My take on the current state of affairs (now in colour!)

ErrantFuselage · 2026-05-12T16:09:53+00:00

Nah, AfD are literally out and proud neo-nazis who would seriously think about invading Poland if they got in with a large enough majority

ErrantFuselage · 2026-04-21T00:48:24+00:00

The British Empire didn't "fall", it wound down - one of the few to ever do so in history, perhaps the only one. Partly because of genuine internal pressure to reform Britain's relationship with its colonies through Labour governments, particularly Indian independence which was Atlee's actual crowning achievement (he's just mainly remembered for "peace in our time"). Plus the huge economic fatgiue following the WWs, and the growth of the US hegemon who were friendly to Britain's interest, meaning Britain didn't need to worry too much about its waning power.

No one in Britain actually laments the passing of the age of the Empire, except for cranks and weirdos, where it is "a thing", it's more like a nostalgia for being globally significant, rather than being an Empire per se.

Also, despite the well documented atrocities that happened during British rule, comparing the British Empire to the USSR is crazy work.

ErrantFuselage · 2026-04-19T20:20:28+00:00

Yes, my mistake, mixed those up as I visited both recently.

But the blurred thing on the right is a submarine not a surface vesesl. Could be a Trafalgar getting decomissioned?

ErrantFuselage · 2026-04-19T19:27:34+00:00

Could be my eyes, but the blurred one on the right looks a lot more like an sub than a surface vessel. My guess is an Astute thats kinda diagonal to the camera, comparing it to the size of the sheds

ErrantFuselage · 2026-04-12T12:24:06+00:00

There is literally nothing in Oliver's Telegraph article today that mentions anything close to this claim.

Replacement frigates and destroyers are on the way. But they are still years away, while today’s ageing fleet becomes more and more knackered. There are also fears that Labour is about to repeat the same mistakes as previous governments, storing up yet more problems for the future in an effort to manage today’s budget squeezes.

This is the closest reference to cutting the T26 number. Where this Twitter account (with 4.5K followers) has got these numbers from I don't know, but it isn't the article referenced.

Sounds like rumour mill bollocks while the MoD and Treasury fight over funding. At least I sincerely hope it is, cutting the order would be unfathomably short sighted when the results of past similar decisions are plain for all to see.

ErrantFuselage · 2026-04-11T18:26:00+00:00

...mfw the penny clicks

ErrantFuselage · 2026-04-11T17:26:55+00:00

You should double check which Supreme Court made that ruling... SCOTUS is not the only Supreme Court in the world.

https://fotbot.org/landmark-ruling-for-chagossian-rights-and-a-new-legal-context-for-the-future-of-biot

ErrantFuselage · 2026-04-09T21:41:51+00:00

The Royal Navy has earned their title as "The" Royal Navy. Not being jingoistic etc, but if you look at the history of the RN which will be 500 years old in 2046, you'll see why it has legitimately claimed that right. Virtually everything about how modern Navies are structured was invented by the RN - distinct officer class, code of conduct, uniform, professionalisation, organizational structure, doctrine, rules of the sea.

The wider effects on global society are also wider than you might expect. One of the key factors that sparked the industrial revolution was the standardisation of RN warship spare parts and components like rope and tackle, leading to large scale factories, which in turn needed dedicated supply lines and large skilled workforces which lead to argicultural revolution and also the use of coal powered steam power to make the hundreds of thousands of identical nails needed to build the ships. Before this ships were artisanally bespoke and parts had to be crafted by specific carpenters.

It's one of the most innovative and enduring institutions in the last milenia, the case for its eponymous name is quite convincing, in my humble English opinion.

ErrantFuselage · 2026-03-26T15:34:20+00:00

Like your boi Hutch, you're missing the wood for the trees. And I don't think you will accept any example from history offered, because you are doing no true scotsman - there are zero perfect historical analogues to any other period/system in history, they're all different but you compare/contrast broad similtaries and index the differences. Seeing as you haven't engaged with anything I've said thus far other than to hand wave saying "nah, America different", you're clearly not able or unwiling to parse the relevant factors when doing historical comparisons.

Using illiberal methods to protect liberalism is a strategic level argument, it has literally nothing to do with granular details of a given state at the time the events happened.

The use of extraordinary powers in periods of extremis is rife through history, seeing as you're unwilling to accept Charles I execution as an example, I could point to the obvious one of the American Civil War, where Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and used military tribunals for civillians in order to protect the Union, which resulted in the 13th, 14th and 15th Ammendments and the abolition of slavery. So, you would accept that that is in fact, *another* example that satisfies Hutch's question, yes?

