Hmm.. I couldn't find anywhere in the Daily Mail piece where it wrote that 'Starmer scrambles to show some mettel'

I fully understand the forum rules that the news sections (Thailand and World) use AI and other sources to put together a story, but my understanding about 'what the papers are saying' - means just that.. not alternative or sensationalized/politicized headlines..

But of course if I'm wrong in my understanding of the rules, I will find out quickly..

4 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Do your parents know you're on the computer?

Seriously, is that the extent of your arguments? Call someone Hitler then a "raving Israel hater".

Grow up.

Grow up and support terrorists like you? No thanks boy.

57 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

What a fine specimen of the human race you are.

I do so hope that you are being sarcastic and if so I totally agree!

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

A coward under pressure? He stood up to the world bully by refusing to allow UK bases to be used to launch illegal offensive and unprovoked attacks. I don't remember any other leader standing up to US bullying.

Spain did the same by refusing the US to use their bases in Spain.

Trump as usual responded with a threat to impose 15% tariffs on Spain.

He forgot that as Spain is a member of the EU those sanctions would have to apply across the whole of the EU. When informed of that fact he has not raised that threat again as far as I know!

3 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

Given your position as the self appointed AN arbiter of such things you should know that Type 23 frigates are primarily anti-submarine warships whereas Type 45 destroyers are primarily designed for anti-aircraft and anti-missile warfare. Seeing as Iran has not yet attacked Akrotiri using submarines maybe type 23 is not the obvious choice.

Prior to this "war" when a type 45 showed up in the gulf naval allies would defer primary air defence to them as type 45's are quite good at that.

You can tell us if a type 23 air defence radar systems are as good as S1850 and Sampson?

Type 23s and Astute class has not been mentioned i helped build the Type 45s im not a specialist in Radar technology vocal neail but i would imaging type 45s have one of the most sophisticated in the world and are primarily used for Anti ship missile defence. The golf ball you see is what we called friend or foe it locates an incoming object and detects what it is. If its foe it locks on with goalkeeper to shoot it down.

Starmer has just given a statement where he still says we will do everything to protect our citezens. If it wasn't for the Greek and French sending there ships to Cyprus Starmer would have left them with no protection against incoming missiles what can't be shot down with aircraft.

On 3/4/2026 at 11:14 PM, BarraMarra said:

Two weeks ago maybe 3 weeks ago we witnessed AMERICA sending a large fleet to the Gulf for what ?? what did our PM or defence secretary do ? nothing they never saw what was going to happen. Horse stable door comes to mind.

I was thinking about this.

The US was late for both of UK's last two wars so maybe it is fitting for the UK to be late for this one?

This war is sucking more countries in.

Now Russia is sharing locations of US and Israeli "targets" with Iran in real time.

On 3/5/2026 at 6:05 PM, BarraMarra said:

Type 23s and Astute class has not been mentioned i helped build the Type 45s im not a specialist in Radar technology vocal neail but i would imaging type 45s have one of the most sophisticated in the world and are primarily used for Anti ship missile defence. The golf ball you see is what we called friend or foe it locates an incoming object and detects what it is. If its foe it locks on with goalkeeper to shoot it down.

If by "Golf Ball" you mean the image below that is the SAMPSON a multi-function dual-face active electronically scanned array radar produced by BAE Systems Maritime. It is the fire control radar component of the Sea Viper naval air defence system. IFF/SIFF are integrated into all air defence radar display systems in the RN.

^ It sits higher on the superstructure so has more range than upper hull mounted Aegis?

On 3/5/2026 at 1:23 AM, josephbloggs said:

Ah, so he should have come in and immediately magicked up billions of pounds on day 1. Of course plotting future spending increases is sensible as it can be planned, the budget can be balanced, and it can be sustainable - something that hasn't happened in the UK for many years, there's always been a distinct lack of planning. An increase in one area means a decrease in another.

So yes, he has pledged steady and affordable increases, the largest increase to defence spending since the Cold War. And he also increased defence spending by nearly £3b in the 2025-2026 budget so that was a pretty immediate action, no?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-strategic-defence-review-2025-making-britain-safer-secure-at-home-strong-abroad/the-strategic-defence-review-2025-making-britain-safer-secure-at-home-strong-abroad#:~:text=On%2025%20February%202025%2C%20the,security%20and%20our%20economic%20growth.

https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/uk-unveils--3-bln-defense-boost-to-counter-russian-threat

Er, what on earth are you talking about? He DID take action to correct past errors, and he did it pretty quickly upon taking charge. Ships aren't just plucked from trees, munitions aren't just taken out of an office drawer. How on earth you can blame Starmer when he is the only person in decades to address the underfunding of our military is quite hard to fathom. It is just irrational hatred.

