 it had reached a size where it could (and still can) be modified to launch catapult-arrest jets..."... "... Meanwhile, the (USA's) Marines are realizing that, to support a realistic number of JSFs and V-22s, they have to dedicate a ship to aviation, eliminating its landing craft...." "... The UK is facing another challenge: providing airborne radar cover for its carriers. If the French build their second carrier to the same basic design (as the UK’s versions- which is their plan r.v.l.), they have no problems (since their carriers will have catapults r.v.l.): just buy more E-2s. But the UK carriers will have to use helicopter-based (AWACS) AEW, which simply can't fly as high, or see as far, as the Hawkeye. A serious weakness, particularly against threats like the 3M54 Klub (page 21) missile...." The USA is presently redesigning its 'Nimitz Class' 'super carriers': The resulting products will ALL be equipped with state of the art defenses, including extensive anti-missile defense systems- types of systems the RN's planned new carriers are not planned to have. The USA is also in the middle of redesigning its 'medium-sized' (LHD-class) aircraft carriers. There are approximately 1 dozen of the current 44,000 tonnes models- which are each more than 2 times the size of the RN's present 20,000 tonne 'pocket' carriers- deployed around the world- supported by other US Navy warships/submarines- in Naval Strike Groups. The US's medium sized carriers use Harriers and the same aircraft that present RN 'pocket' carriers utilize. The US's new 'medium sized' aircraft carriers are projected to each cost roughly 1/3 of the UK's planned new carriers (maybe due to volume savings?)... so why isn't the UK participating in this project?? The situation since 2005 with the RN's (3) present 'pocket carriers': there are so few carrier-compatible fixed-wing aircraft available, that these carriers are having to be on active duty without fixed-wing aircraft like Harriers: http://www.newbernsj .com/news/british_35 707___article.html/a merican_ship.html http://navy-matters. beedall.com/ : ... "(a huge) problem is finding aircraft for the new carriers to operate. Currently the Royal Navy simply does not (have) regular access to UK operated fast jet (fixed-wing) aircraft to operate from its designated high readiness strike carrier, HMS Illustrious." ... "Disastrously the Sea Harrier FA.2 is now long gone and the sole operational naval air squadron (800 NAS) re-equipped with the Harrier GR.7/9 is about to deploy (again) to Afghanistan, providing land-based close air support to NATO forces there." ... "In order to maintain some level of experience in the operation of fixed wing aircraft, HMS Illustrious recently operated 14 American (US Marine Corps) AV-8B Harriers for an exercise and will soon embark Spanish Navy Harrier’s for another. " ... "Although the MOD has tried to put a positive spin on these deployments, the underlying desperation is impossible to hide." ... "Looking to the future, the RN’s plans to buy 60 Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA) dedicated to carrier operations have long been history, subsumed in to the RAF...." Would a reasonably (or even a moderately) budgetarily competent company pay for the partial construction of a modest-sized house (read: aircraft carrier), IE walls and roof up, but without wiring, doors or plumbing (read: aircraft)?? ... & before the company has 'found the money' to pay for the modest-sized house's wiring, doors & plumbing- financially commit the company to building another house (read: new 'big deck' carriers) 3 times as big as the modest-sized one... … and then when they realize money is short... take steps to in effect 'block' money being found in the company budget to pay for wiring, doors & plumbing to be installed in either of the 2 houses?????? So, why would any govt commit to spend £4 billion building new 'glitzy' aircraft carriers if not going to do it properly?' 