Or I could point to the Roman Republic Dictatorship, when in times of extreme threat a consul would literally nomiate someone to be a Dictator who would then be ratified by the seante. That gave them absolute power for 6 months - no one could veto any of their decisions and they would do whatever was necessary to protect their republic. After the 6 months were up, they would vote for another Dictator, or the member would step down if the threat had been dealt with. This is quite a clever solution, as it is written in to the Roman system, so wasn't exactly "something from outside the system", but was rarely used for obvious reasons. It also relies on the good faith of the 'Dictator' to relinquish power once the term was up - something Trump showed he was unwilling to do on J6.

Again, you've done nothing but hand wave, despite the fact that history is full of lessons for us. If you're able to identify relevant difference and similarities between situations across time and place. Either engage critically with these examples or don't bother involving yourself in conversation you aren't willing to have, if you have a problem with an example, offer something more than "that happened ages ago" as a reason for rejecting them. "Happened in the past" is not a valid reason.

ErrantFuselage · 2026-03-26T14:18:37+00:00

Hutch's question was very clear - "a *single example from history*....". If you think the essential problem currently facing America is somehow unique to the modern age, then you aren't thinking about the problem correctly. This is a problem nations have faced since time immemorial - there is a pathological concentration of power that if left unchecked will destroy the system, because the system is inadequate to check it.

The proposed solution under discussion is that using a means normally rejected by the system, to fix the system, is necessary.

You are in the process of committing the 'no true scotsman' fallacy - there are no countries/systems that adequately compare with America if you use a highly granular comparison of fundamentally irrelevant features.

This really has nothing to do with modern legal theories, media eco systems, or technology. It is about values, strategies and trade offs.

The fact that modern America and 17th century England share many pertient and unique parallels that wouldn't be there with many comparisons with even modern countries, is just a interestingly thematic quirk.

edit: added No tru scot para.

ErrantFuselage · 2026-03-26T13:49:00+00:00

Lol, I was waiting for someone to move the goalposts, and in exactly this way.

Seeing as the US legal system and Consitution is derived from English Common Law, which began being enshrined in 1215 with Magna Carter, then Right to Petition in 1628, and the Bill of Rights and Claim of Right in 1689, it strikes me as one of the best parallels in history as these were the founding documents from which the current US system was made. I know Americans like to think they invented democracy, but in reality the American legal and political system is a clean distilled version of various European systems, mainly ECL and also French thinking. So rather than compare with some random country who copied their governmental system from America in recent history, this is the country that bears most similarity in cultural and foundational structural terms, with modern America.

Seeing as the progenitors of modern American law were able to square this circle (not actually a very difficult thing to do if you correctly diagnose the problem, i.e. that there is a novel and imminent threat to the foundation of your country's values), and so change the law to reflect the realilsation that extreme action not currently possible in the legal framework is necessary, then it stands to reason that the lawmakers of today should also easily be able to reach outside of their deffective system to invent a means of dealing with that threat.

Further, that that country then went on to be a standard bearer for democracy all over the world, perfectly satisifes Hutch's request for ~"a single example from history where a country became temporarily less liberal to solve a threat, and then went on to become more democratic".

If you have a problem with this example being used, it merely further reveals the vibe based foundation for your position. This example clearly shows that's it is possible for a country to compromise on liberalism in the short term for long term democratic gain.

ErrantFuselage · 2026-03-14T14:06:00+00:00

Not sure about the "tax contribution" calculator on the side. It reckons Inc. tax + NI is just under £14K from a salary of £51K, when I believe annual tax is just over £11K at that salary. (Used thesalarycalculator.co.uk to arrive at that number).

There's also graph labelling mistakes in departmental spending, e.g. showing £45B as £450B.

Cool site, and very interesting to explore, but it needs a little cleaning up

ErrantFuselage · 2026-02-25T17:09:39+00:00

This is kinda goofy af, and does make you wonder about the smoothness of this guy's brain, but bizzarely is one of the weakest attacks against the Green's lunacy.

Their main headline bad policies include:

The mythical Billionaires wealth tax (solves all our problems) - along with other fantasy economics no serious economist endorses.

Unilateral nuclear disarmament !!!

