The people from that side of the Pennines are strange - what can I say....
- Status
The people from that side of the Pennines are strange - what can I say....
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
It's almost impossible to be a small independent mainstream car brand nowadays. Everything is subsumed into the giants. No amount of government would change that really and I can't see any value in shovelling in billions of taxpayer money just to avoid the inevitable.
MG ended up owned by the Chinese government as a front for Chinese manufactured cars because the brand was still credible.
I think the Indians were planning the same with the Rover name but haven't got round to it yet or have changed their minds.
BHS stores will presumably be sold off to poundshops or whatever so the jobs won't be lost totally but it's interesting that they still couldn't move the stock even with blow-out liquidation sales.
The idea of nationalising BHS is truly bizarre
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
While each costing more than a Nimitz, operating 60% fewer aircraft at 25% lower speed...
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Talking of based instincts, the review of internet monitoring in the UK has unsurprisingly, backed the government.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37130455
It has assault capabilities, which is a minor plus. I'm not sure they cost more than a Nimitz each, the combined cost of both ships was about $8 billion, USS H.W. Bush cost $6 billion.
I do agree though that a carrier like Charels de Gaulle - smaller than Nimitz, but big enough and CATOBAR-equipped - plus one or two assault ships, like Wasp or Mistral class would most likely be a significantly better choice, and likely less expensive.
McHrozni
Last edited:
Not to mention the bill needed to effectively train entire new crews from scratch for naval aviation, reducing the effectiveness for the first several years.
Yay Cameron.
McHrozni
Airfix
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2016
- Messages
- 1,047
Thatcher invested in them pacer and super sprinter trains were built, transpennine express trains were built. It was John Major who shredded them in response to the First Railway's directive's requirement of a bit of privatisation. Wholesale privatisation was not required by the directive, but partial privatisation was. Tories used it as an excuse to privatise the whole network.
BHS suffered from two bad owners who milked it for every penny and got it into debt. It's advertising budget went through the floor, and it now has a pensions crisis.
I went to a BHS closing down sale and normal size clothes are virtually sold out, they still have stuff for people with 46" waists however.
*Leyland
By the 1990's, the deal with Honda had worked well, the Rover 200 was actually a good reliable car, the diesel version of which was probably the best car they'd ever made, it was like a tank and just kept on going.
The Rover 75 was a good car.
What they had was an inherent problem that they would make a good car and keep making it and making it whilst other companies would develop new good models.
State ownership could have bought them time, to invest in the design and development of a new generation of good cars.
John Towers Phoenix consortium facelifted the cars and stuck MG badges on them, just as they'd done with the Metro, Maestro and Montego in the 1980's under British Aerospace ownership. They spent a lot of money trying to win the Touring Cars competition. They also spent a lot of money developing the MG XPower SV based on the Qvale Mangusta instead of developing normal cars for ordinary people.
State ownership could have forced the company to seek new cooperations and develop a new car to replace the Rover 200 / 25 (BMW facelift model) and the 75, which although two years old at the time, other companies were already developing new models.
I grant you, in the 1970's British Leyland was a basket case and you need look no further than the Triumph Stag to see just how badly wrong a project to build an externally beautiful car can go.
They should have used a Rover V8, instead they made a brand new (and quite unreliable) engine purely for the Stag.
But there are ways a new state owned Rover group could have avoided repeating those kind of mistakes.
Last edited:
My personal experience was that the first Rover 200, the saloon launched in the 1980s was a fine car. Its successor, the hatchback was such a piece of **** that my parents after owning Austin/Rover cars for 35 years (including duffers like Allegros, Marinas and Maxi)s finally caved and bought an Audi after the problems they had with two of them
That not enough people wanted to buy. It was too fuddy-duddy to appeal to the young (even the Rover 600 had a sports version) and was attempting to take on Jaguar at its own game.
What "good car", the ones they licence built from Honda ?
- Metro/Rover 100
- Maestro
- Montego
All rubbish IMO and I drove a bunch of them back in the day.
How ? Time and again they demonstrated that they were incapable of designing a decent car. The only good-un's were licence built previous generation Hondas and they managed to ruin the relationship with Honda.
In today's global market, Rover was too small to succeed. The billions of pounds that would have been spent keeping it on life support while they produced car after car that appealed to a shrinking market would have been money wasted
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,638
No, not quite. HMS Ocean is about the same size as the Invincible class was operating as sn assault ship with Helicopters and the Albion Class Assault ships so there are crew experienced in flight deck operations. Also there are the RN personnel serving aboard US Carriers so fixed wing experience isn't lost.
There was a fuss last year when it came out that RN pilots and aircrew were involved in bombing missions un Syria. There was a fuss in the Commons that they shouldn't be taking part as Parliament had voted against British air strikes in Syria.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
The 'inherent problem' being that they couldn't generate enough money from the 'good cars' to invest in and develop new models fast enough and well enough to stay competitive.
They also had some problems with quality compared to competitors.
Rover's main problem was that they were never able to actually find a niche and succeed in it. They were squeezed on all sides by more affordable alternatives from Asia and to some extent Eastern Europe and better alternatives from Western Europe and bigger commercial behemoths that could simply out discount them for fleet sales. Combine that with a fuddy duddy image and they really had no future other than being bought out by a bigger rival - but they didn't really have the engineering or design chops to make that worthwhile either. The only real thing of value was the brand.
