Leccy prices.

I recall an old guy promising to circumcise a mouthy apprentice with a wild rose. Who needs turbine blades?

Nasty ...

How many environmentalists would it take to pull the rope around the turbine blades sufficiently to produce 1kW of energy?

No you paid more because you couldn't be bothered to shop around. I doubt very much that you took the moral high ground to stay with companies charging more for the same product. Or was it misplaced loyalty to a company that would look after you?

You seem to believe that people who went to the smaller companies didn't see any prices rises or paid any of the green taxation.

How much of that green taxation was wasted giving out free light bulbs and heavily subsidising loft insulation to those who could afford it most.

What about the higher prices we paid (and are still paying) for subsidising the rich with solar FITs payments and the similar happening now with ASHPs?

The shortfall from the minows must have been lost in masses the big companies passed over in green taxes.

Yes, some of the smaller players were very late in passing over fees and taxes to Ofgem and but after certain sanctions and penalties were applied most of the money was passed across over the many years before they went bust. And, yes a few companies didn't pay the latest instalment as they went under.

Yeah, it will be interesting to watch how that pans out.

Sure, but that is a separate issue to stopping communication with it before it strikes its target so it can't do that effectively with a moving target.

The difference is that the plane doesn't need any communications at all to strike its target because the pilot is on the spot.

But it may well be very effective, particularly with stealth aircraft.

The most obvious point is that the pilot can continue to do what is necessary when there is no communications possible.

Not just third world opponents, they clearly were very important in WW2 and that hasn't changed.

Nope, more were closed by Callaghan.

Because North Sea gas had became available.

about 15

Isn't this the misguided thinking that delayed the building of aircraft carriers in the inter-war years. The battleship meet all our needs.

With cheap anti-ship missiles that can be fired from well over the horizon in a war with an equal opponent an aircraft carrier may not last that long.

It didn't take much to sink British, American and Japanese carriers in WW2.

Pub quiz type question. Which warship that survived the attack at Pearl Harbour was later sunk by a British submarine?

The key is to have stand off weaponry that can be fired from further away than your opponents.

And no fixed slow moving targets.

Belgrano.

Yes.

Or USS Phoenix, if you prefer.

What that reminded us all was how close we came to having to cave in due to the U boats, in WW2. We were lucky that the Kriegsmarine didn't get the faster underwater boats before WW2 ended. Also how important air cover was to suppressing the U-boats, and how poorly equipped Coastal Command was for long-range search planes in this regard - all while the RAF had the resouces to launch 1000-bomber raids.

Shhhh, calm down Mr Turnip. Just swallow these pills and slip into this cute little strait jacket. Now step into the padded cell and before you know it you'll feel much better.

I see you're living up to your name. Well done.

No one is saying that the aircraft carrier meets all the west's needs.

In fact most of the west doesnt even have any aircraft carriers.

That hasn't turned out to be the case in any conflict since anti ship missiles became available.

It was in fact other aircraft carriers that did that.

Clearly carriers do have their uses, it's far from clear that the Falklands would have worked without one. But that sort of conflict is very unusual.

And the main user of carriers, the USA, does find them handy at times.

Sure, they are completely vulnerable to nukes and someone like russia may well be prepared to use a nuke on a carrier battle group if the s*it has hit the fan. China too.

But they are very effective at rubbing China's nose in the fact that they don't get any say on who can transit the south china sea or the straights of Taiwan and would be very useful if china was actually stupid enough to try an amphibious attack on Taiwan. And the US can clearly afford the immense cost of their carrier battle groups. No one else can.

It is very far from clear how useful china's carrier battle groups would be to it, let alone fools like India etc.

USS Pheonix / General Belgrano - I did have to look up its American name.