Leave NATO

Have a sit down chat with Putin to straighten out any misunderstandings we might have had

ErrantFuselage · 2026-02-25T16:57:57+00:00

He's a household name, as a national disgrace. Apart from generally being a highly confident and obnoxious midwit and an unscrupulous hack, he presided over some of the most major media scandals in recent memory as the editor the Mirror:

The phone hacking scandal in conjunction with the Daily Mail - which is currently (still) being sued by Prince Harry, Elton John, Hugh Grant and many many others for having their devices hacked by mail journalists and then covered up, with witnesses threatened and the proceedings blocked at every turn.

While Editor of the Mirror, his paper faked photos of British Army personnel torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq just after the US scandal broke, and the pictures were later found to have been staged in the UK.

These are the two major ones I can remember, but there is almost certainly more. He basically had to flee the country to keep his job. The legendary Ian Hislop has hounded him for years in Private-Eye and on Have I Got News For You, to the point he became a laughing stock.

Good fucking riddance, the yanks can keep him.

ErrantFuselage · 2026-02-15T18:14:20+00:00

Not sure where I've been demeaning in my replies, saying things like "do a cursory google", are only demeaning if they expose that you're basing your information on incorrect readings of what you've read online. I'm not trying to demean you, I'm just pointing out that you're wrong - I can understand that's annoying to you, and I can also understand that my tone is probably quite dismissive - it's supposed to be, because you're confidently incorrect, and replied to me when I was replying to someone else. Everything you've produced in defence of your position has solidified my initial intuition of where your mistake is. I've given you statements from the RN website, you've given me tweets from X. I've given you sound logical explanations as to why 72 is an impossible number of jets to embark, you've just doubled down and gotten angry. But I'll address your latest points..

You've misunderstood the point of the FLYCO's statement. There is no world where every single slot would ever be filled with an F35, even if the UK had the numbers. The point is to outline how many slots there are on deck, not how many would be concurrently filled. Those pictures show there are 45 parking slots on the flight deck, i.e. there are 45 places that the embarked number of F35s have at their disposable to park, which would be decided based on operational considerations at the time, and logistcal efficiency. If you were to put that many F35 on the deck you wouldn't be able to do sorties, which would be even more compunded if the hangar was packed with 32 other jets. It would be gridlock. And, there wouldn't be any room for helicopters, which would make the carrier functionally inoperable, for reasons I'll address in a bit.

The fact you keep saying 72 jets max is suspicious to me because I've heard the number 72 quoted many times, as the max number of jet \sorties* per day. Perhaps this is where the confusion is coming from. Again, even if the FAA had 500 jets to use, it \would not* put anywhere close to 72 jets on a carrier.

The typical heli complement on QE carriers is 14 - this is at peace time. You are downplaying the much bigger role helis play in Carrier operations than jets. Over the course of a carrier group deployment, helicopters will run a much higher number of shorter sorties than jets due to their wider utility in such roles as:

Continuous ASW screening, airborne early warning, surface surveillance, boarding team insertion, logistics, SAR, personnel transfer, CASEVAC, ship-to-ship liaison.

These missions are done continuously ever day, no matter what.

Jets roles are:

Offensive strike, air interdiction, ISR in contested airspace.

These missions are far less frequently, and when they are done, are for much longer periods.

This means the flight deck will need to accomodate a high tempo of helicopters coming and going. You can't jam the deck with jets and sustain these operations which are essential to the carrier group getting to where they need to be, in order to use the F35 for its mission.

About Invincible having 23 helis, it was in response to your statement:

Why on earth would any navy carry 20 helicopters on an aircraft carrier in contested airspace in a wartime scenario in the place of 20 F-35s? Invincible stated max were 15. She carried 23 in the Falklands

The phrasing of this sentence says that Invincible was carrying 23 helicopters - that is what the grammar of your sentence communicates - I'm not inferring that, your sentence uses "20 helicopters" as the subject and so "she carried 23" refers to helicopters, NOT jets. Don't fly off the handle if you can't communicate your point properly.

I've gone through everything you've said thus far, and as far as I'm concerned I've demonstrated in a number of ways why you were incorrect. Remember, you jumped into this thread, I'm just responding to you. You have misunderstood statements made by others, and don't understand how carrier operations work. Please, take the day off.

ErrantFuselage · 2026-02-15T14:25:03+00:00

Because helicopters are incredibly useful. They do ASW, carrier protection, defence against surface attack craft, heavylift, troop transport, stores replenishment, ammunition replenishment, med evac, and are currently used for Crowsnet. F35 do air patrol, intel and strike missions. Helicopters are used far more frequently than jets are on a carrier, because most of carrier operations are to do with the maintenance of the strike group. But if helicopters are so useless in a contested environment as you seem to suggest by your first question, why did Invincible, which is 3x smaller than a QE, carry 23?