The original mini was a good car (originally made in 1959) but they never developed it to keep up with the progress made by other manufacturers. BMW now do well with the 'new mini' which is considerably bigger but shares virtually nothing with the original apart from the brand, shape, and basic layout.
Compare and contrast with the Porsche 911 (originally in 1963 but developed from the earlier 356 that came out in 1948). Again everything except the brand, layout, and shape has been changed - but it's still in production by the original manufacturer and is still selling well.
Compare and contrast with the Porsche 911 (originally in 1963 but developed from the earlier 356 that came out in 1948). Again everything except the brand, layout, and shape has been changed - but it's still in production by the original manufacturer and is still selling well.
Last edited:
Hm, I see. I didn't even know about HMS Ocean (or Brits on US carriers).
Why does the UK need two "Swiss army knife ships" if it already has a ship that can perform the helicopter assault and support duties as well (or better) than either of them anyway? Buy or build another one of those, and build a single proper CATOBAR carrier, and you get better capability for a lower price.
McHrozni
There will be capability mismatch in any case. HMS Ocean can transport and deliver over 800 Royal Marines, the QEs can deliver only about 250 each, due to their primary function being an aircraft carrier, not an amphibious assault ship.
The new system is good enough for a show of force, which will likely be their primary role anyway. In an actual armed conflict, a proper carrier plus two amphibious assault ships would be a tactically superior option.
McHrozni
ohms
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,708
We also have the 2 Albion class LPDs with one in active service and one in extended readiness.
ETA:
A bigger waste of money as regards the RN are the new batch of River class OPVs which the RN doesn't really want or need, especially when the RN is already severely short on manpower. They are purely being built to keep the shipyards ticking over and are hugely overpriced for the little capability they provide.
ETA:
A bigger waste of money as regards the RN are the new batch of River class OPVs which the RN doesn't really want or need, especially when the RN is already severely short on manpower. They are purely being built to keep the shipyards ticking over and are hugely overpriced for the little capability they provide.
Last edited:
The biggest problem with those is that they have only helicopter landing spots, but no aircraft handling facilities. They rely on another platform - like the Ocean, and soon the QEs, to provide those. With QEs this means that large and valuable carriers would be forced to spend quite a lot of time in a predictable and small area. It's not far from being a sitting duck.
That's why I think a proper carrier plus a helicopter carrier (or two) is a better choice. The most valuable asset is sufficiently away to be relatively safe and better able to provide air cover while the specialist ships conduct their operations. With the new RN setup there is a single point of failure with the QE.
They seem like optimal ships for controlling the refugee crisis in Mediterranean. It's a matter of opinion whether the UK needs that.
McHrozni
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,638
They will be needed after Brexit for all the usual Oil, customs, fishery and immigration control. Workload will increase when UK waters are no longer part of the EU. Fisheries will be a bigger job right off the bat and we are starting to see an increase in people smugglers using boats and ships. They are also bigger and more versatile than the ships they replace, they will end up doing a lot of jobs that Frigates and Destroyers have to do at the moment.
Batch 2 are a lot more capable than Batch 1. Five knots on the speed, Fligh Deck that can operate a Merlin, Bigger armament (30mm cannon and Mini Guns), and can embark up to 50 additional personnel, troops, medics, disaster relief etc.
Clyde is a modified ship dedicated to the Falklands Patrol, it has beefed up flight deck and a lengthened hull to take up to 110 equipped troops.
They are versatile and useful ships, it's planned to build 9 (including the dedicated Falklands Patrol ship) and once they are all in service I bet they wish they had half a dozen more.
Last edited:
Yet another thing to be funded from the notional "£350m a week"
I suppose in this case at least it's "British jobs for British matelots"...
ohms
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,708
Yeah they want them so much that the Batch 1s and Clyde are to be retired leaving the RN with just 5 in service.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev...ocurement-type-26-and-type-45/oral/35261.html
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 67,638
Batch 1 and Clyde aren't anywhere near as capable as the Batch 2 in fact Batch 2 are almost a seperate class.
The Batch 2 ships are fundamentally different in appearance and capabilities, more thsn 30ft longer (296*ft 11*in) higher top speed of 24*knots.*Merlin-capable flight deck full width superstructure, and a different above-water hull form with greater bow flare. They also have proper air and surface surveillance radar and a combat management system, protected magazine and ' real' firefighting systems, they are intended to go in to action on anti-piracy, counter-terrorism and anti-smuggling operations.
At the moment Frigates and Destroyers do it but they are overkill.
Back when I was in the navy older Tribals and Rothesays or even a Batch 1 Leander would be used and even they were overkill.
The Batch 2 ships are fundamentally different in appearance and capabilities, more thsn 30ft longer (296*ft 11*in) higher top speed of 24*knots.*Merlin-capable flight deck full width superstructure, and a different above-water hull form with greater bow flare. They also have proper air and surface surveillance radar and a combat management system, protected magazine and ' real' firefighting systems, they are intended to go in to action on anti-piracy, counter-terrorism and anti-smuggling operations.
At the moment Frigates and Destroyers do it but they are overkill.
Back when I was in the navy older Tribals and Rothesays or even a Batch 1 Leander would be used and even they were overkill.
- Status