1 possibility is 'for public relations' purposes & to mislead 'for votes'; another is due to gross incompetence!! Having vital-to-force-proje ction ships (the RN's 2 new 'big deck' aircraft carriers) co-built with France (as is planned)- a country without expertise in this field- rather than with a country which has decades of unequaled leadership in aircraft carrier technologies- the USA- is plainly illogical, ill-advised, & will result in, comparatively, 3rd-rate carriers with: - 20-year-old technologies; - severe and highly dangerous limitations in the types of weapons systems and aircraft that they can be fitted with/accommodate/dep loy; - severe deficiencies in versatility & upgrade-ability; & - not capable of operating Directed Energy Weapons (DEW's) for use against 21st century threats- such as super-sonic anti-ship cruise missiles. Even worse, unlike the UK versions, France's new "big deck" aircraft carriers will be constructed with catapult-launch-of-a ircraft capability, from a "flat deck". French versions won't rely on ski-jump decks to launch aircraft like the UK's planned (& its present 'pocket') carriers... Compared to the UK's, France's new carriers will be: - far more capable; - able to deploy a much broader variety of aircraft, such as electronic countermeasure (ECM) & unmanned fighter aircraft; & in a business where 'size does matter'... - 10,000 tonnes heavier than the UK's (65k vs 75k). http://www.defensein dustrydaily.com/brit ain-studies-ways-to- reduce-cvf-future-ca rrier-program-costs- 01028/ www.defenseindustryd aily.com/design-prep arations-continue-fo r-britains-new-cvf-f uture-carrier-update d-01630/ http://www.defensein dustrydaily.com/fran ce-steaming-ahead-on -pa2cvf-carrier-proj ect-01621/ Possibly worse than this- if that is possible- is Labour's current proposal to 'replace' the Royal Navy's 3 aircraft carriers with 2 (via the ill advised UK/French carrier project). For most of the last 4 decades, RN fleet/aircraft carrier rotation protocol has mandated having at least 3 fixed-wing carriers. This assumed 2 of 3 carriers on 'active' duty at any given time, recognizing that at least 1 of the 3 would be on refit/repairs/mainte nance at any given time. Squadrons of support/escort ships were- although not always at sea with them- 'planned & designated around' aircraft carriers: IE 3 'groups' of supply/Destroyer/Fri gate/submarine types 'assigned' to individual carriers. Planners will have to assume that 1 of the 2 new 'planned' carriers will be in maintenance/refit/re pairs at any given time... leaving just 1 aircraft carrier for the defense of the nation/its assets, and for assigning to overseas/Nato/expedi tionary duties... Whether the RN's new carriers are 110,000 tonne US Navy type super-carriers or just 4 tonne rafts- if there is an attempt to have these "2 carriers" fit and fill the role of "3 carriers", it will invite disaster and make the nation's military look like that of a banana republic. Shrink the number of aircraft carriers from 3 to 2, & by default the RN fleet-size will be obliged to shrink proportionately. How can this be responsible or 'better' than even the present situation?? The nearly 50 Royal Navy ships (many prematurely) sold, decommissioned & scrapped during the last 10-years- without replacements being built- has already shrunk the RN to barely 2/3 of its size when Labour was elected in 1997... Following 2006 the Royal Navy has had less surface escort ships than the French navy- this state of affairs has not existed since the 1600's!! Due to its comparatively enormous cost and the project's huge capacity- through job creation- to 'distract' the average voter, the UK/French aircraft carrier project if it goes ahead, will function as a false excuse for the UK govt to: - decommission and/or sell-off-prematurely much of what remains of the RN's best ships; - not replace the RN’s dangerously-outdated existing classes of Frigates/Destroyers (& support ships) and the like. Its been well known for over a decade that providing "anti-air" defenses for the RN’s non-front-line ships such as supply vessels, minesweepers & the like- let alone for its present ‘pocket’ aircraft carriers or any future "big deck" ones- CAN NOT BE DONE by any of the RN's dangerously outdated, Type-42 Destroyers or by its Type-22 & Type-23 Frigates. http://www.bloomberg .com/apps/news?pid=2 0601087&sid=akO7Y_OR w538&refer=home http://www.bharat-ra kshak.com/NAVY/Klub. html http://www.uscpf.org /html/events/2005/tr anscript.html http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type42.h tm In September-2007, HMS Ocean- the RN's, only dedicated helicopter carrier- was taken out-of-service for over 1 year for un-planned repairs: http://www.mod.uk/De fenceInternet/Defenc eNews/EquipmentAndLo gistics/HmsOceanInLi neForMajorRefit.htm …. leaving the RN’s with just about zero air cover... in an emergency/unexpected urgent situation.... SOLUTIONS??: A quick-fix to the RN's Aircraft Carrier & out-of-date ships problems could be the USA 'lend/leasing to the UK' (2 or) 3 of their recently commissioned &/or nearing commissioning medium sized aircraft carriers (L-HD's) along with their