Albion & Bulwark in the news

ratsroden

Lantern Swinger
#41
I think our discussion may have run it's course lol, Make sail for the gash barge!

@ratsroden : source?
Is it not this introspective attitude to Rum Ration that is causing its unpopularity?
It once was lively, outspoken and tolerant.
So long as the gentlemen that run it weren't subject to anything indictable with the Tipstaff awaiting them--Anything went.
Now talcum powder at Raleigh?
 
Last edited:
#42
Is it not this introspective attitude to Rum Ration that is causing its unpopularity?
It once was lively, outspoken and tolerant.
So long as the gentlemen that run it weren't subject to anything indictable with the Tipstaff awaiting them--Anything went.
Now talcum powder at Raleigh?
My bold.
No it is you posting irrelevant shit in a CA thread.
 

ratsroden

Lantern Swinger
#44
I am with Stirling, amusing stuff but we are on the 'serious bit'. No worries though, we had all meandered off topic, hence my gash comment.
Topics and forums (fora) for the pedants.
There are 44 Forums covering all topics. How many of them are used appropriately--precious few.
Serious topics can be covered humorously if done intelligently. The more turgid a topic the fewer viewers-- save for any esoteric minority lurking.
 

oakum

Midshipman
#46
Diminishing the ability for Royal to carry out what they excel at would be madness. No one knows for sure where the next threat will come from. All this is about funding the 2 white elephant flat tops which sadly will turn out to be the proverbial last straw for the Royal Navy, there is no good ending here; IMO.
 
#47
Perhaps @ratsroden has a point, I am still learning the ropes of what the right level is on each forum.

@Bandy_E I am sorry, can you clarify your meaning?

Damn @oakum , pretty damning view. A lot is being pumped into those QE class, they will have no choice but to get plenty of functionality out of them surely?
 

photface

Lantern Swinger
#48
Perhaps @ratsroden has a point, I am still learning the ropes of what the right level is on each forum.

@Bandy_E I am sorry, can you clarify your meaning?

Damn @oakum , pretty damning view. A lot is being pumped into those QE class, they will have no choice but to get plenty of functionality out of them surely?
Now that I have read more about the type 31 and 26 ships I have a deeper understanding of their vision for the future. Although we won't have any strictly amphibious ships per se, we will have the type 31s that will be more lightweight and easier to manoeuvre to transport Marines. As well as this, there will be Marines attached to the 31s permanently at notice to move.
I still believe it's a dodgy move getting rid of ships that are still perfectly fit for purpose but now feel there may be at least some contingency!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

wave_dodger

MIA
Book Reviewer
#52
Although we won't have any strictly amphibious ships per se, we will have the type 31s that will be more lightweight and easier to manoeuvre to transport Marines.
Read my initial post - this is just an 'option'. Moreover a lightweight 'easy to manoevre' vessel does not make her a suitable amphibious or commando platform. That's a massive stretch.

photface said:
well as this, there will be Marines attached to the 31s permanently at notice to move.
This I highly doubt. T31e isn't a command platform and whilst she could embark RM I've not heard of assigning any permanently to ships. That's just going to be retention -ve straightaway.
 
Last edited:
#53
Read my initial post - this is just an 'option'. Moreover a lightweight 'easy to manoevre' vessel does not make
These 'pods' they can fit into future ships , although not having the capacity/ capability of Albion/Bulwark is this the road MOD wish to travel ? , given that I would guess there would be quite a few buyers for A/B.
 

wave_dodger

MIA
Book Reviewer
#54
These 'pods' they can fit into future ships , although not having the capacity/ capability of Albion/Bulwark is this the road MOD wish to travel ? , given that I would guess there would be quite a few buyers for A/B.
What 'pods', you mean the space we've left but haven't defined or funded what will fit in that funky space!
 
#55
Now that I have read more about the type 31 and 26 ships I have a deeper understanding of their vision for the future. Although we won't have any strictly amphibious ships per se, we will have the type 31s that will be more lightweight and easier to manoeuvre to transport Marines. As well as this, there will be Marines attached to the 31s permanently at notice to move.
I still believe it's a dodgy move getting rid of ships that are still perfectly fit for purpose but now feel there may be at least some contingency!
I am far from an expert, but I am with @wave_dodger on this.
A frigate may well carry a handful of RM, but to enable any meaningful task the lift in terms of vehicles and, potentially, amour can only be performed by an LPD. Look at the first photos from the hurricane op. Mexifloats bringing plant ashore. You can't do that with an escort. I accept that was RFA but it is indicative of what is needed.
Cutting our AW capability makes a vast impact on us as a navy, and, perhaps as a diplomatic power.
 

photface

Lantern Swinger
#56
That's fair enough, and only one other side of what is being said. It is far from ideal to lose the most ideal platform for amphibious ops but I guess there are also a few more less than ideal options being juggled to justify the decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

oakum

Midshipman
#57
I don't believe for one minute that this decision can be dressed up to look better than the unmitigated disaster that it is. I reckon but I hope I am wrong, that the introduction of the carriers and the effort to generate capability will prove to be the metaphorical last straw, exposing the systemic shortcomings of naval management and will turn out to be an embarrassing public failure.
 

Latest Threads

Top