|
|
Post by Brittles on Jan 16, 2009 21:01:11 GMT
so we can shell people who can't type to save thier lives! Especially knobends who can't use spellcheck ............. |
|
|
|
Post by cn on Jan 16, 2009 21:05:55 GMT
so we can shell people who can't type to save thier lives! Especially knobends who can't use spellcheck ............. Or porridge wogs |
|
|
|
Post by deefender on Jan 16, 2009 21:06:28 GMT
It is 11 years since a new warship was ordered for the Royal Navy. Ahem ........... The latest addition to the fleet - HMS Daring - Type 45 Destroyer sailed down the river Clyde from Glasgow today bound for Portsmouth. She never took 11 years to build, we do things rather quicker in Scotland. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7832270.stmI quote from Hansard 13 December 1999 "The type 45 destroyer was announced in 1992 with an in-service date of 2002. Yes, that date slipped two years under the Conservative Government, but it has slipped three years in two years under this Government. That is just part of the problem. There is a lot of big talk about two aircraft carriers, but there is nothing said about the ships that will defend them or about the replacement for the type 23. We know that they are short of money to the tune of about £1 billion a year and that there is no hope of the £2 billion saving from smart procurement." www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo991213/debtext/91213-01.htmIt gets Worse... Six Type 45 destryoyers have been contracted. The requirement was for 12 vessels of the class, but the UK Ministry of Defence announced in July 2004 that this would be cut to eight. This was further reduced to the six already contracted in June 2008. The destroyers are to enter service by 2014. www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon/The type 45s was supposed to be the largest and most powerful air defence destroyers ever ordered for the Royal Navy. They were meant to be ships that were capable not only of defending themselves but of defending other ships in a fleet operation. Somewhere this government lost sight of that. |
|
|
|
Post by cn on Jan 16, 2009 21:15:20 GMT
Nice one deef.
Contrast this with how long it takes to build a complicated FPSO like the Agbami (google it you lazy tw@t.)
Slacking scotch workers......how very typical of the porridge gnoshers
|
|
skyways
New Member
Am I not cool?
Posts: 281
|
Post by skyways on Jan 16, 2009 21:16:43 GMT
Who is the real Rude Eric? There are clues. Who bloody well cares! Uneducated t/t the pair of 'em  |
|
|
|
Post by cn on Jan 16, 2009 21:19:43 GMT
Who is the real Rude Eric? There are clues. Who bloody well cares! Uneducated t/t the pair of 'em WHAT? Are you fcuking serious? A choice between some cat loving boring cnut like you or rude erics entertainment..........dont let the door hit you on your way out skyways. |
|
|
|
Post by cn on Jan 16, 2009 21:20:25 GMT
Anyway.......him speshul.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brittles on Jan 16, 2009 21:23:04 GMT
Can't say I've read that particular copy but the boat sailed away today - ready for service - and thats 10 years.
Modern navies are useful but except for the Falklands - seldom decisive.
|
|
|
|
Post by puffin on Jan 16, 2009 21:40:05 GMT
I like eric. Best laugh of the day.
It helps us to stop taking ourselves too seriously.
More powere to his lebow.
|
|
|
|
Post by cn on Jan 16, 2009 21:41:41 GMT
I like eric. Best laugh of the day. It helps us to stop taking ourselves too seriously. More powere to his lebow. eric d kings |
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Jan 17, 2009 21:02:09 GMT
We need a modern nuclear deterrent, we should be able to defend ourselves should the need arise. By having a nuclear deterrent it gives us more credibility, i would be far more worried if we didn't have any nuclear weapons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brittles on Jan 17, 2009 23:40:40 GMT
I agree in principle but I think - like the retired generals - there are many cheaper alternatives available like air launched Tomahawks etc.
That said if Trident isn't renewed it will mean the closure of H.M. Submarine Base Clyde - something that would badly damage the economy of the region in which I live.
On the upside I would no longer be living near to Target No.1 U.K.
|
|
|
|
Post by wetkingcanute on Jan 17, 2009 23:58:18 GMT
I'd just like to point out that I started a tread entitled "Get rid of Trident' last week and it still up on the board having had 38 posts.
...storms off in a huff.
|
|
|
|
Post by wetkingcanute on Jan 18, 2009 0:10:40 GMT
'Thread'
'it's'
|
|
|
|
Post by Brittles on Jan 18, 2009 0:13:29 GMT
Sorry WKC, I'll get in there toot sweet.
|
|