armaments, aircraft & related logistical equipment, etc. (it would also be a way of the US paying-back the UK for its W.O.T. support): - USS Makin Island (LHD 8) (nearing commissioning); - USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) commissioned June 2001; These ships: - weigh-in at approximately double the tonnage of the RN's 2.5 decade-old, past-service-life Invincible Class carriers; - deploy the same types of fixed-wing aircraft as RN carriers, but have 2X the aircraft carrying & sortie capacity; - have far more versatile capabilities; & - are out fitted with very recent technology radars & anti-missile/anti-su bmarine warfare systems. LHD's would be far more appropriate for deployment by the UK to the Persian Gulf instead of (as recently) the highly vulnerable-to-21st-c entury-anti-ship-wea pons HMS Illustrious & her assigned anti-air 'cover': a dangerously outdated-technology Type-42 Destroyer & Type-23 Frigate: http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type42.h tm Money saved by lend/lease of the above US ships to the RN could be put towards the expedited construction of ALL of the 12 "FULLY EQUIPPED" Type-45 Destroyers promised by Labour in the late 1990’s, instead of the 4* stripped-down versions** that 'may' be constructed for the RN... (* Apparently, 6 Type-45's are to be built, with 2 of these being sold to Saudi Arabia.) (** http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2007/11/27/ hms_diamond_launches _ouch_ouch/ http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type45.h tm ) Similarly, the RN's egregiously vulnerable Type-22 & older-model Type-23 Frigates could be replaced cost-effectively & expeditiously by "anti-submarine specialty" & "land attack/expeditionary -support specialty" multi-purpose/multi- mission variants of the Type-45 being quickly designed & built... The RN's newer and upgraded Type-23 Frigates may well be proficient in dealing with subsurface threats with their "2087 sonar" abilities, but they have zero competencies against up-to-date airborne threats- like the SS-N-27 "sizzler" anti-ship missile. Contradicting planners' specifications, the R.N.'s under construction new Type-45 Destroyers- with their world beating PAAMS anti-air warfare capabilities- are not being equipped with 2087 A.S.W. capabilities... read: no anti-submarine capabilities); no on-ship torpedo-launch abilities; no up-to-date "Close In Weapons Systems" (CIWS's) required for defending against anti-ship cruise missiles, fast-attack suicide boats & low-aircraft, etc. Instead, 25-year-old technology CIWS's are being installed. http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type45.h tm http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2007/11/27/ hms_diamond_launches _ouch_ouch/ Similarly irresponsibly, Type-45's are not being equipped to deal with sea-surface based or land-based 'threats/targets'. The French are designating several of their newest Destroyers http://www.naval-tec hnology.com/projects /horizon2/ as 'land attack' models- equipping them with cruise missile launchers (Sylver 70’s) which are effectively a ’big’ version of the anti-air missile launchers (Sylver-50's) used on the RN’s new Type-45’s. Modern 'first-world' nations' warships need to be able to deal with threats/targets in all 4 spheres of battle: sub-surface, sea-surface, land-based and airborne. None of the R.N.'s in-service warships (aircraft carriers, Type 23 Frigates and Type-42 Destroyers) have this vital capability. http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type42.h tm (ALL of the US Navy's Destroyers produced since the early 1990's have these capabilities, as do South Korea's, Japan's and even Australia's recently produced/under construction Destroyers/Frigates. ... The US Navy's new generation of medium sized aircraft carriers as well as their new generation of 'super carriers' will.) Type-45's maximum radius of protection from airborne threats that could be afforded to other ships is purported to be about 4 or at most 4 and ½ miles from the respective Type-45.... Squadrons and fleets on missions almost never remain this close to each other for tactical and logistical purposes.... so the handful of Type-45's being built for the R.N. (see my comment above) will not be capable of providing anti-air cover for the whole R.N.... What happens when a Type-45 is faced with a sub surface threat and there is no Type-23 very nearby to 'protect it'?? What happens when a Type-23 is faced with an airborne threat and there is no Type-45 close-by to 'protect it'?? Answer: they'd be in trouble........ Sufficient numbers of Type-45's need to be built... not 4 or 6 or even 8, but enough to 'replace' ALL of the Type-23's and Type-42's presently in-service.... and enough to carry out extra duties perhaps escorting UK or other nations' aircraft carriers.... or providing cover for ships (like carriers/sub's) inserting commando's to land-based targets... and ALL Type-45's built need to be "fully equipped" and capable of dealing at least moderately competently with ALL 4 spheres of naval battle... As part of a 'longer term' fix for the RN's aircraft carrier problems, instead of continuing with the misguided UK/French aircraft carrier project, the UK ought to 'call in a favour' from the USA & invite itself to be part of the USA's project designing & building the US Navy's medium sized aircraft carrier (LHD class) successor: the "LHA-6 class". Projected to displace 51,000- 60,000 tonnes, LHA-6's will be leaders of their type, regarding: - offensive capacities; - anti-missile & anti-submarine defenses; - abilities to set aside sections as hospital ships; & - abilities to function as battle-space data command centre's. Also, LHA-6's MAY BE NUCLEAR POWERED, (dramatically lowering greenhouse gases) & to accommodate new high-energy need equipment & weapons like Directed Energy Weapon's (DEW'S). DEW's are thought by many experts to be the only type of ship-defense weapon likely to be able to counter 21st century naval threats like the widely marketed Russian SS-N-27 "Sizzler" missile. http://www.defensein dustrydaily.com/usa- broadening-conservat ion-focus-to-weapons -systems-02186/#more http://www.bloomberg .com/apps/news?pid=2 0601087&sid=akO7Y_OR w538&refer=home http://www.bharat-ra kshak.com/NAVY/Klub. html http://www.uscpf.org /html/events/2005/tr anscript.html Unless things change, the UK risks being overtaken by nearly all developed world countries in terms of its naval forces. The UK's new classes of Destroyer’s, MVD’s, and aircraft carriers could truly lead the world's navies in terms of quality and capabilities (for their type and displacement sizes)… but without significant effort to change mindsets in the current govt & possibly the MoD, countries like South Korea will "cut the UK's grass" to use a North American expression... and consequently take the trade-related benefits... Those that say "all Britain really needs is a small navy sufficient for defense and protection..." are not that wrong.... A 25 or 35 or 40 warship navy is 'small' when compared to the past navies of many nations- and many, many countries' the UK's size today, and to today’s 300-ship US Navy... Part of protecting the UK's interests rests with its armed forces being able to project 'the appearance' of overwhelming competence and capabilities- albeit for their small size- to potential adversaries... If the UK's armed forces are not only small, but also outdated and not-up-to-current-mi ssion-demands, countries that otherwise would not initiate conflict- will do so. Considering the pivotal, central position that the UK still plays in the world- in terms of its leading role membership on financial/trade, legal and political bodies- the result of hostile countries initiating conflict with the UK can and likely would have world roiling negative effects.... So why tempt fate.... The UK ought to be taking every step that is reasonably possible in order to retain the competence and capabilities of its armed forces... and to maintain its 'world-leading technological advantages' over possible adversaries…. the UK govt -with BAE Systems and VT- ought to be working with South Korea's govt and their shipbuilder "Hyundai" and looking at ways that the 'planned' new aircraft carriers for the RN (and for the French navy) could still be built- but with the UK's two sold on- under strict conditions- to the ambitious South Koreans. South Korea is presently facilitating an extensive upgrade/expansion and warship replacement programme of its navy... perhaps to stay ahead of Japan, which is, to a lesser extent, doing the same thing.... Australia, similar to South Korea and Japan, is redeveloping and expanding its 'Royal Australian Navy'... and is looking at the feasibility of acquiring an aircraft carrier or two... to go with its new Destroyers and Frigates... ) ______________ Roderick V. Louis, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 01 604-077-5059 ceo@patientempowerme ntsociety.com

Could you explain in more detail, please?

WTF does Sarwar mean ,what is the executive? Is he living in the past like Broon and co.