Adm West and Lewis Page on Today 23/1/07
- Thread starter stumpy
- Start date
Some parts of it was frustrating, but it was good to see the new carriers getting the attention they deserve by the media. I would have preferred to see the Admiral spelling out clearly that they will not just be RN ships but explaining how valuable they will be for the Army and RAF as well. The problem is that the public do need this explaining in very simple terms!!
It made me late for work (note; must mend car aerial)! Stumpy is right; the more public airing the matter gets, the better. It's a pity that Adml West wasn't able to expand on the future none Tribal threats. I think that would have successfully put that nobber Page on the back foot. Former Lt Page's supercilious tone really winds me up. Perhaps a good reminder that I was never cut out for Flag rank!
You can download the RAM file via the link below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_navy_20070123.ram
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_navy_20070123.ram
P-O-L
Having just listened to the interview and with no knowledge of either parties I found the Admiral very defensive and filled up a large part of the interview with Politicians speak to avoid the question "are Type 45's good value".
From what I have read and seen the Type 45 seems a very specialized Air Defence platform based on an assumption that we will have to protect a large Aircraft Carrier which in the current climate is unlikely to ever be built. The Type 45 is not relay a fit weapon platform for the type of deployments currently being undertaken nor does it have the ability to adapt.
At my most cynical I would say the Admiralty wanted Type 45 for the same reasons we got lumbered with the County Class back in the 60's. They wanted big pretty ships to show we were still in business as a Navy using the basis of Carrier protection to get them, it also helped their ego's. The Defence Industry, aka the City, loved it, (more profit in a Rolls Royce than a Mini.
My opinion Lt.Page 1 Admiral didn't
Nutty
Having just listened to the interview and with no knowledge of either parties I found the Admiral very defensive and filled up a large part of the interview with Politicians speak to avoid the question "are Type 45's good value".
From what I have read and seen the Type 45 seems a very specialized Air Defence platform based on an assumption that we will have to protect a large Aircraft Carrier which in the current climate is unlikely to ever be built. The Type 45 is not relay a fit weapon platform for the type of deployments currently being undertaken nor does it have the ability to adapt.
At my most cynical I would say the Admiralty wanted Type 45 for the same reasons we got lumbered with the County Class back in the 60's. They wanted big pretty ships to show we were still in business as a Navy using the basis of Carrier protection to get them, it also helped their ego's. The Defence Industry, aka the City, loved it, (more profit in a Rolls Royce than a Mini.
My opinion Lt.Page 1 Admiral didn't
Nutty
Nutty, I would say the T45 is going back to a generation of warships prior to the cost cutting of the 1970s which are of a size which do allow flexibility and adaptation. these ships are huge, much, much bigger than the T42s they replace. I think they will be great ships (I have heard many good reports about Sampson) and will serve the RN proud over the next 30 years or so.
We should have had 12 though.
We should have had 12 though.
The size of the T45 is only semi-relevant. It is as big as it is for two main reasons, (three if you count the FC role). We have bought a missile system capable of defending a task group (not just CVF) against the most advanced anti-ship missile threats available. That missile requires a big radar at a certain height, which leads to a certain beam / draft combination. The standard of accommodation for the number of people needed to operate that system (and a margin for EMF, LEDETs etc) drives the volume (and hence the length and depth) of the ship. There is also a margin for through-life growth (probably a good thing given recent experience), which again pushes up the size.
Have a look at what the Chinese are selling or indeed what some of the Russian design bureaus have on the open market. If the RN wishes to operate in areas where these threats might be deployed then it needs to be able to defend itself against them - irrespective of whether that's what the fleet is doing today.
If you base the argument on what the fleet has done in the last few years (as that clown Page does) then it's OPV / corvettes all round folks and hang the consequences. Isn't it about 25 years since the last time we nearly came a cropper by designing a fleet around a perceived primary mission and then something completely different came along?
I'm no fan of the detail of the design. It's ugly as sin, the ME fit will be a disaster and some of the design aspects will cause much harsh language from the Buffer. BUT it's not the size of the design that's driving the cost - it's the combat system development costs amortised over a shrinking number of ships.
We could have done better, but we could have done a LOT worse. Oh and we do need more than 6!
Have a look at what the Chinese are selling or indeed what some of the Russian design bureaus have on the open market. If the RN wishes to operate in areas where these threats might be deployed then it needs to be able to defend itself against them - irrespective of whether that's what the fleet is doing today.
If you base the argument on what the fleet has done in the last few years (as that clown Page does) then it's OPV / corvettes all round folks and hang the consequences. Isn't it about 25 years since the last time we nearly came a cropper by designing a fleet around a perceived primary mission and then something completely different came along?
