Re: so..
 

Valid enough point, plus there's also the security aspect. A carrier out at sea is far more difficult to get to & attack than a Hotel on the mainland. The Coalition really have dropped a bollock on this one & as to those so called Military advisers, who "Advised" on getting shut of the Ark & her Harriers, they should hang their heads.

As to pricing obviously a carrier & aircraft stationed off shore has got to be more expedient than what is being done now, plus the time on station is degraded due to the distance of a land base & the need to use fuel to get there & back. The article below from a Navy man, who's been there, seen it done it, just quantifies it all.

£ 1.2M A Month For RAF To Stay In Italian Hotels - UK's #1 Community: Navy, Marines, Army, RAF

Re: so..
 

Good thinking, since the Harriers wouldn't be using the full flight deck , part of it could be used as an 'al fresco' halal restaurant , anchored a couple of miles off Benghazi, and no smoking ban it would do a roaring trade , table service provided by 'sensitive' I-Pod wearing ratings who would be happy to re-arrange the Cinzano umbrellas to give you maximum shade.

Pampered pirates: Royal Navy seizes 17 armed Somalis, gives them halal meat and nicotine patches... then sets them free! | Mail Online

Re: so..
 

Exactly.

Some people sound glad our armed forces are under funded, and over stretched.

Probably similar in thinking to the daft sods who'd be pleased when they received a white feather in the post, as they waved their little white flags.

Oh, and to all the blinkered Tory faithful, the costs of keeping our troops in Italian 4 star hotels, was featured in all the heavy weight Sunday papers...all of which have a right-wing political bias.

Some people should stick to showing off.

At least that's something they're good at.

:rolleyes:

Re: so..
 

Cost wise there's no comparisson.

Paying millions to some greasy Iti hotelier, is dead money.

Investing in infrastructure, which could be used in many way, over many years, isn't.

Re: so..
 

Hell, the story's even featured in that well known socialist rag, the Daily Mail.

David Cameron lays down UN action in Libya as rebels flee Gaddafi cluster bombs | Mail Online

In the paper Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward, who led the task force during the Falklands War, is inerviewed and he says he has written to armed forces minister Nick Harvey, calling on him to reconsider cuts to the Navy’s budget.

He says the vast costs of running the conflict from a base in Italy prove that scrapping Ark Royal was a false economy.

He's quoted as saying that the political and operational adaptability provided by operating air power from the sea is now starkly clear against the cost of the current operation where six months of land-based RAF operations would cost the order of £1billion, three times the cost of running a carrier plus the Harriers for four whole years.

Re: so..
 

switching back to entwisi profile.....

Re: so..
 

Hang on, At no point have I said that I too wouldn't prefer the Ark and harriers to still be there, what I did say is that there is a cost to accomodate soldiers and you can't just use a headline figure as be all and end all.

even cheaper than the Ark would be tents in a field just like what my Dad had to use whilst out in Ceylon and India during WW2, should they be in tents? is that what I'm saying here? no, just dont go being so led by press and headline figures, theres always 3 sides to every tale....

Re: so..
 

Yes tents would be cheaper.

Most of the military would agree.

Though that nice Mr. Cameron prefers to waste millions on luxury hotels. Not an investment, but dead money, being given to individual Iti hoteliers.

Almost as idiotic as telling us to hug-a-hoodie.

This is the man, to be green, rides a bike, closely followed my his ministiral limousine.

Fool.

Re: so..
 

yeh said twas probably not far off that figure to run the ark, nowt else, what are people to read into that? at no point did yeh say if yeh prefered the ark n harriers to remain in service, in fact yeh still aint.

Re: so..
 

Cameron cocked up.

It's the Tory press who seem angry.

My post wasn't a political one.

Cameron, making a balls up, doesn't suprise me...as it seems to have done with the Tory press.

Re: so..
 

I'll give you just one example of the false economics the government are forcing on this country.. my home was burgled last week in the afternoon..kicked the front door in... the police did turn up and reported this to the council who sent a bloke round to put extra locks on the door and alarmed the windows...unfortunatley the locksmith told me he is out of work next week because of the cut backs.. he will get 3 months wages and then on yer way.

This is happening everyday... the bloke will have to sign on for benifits for his housing and such....he will be earning no money so will pay no tax.... it is madness to have a active policy of creating unemployment... but that has been the tory way for the last 200yrs! :mad:

Re: so..
 

Hope I'm not out of line in asking, just curious , how much did the council bill you for "burgler proofing" your home, and does the Council also povide this service to 'private' home owners/renters :confused: :confused:

Re: so..
 

I don't live in council property and there was no charge.. as far as I know it is (was) a free service to any resident in the Borough, same as some councils liase with the fire prevention and fit smoke alarms.

Re: so..
 

100% correct!

Re: so..
 

200% wrong;)