Closing of Naval Bases What are the advantages?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by slim, Nov 26, 2006.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. It is fairly obvious that one or more naval bases is due to close in the foreseeable future. At present most of the comments are on the negative side, however there must be just as many good points for having fewer naval bases. I'll start with stability for families. It would be a good thing for the married sailor (or even single) to be able to put down roots in the same area for the duration of their service careers.
    I reckon there are probably more reasons for closure than against. When Chatham closed there was a great outcry but there are not many serving in the RN today that served there.
    Over to you, lets have positive comments only please as there are plenty of negative ones elsewhere
     
  2. I might be wrong, but i can't agree for one simple point. Housing stock; the powers that be will have to take this into consideration when dealing with the possibilities of closure. Whether it is P or P both areas are at saturation when it comes to housing, so where would you put accompaning families? Let alone single draftees. Shortly they are going to commence dredging outside Pompey harbour to permit access for the new big carrier, so how does Guzz stand against that one? As usual they will stick their heads in the sand and hope the problem will go away. Or!!!! they can sack everyone in one port and they won't have a problem!!!.
     
  3. The advantage would be a net reduction in running costs by reducing a set of overhead charges. It also provides the chance to sell off some more of the family silver for a one off injection of money. It will be argued that the Appropriations in Aid from the sale of prime building land in Pompey will fund some of the MoD's funding shortfall. Now you might think that may help new Naval equipment but you would be wrong. The money will go into a central "bucket" and not the Naval one. It will probably go as an offset to the all draining land wars we have been placed in.

    Negative aspects were never asked for; but you all know them anyway.
     
  4. The size of the Navy at the moment do we really need more than one base!!

    And from the amount of home time the ships are getting then the families would be aswell to live in their home areas.
     
  5. greenie;
    never heard of divide and rule,that's how it started!!!!
    never let the left know what the right is doing that's how they continue!!!
    The idea of separate bases was that if one was taken out we could still operate from the others, now if we only have one we play straight into the hands of the enemy. They take that out and hey presto no need for anybody to worry. There'll be nothing left to worry about. It's not countries we should worry about anymore, one crazied looney could do the job just as well as an aircraft or an underwasser seabooten. You are looking at the families as if they matter, they don't. The country is the only concern to politicians and orificers above a certain rank.
     
  6. Haven't you heard? The Carriers would be based at Portland... it's perfect! Of course in time we would have to invest in a shoreside aviation support facility and well, you can guess the rest!

    I reckon Guzz, may just have the edge. :lol:
     
  7. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Yeah, apparently the subs are going back to that underground base that was built inside Portland... :shock: :wink:
     

Share This Page