I'm no fan of the detail of the design. It's ugly as sin, the ME fit will be a disaster and some of the design aspects will cause much harsh language from the Buffer. BUT it's not the size of the design that's driving the cost - it's the combat system development costs amortised over a shrinking number of ships.
We could have done better, but we could have done a LOT worse. Oh and we do need more than 6!
Adml West did, admittedly, hold the line. Maybe it was that old tightrope act of reality against morale in his old Service. We also know what a vindictive cnut Brown the Humourless can be.
I would be the amongst the first to acknowledge that tasking a Cruiser sized T45 for "peacetime" patrols is akin to using a JCB 535 to plough the turnip patch. What's the alternative? as the ship needed for a big match is not going to spring from thin air. Even if the CVFs never happen, that calibre of mobile Missile Engagement Zone may well be essential to protect commercial shipping in the future. As the man said, we don't know what or where the threat will be in the next 20 or so years; although we could make some good guesses.
With regard to Page, I will admit that he at least makes people think about Defence. Unfortunately he oversimplifies the whole process of requirement setting and Procurement and makes capital of making diligent and well intentioned people look stupid. As in any large organisation, people do daft things from time to time and the aim is minimise those occasions. The Taxpayer likes the simple and sensational, though, and implying that the money is constantly being squandered is not helping the Services.
I would be the amongst the first to acknowledge that tasking a Cruiser sized T45 for "peacetime" patrols is akin to using a JCB 535 to plough the turnip patch. What's the alternative? as the ship needed for a big match is not going to spring from thin air. Even if the CVFs never happen, that calibre of mobile Missile Engagement Zone may well be essential to protect commercial shipping in the future. As the man said, we don't know what or where the threat will be in the next 20 or so years; although we could make some good guesses.
With regard to Page, I will admit that he at least makes people think about Defence. Unfortunately he oversimplifies the whole process of requirement setting and Procurement and makes capital of making diligent and well intentioned people look stupid. As in any large organisation, people do daft things from time to time and the aim is minimise those occasions. The Taxpayer likes the simple and sensational, though, and implying that the money is constantly being squandered is not helping the Services.
I think the GB public are being short changed by the BBC when they get a ''Defence Expert'' who has no understanding of how government budgeting works, and fails to appreciate that a Carrier without escorts would very quickly become an interesting dive site in a threat environment.
I think that Sarah Montague managed to demonstrate that there is value in informed Defence correspondents and it's unfortunate that she didn't press Page on any of his over-simplification.
In seven minutes Adm West managed to talk reasonably about a complex subject, but I say that from a position of understanding that subject in a way that the majority of listeners probably wouldn't.
What might be more telling is what he didn't say.
I think that Sarah Montague managed to demonstrate that there is value in informed Defence correspondents and it's unfortunate that she didn't press Page on any of his over-simplification.
In seven minutes Adm West managed to talk reasonably about a complex subject, but I say that from a position of understanding that subject in a way that the majority of listeners probably wouldn't.
What might be more telling is what he didn't say.
Karma
I really am beginning to suspect you are the PR Mouthpiece for the MOD on this Forum. Attack Page , allude to the fact that the new carriers are just about on the slips. Complain that Page was not pressed hard enough and accuse the BBC of allowing over simplification of the story. Then wind your post up by saying, Admiral West was a reasonable person who gave all the facts with no waffle but does it matter cos the public have no understanding of the subject or problem anyway.
Well the folk on this forum are the public, in case you have not noticed and we do have some inkling of the problems. Yet from you, not a single word on T45's or their possible future role, if any.
Distressed of Tunbridge Wells
Nutty
I really am beginning to suspect you are the PR Mouthpiece for the MOD on this Forum. Attack Page , allude to the fact that the new carriers are just about on the slips. Complain that Page was not pressed hard enough and accuse the BBC of allowing over simplification of the story. Then wind your post up by saying, Admiral West was a reasonable person who gave all the facts with no waffle but does it matter cos the public have no understanding of the subject or problem anyway.
Well the folk on this forum are the public, in case you have not noticed and we do have some inkling of the problems. Yet from you, not a single word on T45's or their possible future role, if any.
Distressed of Tunbridge Wells
Nutty
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
R4 Today Programme - Admiral Lord West On Burials At Sea | The Fleet | 1 | |
|
|
T'graph: "Admiral Lord West: 'The Big Lie Of The Defence Funding 'Black Hole'" | Current Affairs | 5 | |
|
|
Radio 4: The Museum Of Curiosity - Admiral Lord West | Current Affairs | 4 |
Similar threads
-
-
T'graph: "Admiral Lord West: 'The Big Lie Of The Defence Funding 'Black Hole'"
- Started by soleil
- Replies: 5
-
Latest Threads
-
-
-
-
-
News story: Britain’s top armed forces-friendly employers honoured
- Started by MoD_RSS
- Replies: 0