Look closely at the budget. It is sleight of hand. The budget "increase" is actually taking money that was budgeted in past years, and using it for the stated purpose. Money that was already reserved against. Part of th defense spending is allocated to expenditures like the Chagos archipelego fiasco. The UK will give this wildlife reserve and military base to Mauritius, and then pay £101m annually in rent. The MoD budget will be dinged for this.

Governments have a practice of saying they are investing in big projects that will take years to deliver. For example, a plan to build naval vessels. The planning can start, but 2-3 years later, the project can be delayed or even curtailed. It's not just the military. Infrastructure and scientific R&D get the same treatment. Canada did this with its F-35 purchase. It was supposed to get a new airforce fleet a decade ago. It would make big defence spending announcements in its budget, only to delay the purchase. UK is doing similar. If you were to ask, what significant spending for immediate needs such as improved housing for personnel, increased pay, immediate purchase of vehicles and service parts, the amount of increase would not be very significant. That's where the Starmer administration can be criticized.

On 3/4/2026 at 8:41 PM, BarraMarra said:

HMS Daring has been in dry dock for nearly 9 years.

and who supplied the faulty original intercooler-recuperator power units?

10 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

and who supplied the faulty original intercooler-recuperator power units?

If you are trying to blame Grumman Northrop Marine for the defect, it won't fly. Grumman built the unit to the specifications set by the UK MoD. Why do you think the UK couldn't claim back damages from the contractor?

Rolls Royce who were the generator contractor set the record straight when it pointed out that only 1,900 hours of testing were done post the modifications to the recuperator were funded by the Ministry. It was a Ministry-led programme.

Defence Committee Oral evidence: Naval Procurement: Type 26 and Type 45, HC 221 Tuesday 07 June 2016

Q67   Mrs Moon: So it was the Ministry of Defence that decided not to put the extra hours into testing following the modifications.

Tomas Leahy (Rolls Royce): It was the Ministry that decreed the 1,900 hours it would take. At the same time, we were also installing and delivering the first WR-21 to the first of class on 45s, so there was an issue of timing playing into all this. They didn’t want to hold up the build programme, obviously. The engines are one of the first things fitted in the build sequence, because of the size.

Q68   Mrs Moon: Is that normal practice?

Tomas Leahy: Yes.

Q69   Mrs Moon: It is normal practice to cut the testing hours?

Tomas Leahy: No. At the time, the testing was deemed sufficient. Given all the running that had been previously done, it was deemed that that was sufficient testing. In any testing, it is a cost versus risk benefit analysis, and at that time, it was decided that was sufficient testing. With hindsight, it would have been good to have done another 4,000 or 5,000 hours of testing. We may then have seen some of the problems we have had in service.

This goes on for a few pages. However, it is typical of military procurement. The MoD was under pressure to cut costs, and so it cut testing which would have picked up the problem before the equipment was installed in the vessels.

24 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Look closely at the budget. It is sleight of hand. The budget "increase" is actually taking money that was budgeted in past years, and using it for the stated purpose. Money that was already reserved against. Part of th defense spending is allocated to expenditures like the Chagos archipelego fiasco. The UK will give this wildlife reserve and military base to Mauritius, and then pay £101m annually in rent. The MoD budget will be dinged for this.

Governments have a practice of saying they are investing in big projects that will take years to deliver. For example, a plan to build naval vessels. The planning can start, but 2-3 years later, the project can be delayed or even curtailed. It's not just the military. Infrastructure and scientific R&D get the same treatment. Canada did this with its F-35 purchase. It was supposed to get a new airforce fleet a decade ago. It would make big defence spending announcements in its budget, only to delay the purchase. UK is doing similar. If you were to ask, what significant spending for immediate needs such as improved housing for personnel, increased pay, immediate purchase of vehicles and service parts, the amount of increase would not be very significant. That's where the Starmer administration can be criticized.

You may be correct to criticise this government (Starmer) for a lack of spending in serviceman's pay and conditions but - with the best will in the world and even allowing for improved moral, etc - improving conditions is not going to materially affect the UK navy's ability to defend us. That requires capital investment which has been lacking under successive Tory administrations, and that is the criticism that others are now unfairly trying to lay at the feet of Starmer.