Oi Stingo

[Viney]

Looks like you got a new toy to play with
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11173266

Can i have a go mister?

[Stingo]

The latest 'sleek black messenger of death'! Some piece of kit that is. I wonder if that defence correspondent likes underwater sports?

[Viney]

My fav line was 'All the computers were turned off whilst filming' Roughtly translated means 'The version of Windows 7 they are running has packed up!'

[Stingo]

Originally Posted by Viney

My fav line was 'All the computers were turned off whilst filming' Roughtly translated means 'The version of Windows 7 they are running has packed up!'

You've already seen for yourself then!!

I understand security concerns... but I think the powers that be like to forget just who paid for this little toy. No taxation without representation, surely???

[Stingo]

Originally Posted by Ed

I understand security concerns... but I think the powers that be like to forget just who paid for this little toy. No taxation without representation, surely???

Ooh...a sensitive issue I'm sure Ed. The original order/requirement was for seven of these...all we ever hear now is that there will be four. I do sometimes wonder exactly where we're going with the armed forces at times - already stripped to the bone - much if not most of the training now delivered by civilians, procurement constantly re-inventing itself to supposedly be more 'cost effective' and other numerous cost cutting schemes being thought of all the time but I suppose that's the way of the world - I don't have any answers, wish I did, I'd probably make a mint with the right idea! What I do know is that when I joined the RN as a fresh faced youngster straight from school (via 3 months at college to kill the time) the UK possessed over thirty submarines and the RN had a manpower of over 60k.
Today, we have in the region of 30k manpower and a dozen submarines if you count the four bombers, six remaining and tired Trafalgar class, Astute and Ambush (Ambush hasn't completed sea trials yet) - so we could put to sea no more than that assuming none were in refit/dry dock etc.
It sure is a changing world.
I imagine if we moved from a nuclear powered fleet to a conventional type fleet that would save a few quid on upkeep/manufacturing etc, but the problem now is that we've already got rid of the conventional boats - to get something back costs a phenomenal amount and is usually quite a complex business.

Anyway, it'll soon be Christmas - hopefully I'll pull a cracker then!

Nick, I don't object to spend on the military, quite the reverse in fact. I love seeing Tornados flying overhead, and when I lived in Saltash I loved the Plymouth Navy Days. But I do think that we need to be more open on how the budget is spent. That includes greater public consultation on strategic issues, such as should we replace Trident - do you remember the fuss when it was decided upon back in the 1980s, have we learned nothing - down to greater public accessibility. It's all too hush-hush, but we end up paying for it, so we should be entitled to see more of it without being told that nobs know better than to do such a dangerous thing as to allow public involvement and access.

[Stingo]

Openness is a great thing but I believe there are times or occasions when openness can bring its own problems. The issue with security/armed forces I imagine is that to be open sufficiently enough to allow people (Joe Public) to help with the decision making process would mean spending a good deal more time talking over issues than is currently spent now. This would require more money to be spent as the public at large would require more information - supplying this info must have some cost, as would the whole debating process, and who would be part of that debating process? It sort of opens up a bit of a can of worms albeit with the best of intentions.

[Supervox]

Originally Posted by Stingo

Openness is a great thing but I believe there are times or occasions when openness can bring its own problems. The issue with security/armed forces I imagine is that to be open sufficiently enough to allow people (Joe Public) to help with the decision making process would mean spending a good deal more time talking over issues than is currently spent now. This would require more money to be spent as the public at large would require more information - supplying this info must have some cost, as would the whole debating process, and who would be part of that debating process? It sort of opens up a bit of a can of worms albeit with the best of intentions.

God, I hope that never happens !!

The bun fights between the different services for kit are quite enough without letting Joe Public get involved in the decision making process !!