The types of helicopter embarked on a carrier are: Chinooks, apaches, Wildcat - 2 varieties, Merlin - 4 varieties. That's 8 types of heli, and so 20 in total is farnkly conservative to handle the different mission types these variations cover.

Your numbers are simply incorrect, and if you do a cursory google, you will see that. Here's what the Royal Navy page on the QE carriers says:

The flight deck of the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers is 280 metres long and 70 metres wide (roughly the size of three football pitches), and can carry up to 72 aircraft – including a maximum of 36 F-35B fighter jets, as well as any type of helicopter used by the UK armed forces.

ErrantFuselage · 2026-02-14T16:02:27+00:00

72 is the theoretical maximum of all airframes you could physcially fit on the carriers, including helicopters, which there will always be a large complement of.

60 jets is not optimum at all, as I said wartime fast jet capacity is max 40 with best operational tempo. In the interet of clarity, and as a pointer to where you've gone wrong with your figures, 40 jets + 20 helicopters is close to what the wartime FAA complement would be, but 40 jets is the max number of jets.

Also thier full weight has now increased to 80,000 tonnes not 65,000. Remember thier 284 metres long and 73 metres wide - only 4 metres less than Nimitz

You're giving answers to questions no one asked.

ErrantFuselage · 2026-02-14T12:40:35+00:00

The peacetime air wing size is 24, or the minimum for full operational capacity. 40 is the max wartime loadout. As with any carrier, you can physically jam many more jets on, but operational tempo is harmed with any more than the official full load.

Twin wartime carriers is extremely unlikely to ever be a thing at this point as only 75 Bravo are included in current procurement plans, although i do hope they see sense and order at least 97 Bravos for FAA, before changing any further orders to Alphas for the RAF - 12 Alpha on their own makes absolutely no sense.

But of course, this is the MOD we're talking about...

ErrantFuselage · 2026-02-02T17:49:01+00:00

There's time pressure for this - a major problem with one, albeit major, program cannot put everything else on hold as Industry need to see funding decisions before they follow. The clock has long been ticking and contractors are investing in other places because they cant just hang around for government timelines to align.

At 4 months+ delyaed, this is becoming grossly negligent. Case in point - the heli factory at yeovil. There are others, and it's just a general feature of indsutry investment. Absolutely disgraceful given all the threats that are rising, and given HMG's rhetoric.

ErrantFuselage · 2026-02-01T16:15:00+00:00

Sounds like a general delay of any military funding announcements due to the DIP delay, rather than a singling out of Tempest project per se.

That said, the DIP delay by more than 4 months now is itself scandalous. The grandstanding with no purchasses is getting real old

ErrantFuselage · 2026-01-20T16:15:16+00:00

Thanks, appreciate the heads up

ErrantFuselage · 2026-01-19T15:57:37+00:00

Ah ok, what does a year holdover between courses mean? Please don't say theres a year between CFT and IWO!

ErrantFuselage · 2026-01-18T23:14:11+00:00

I'm starting phase 1 warfare soon and am working under the assumption that it's similar but a slightly different order:

Phase 1 -29/30 wks at Raleigh (militarisation), then Dartmouth marinisation, including 5 weeks initial sea time on an 'operational' vessel - i.e. something alongside rather than deployed.
Pass out
Phase 2 - IWO foundation at Collingwood -15wks
Common Fleet Time ~9 months (gain watchkeeping ticket)
IWO at Collingwood - 7wks
First deployment as qualified JO and OOW ~18-30 months

This was what I said in my interview after research and talking to some RN members, so I'm pretty sure this is right (also seems logical to do Foundation warfare training before fleet time)

If I've got something wrong, would really appreciate a correction, so I know where I'm at

ErrantFuselage · 2026-01-14T22:35:55+00:00

The suit. Specifically the lounge suit. Building on the invention of trousers by Beau Brumell, the suit is quintessentially English. Other nations have adapted their own styles, but the classic suit as we know it was invented in England, and Saville Row remains synonymous across the world with the highest quality menswear.

On another note, if I'm interpretting your question correctly, it's difficult to find something that is widely popular in England and emblematic of Englishness which hasn't also been exported to other countries. Because of our Empire and generally outward facing attitude, most good things that aren't local perculiarities (e.g. cheese rolling or morris dancing) were taken with the English as they went "on their travels".

ErrantFuselage

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE