BBC: "Royal Navy 'Insufficient' Ship Numbers, Says Peer"

BBC Democracy Live - Royal Navy 'insufficient' ship numbers, says peer

Lord West criticises the current number of ships in the Royal Navy, deeming the figure "insufficient".

 

Living proof that parrots don't answer questions?

 

its fine if the powers ta be want less ships and all that
when are they going to give the Navy less commitments to make to match it?


edit, having watched that vid, Lord Aster is away with the fairies

Type 26 to be in service by 2020 and plan to have 13 of them

in reality, first one in by 2025 with 8 hulls. Thank god my time in the RN will have been long done by 2025 and let other people work for this once great navy

 

Seems a bit strange that the Labour Flunky kept quiet while they (Labour) were wreaking havoc on the armed forces?

 

If it's Admiral West to whom you refer, like every other service chief, disagreements with SoS and the Government of the day are not usually conducted in the public eye or ear. And like it or not, above the operational level, the Government call the shots and those in uniform can like it. The last 1SL to resign on principle made not a ripple, but we've said all this before on these pages.

 

Admiral West?? He was just John when I knew him. His tinned Salmon hasn't gotten any better either....

On a more serious note, you could have had this conversation any time in the last 600 years and been hearing the same problems, purse strings, commitments, inability to meet, future capabilites, new ships late/not as advertised/for not with.....

 

Fair point but there is a law of deminishing returns. If your emaciation is progressing at the same rate as the opposition; great. Arithmetically, though, the percentage difference in capability is reduced. There is an implosion point; say, crush depth. You're big enough to have a go but not big enough to win. Unless, of course, you're a bit player in some other Nation's political ambitions. Treasury people and like minded economists argue that we are a military power because we are a rich (relatively, yes, still) and influential Nation. It never occurs to them that we might be a rich and influential Nation because we are a military power.

 

Apologies in advance, [RAMBLE MODE]

We were fab once. Twatted the Spanish, courtesy Frannie D. Lizzies dad Henry had the idea of ousting the bish and creating the Andrew, relating to your last point of militarism begetting riches. Saw the French off through alliances with the Dutch, Prussians, and even the Irish. The Germans? Well, some success in Mesopotamia and Syria notwithstanding, a bit of a draw first go, Jutland for one example, Ypres and the Somme bore witness to the futility of massed units. A test drive in Spain for Franco and wahey, modern mechanized warfare is born. Were it not for Turing we might not have had the supplies our generous friends kept sending, but even their deep pockets were months, even weeks from being empty by the end in the Pacific.

Some might say this influenced Imperial Japanese thinking when they went from some local invasions in Siberia, China and the islands, to poking the enemy with the big stick and oil, with its (the Japanese) arguably superior aircraft and tactics. Could have gone their way too but for some individual bravery from search aircraft crews and more codebreaking that did for the Kaga, Akagi, Soryu and Hiryu, and put them on the back foot for the next few years, ending with Little Boy and Fat Man paying a visit to end all visits.

With the rise of the BRIC countries, esp India and China, should we be worried that they acquire our old assets and try to copy our tech? If we could put aside our differences in Europe (ha!) we would be economically more powerful than the USA, and so might it follow we could afford a military to suit? But even the only superpower is finding the spending of 6% of GDP (depends who you ask/believe) unsustainable when healthcare is robbing 29% of your electorates hard earned. If only those cheeseburgers weren't so damn tasty...

[/RAMBLE MODE]
In short, Lord West is as right as ever. How he must have wished for some 'Tooms on CAP in his day, and now I bet he'd take a used Nimitz class and some Hornets, instead of the gaping hole we left ourselves with.

 

By way of contrast; RNAS Yeovilton works out to tender | Construction News | The Construction Index

Insufficient hulls in the water but still room for investment in the jam-tomorrow fairy tale.

 

No I as referring to the fact that he is now a Labour Peer, some earn places on boards of BAE and some earn peerages, guess it depends how you like your bread buttered, all a bit incestuous to me.
By the way condescending becomes you.

 

The official RN line is that we need 23 FF/DD to conduct the tasks assigned, and at some point we will fail with the 19 we have.

 

Not for the first time, the Lord West has advocated the need for 32; http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=royal%2Bnavy%2B26%2Bdd%2Fff%2Bminimum%2Bneeded&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&ved=0CFkQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uknda.org%2FFile%2FTHE%2520STATE%2520OF%2520THE%2520ARMED%2520FORCES%25202013.pdf&ei=PC3DUdGqOYqF4gTKwIDIBw&usg=AFQjCNFK4VLix3TeajZpbYUR13UW514v2Q

 

My bold

Other than Admiral West, can you name any 1SL ( who did not go on to become CDS) who was elevated to the peerage? I'm not saying it hasn't happened since Jackie Fisher, I just won't be able to anwer my own question without looking it up. You sound like you know. When enobled, former CDS become independent/cross bench peers.

No Admirals on BAE's current board. Have you any examples of any since Raymond Lygo, ( he wasn't magiced to the top)? Plenty of retired ME/WE SRs and WOs working for the company. That'll be why SR Messes extend such hospitality and access when BAE engineers visit. Not just professional courtesy. They know what side their bread is buttered.

 

The whole reason for my initial dig and follow up is that the OPs quote from the BBC has him as a Labour Peer and not a cross bencher. If he is indeed a cross bencher then I retract my statement, but if indeed he is a Labour Peer, which is what I keep seeing repeated through various searches I stick by my original comments.
As to personnel on the boards of defence contractors, don't see many ex senior rates, who also would not have been able to influence procurement quite as much as someone of flag rank?

 

Admiral Lord West is indeed a Labour peer, that is not in dispute. He didn't make CDS. The one Naval CDS in the Lords is not party political. I can't speak for his political inner thoughts but Admiral West was brought in by Gordon Brown to contribute to his so called 'Government of all the talents". To be in Government one needs to be an MP or a Peer. Guess which is easier to make so. Broon couldn't very well make him a Lib Dem peer. Admiral West was better equipped for his portfolio than many in the cabinet, elected or not.

Rab C wrote

Do you have evidence for any of that or are you just doing a Salmond?
I've seen procurement influenced by an ex Leading Wren ( as was) albeit at a local level and no, she wasn't doing favours.

 

Somewhat off topic I know but sorry to say with the upgrade of the A303/A358/M5 Yeovilton is an ideal site for a super size business park or container transfer rail depot, it wouldn't suprise me if it's not sold/leased off in the near future & all FAA/RM operations are transfered to Culdrose & Chivnor.

As a huge flat brownfield site it must be worth a bloody fortune.:neutral: