Debate on Monday 26th in HoC about 'State of Royal Navy'
- Thread starter delpower
- Start date
Always_a_Civvy
ADC
The precise Motion to be laid before the House is as follows:-
65 STATE OF THE ROYAL NAVY
Mr David Cameron
Dr Liam Fox
Mr Mark Harper
Mr Gerald Howarth
Dr Julian Lewis
Mr Patrick McLoughlin
That this House notes the assessment of the Government’s 1998 Strategic Defence Review that two Future Aircraft Carriers are needed in the post-Cold War world to provide a seaborne base from which British military power can be projected and that a destroyer and frigate fleet of more than 30 ships would be needed to maintain two concurrent medium-scale deployments; views with concern the view expressed by Admiral Sir Alan West, when First Sea Lord in 2004, that the reduction of the destroyer and frigate total from 35 to 25, instead of the 32 promised in the Strategic Defence Review, meant that the country was taking risk on risk; notes with dismay persistent suggestions that six more will be mothballed, leaving an effective destroyer and frigate force of only 19; demands urgent clarification from the Government about their proposal to close Portsmouth or Devonport naval bases and calls upon the Government to provide an assessment of the implications for the long-term strategic vulnerability of the remnants of the surface fleet; sympathises with Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the current First Sea Lord, that a failure to proceed with the Future Aircraft Carriers, which have still not been ordered though scheduled in 1998 for deployment by 2012 and 2015, would make his position untenable; and calls on the Government to clarify its intention on naval procurement in the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review.
source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmfbusi/70223c01.htm
[scroll down to No.65]
65 STATE OF THE ROYAL NAVY
Mr David Cameron
Dr Liam Fox
Mr Mark Harper
Mr Gerald Howarth
Dr Julian Lewis
Mr Patrick McLoughlin
That this House notes the assessment of the Government’s 1998 Strategic Defence Review that two Future Aircraft Carriers are needed in the post-Cold War world to provide a seaborne base from which British military power can be projected and that a destroyer and frigate fleet of more than 30 ships would be needed to maintain two concurrent medium-scale deployments; views with concern the view expressed by Admiral Sir Alan West, when First Sea Lord in 2004, that the reduction of the destroyer and frigate total from 35 to 25, instead of the 32 promised in the Strategic Defence Review, meant that the country was taking risk on risk; notes with dismay persistent suggestions that six more will be mothballed, leaving an effective destroyer and frigate force of only 19; demands urgent clarification from the Government about their proposal to close Portsmouth or Devonport naval bases and calls upon the Government to provide an assessment of the implications for the long-term strategic vulnerability of the remnants of the surface fleet; sympathises with Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the current First Sea Lord, that a failure to proceed with the Future Aircraft Carriers, which have still not been ordered though scheduled in 1998 for deployment by 2012 and 2015, would make his position untenable; and calls on the Government to clarify its intention on naval procurement in the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review.
source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmfbusi/70223c01.htm
[scroll down to No.65]
geoffrey
MIA
DingDong said:
The answer they'll give will be that with better hull availability, 9 T45s was assessed to be the same as 12 T42s, and with CEC, that number could be reduced to an "irreducible minimum" of 8 T45s.
But because this corrupt shower of celebrity-obsessed useless Blair cronies and their fantasies about the twin pillars of Gordon's overdraft and the wonderful "skoolsanhospitals" thing, they have to make further cuts, and as the RAF's last remaining capability is decent staffwork and promoting bright people to out-argue the Navy, we have to bear the brunt. God I despair.
I know who I'll be voting for, and it won't be the party of drunks and poo-eaters. Go Linus (IIRC)!
Just_A_Button_Pusher
Midshipman
No chance of getting 8 T45's… even no's 5 and 6 are problematic. BAE is talking to the Saudis about buying them if Bliars bunch cancel them.
kingoftwigs
War Hero
We will not get a sniff of what we are promised, as usual. As a force we have been forgotten, I hate to say it but we need to lose a ship to gain any recognition of what we do, the public no longer understands the role of the modern navy or our use to the country (sometimes I stuggle to see it!).
Navy Debate
STATE OF THE ROYAL NAVY
Mr David Cameron
Dr Liam Fox
Mr Mark Harper
Mr Gerald Howarth
Dr Julian Lewis
Mr Patrick McLoughlin
That this House notes the assessment of the Government’s 1998 Strategic Defence Review that two Future Aircraft Carriers are needed in the post-Cold War world to provide a seaborne base from which British military power can be projected and that a destroyer and frigate fleet of more than 30 ships would be needed to maintain two concurrent medium-scale deployments; views with concern the view expressed by Admiral Sir Alan West, when First Sea Lord in 2004, that the reduction of the destroyer and frigate total from 35 to 25, instead of the 32 promised in the Strategic Defence Review, meant that the country was taking risk on risk; notes with dismay persistent suggestions that six more will be mothballed, leaving an effective destroyer and frigate force of only 19; demands urgent clarification from the Government about their proposal to close Portsmouth or Devonport naval bases and calls upon the Government to provide an assessment of the implications for the long-term strategic vulnerability of the remnants of the surface fleet; sympathises with Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the current First Sea Lord, that a failure to proceed with the Future Aircraft Carriers, which have still not been ordered though scheduled in 1998 for deployment by 2012 and 2015, would make his position untenable; and calls on the Government to clarify its intention on naval procurement in the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review.
STATE OF THE ROYAL NAVY
Mr David Cameron
Dr Liam Fox
Mr Mark Harper
Mr Gerald Howarth
Dr Julian Lewis
Mr Patrick McLoughlin
That this House notes the assessment of the Government’s 1998 Strategic Defence Review that two Future Aircraft Carriers are needed in the post-Cold War world to provide a seaborne base from which British military power can be projected and that a destroyer and frigate fleet of more than 30 ships would be needed to maintain two concurrent medium-scale deployments; views with concern the view expressed by Admiral Sir Alan West, when First Sea Lord in 2004, that the reduction of the destroyer and frigate total from 35 to 25, instead of the 32 promised in the Strategic Defence Review, meant that the country was taking risk on risk; notes with dismay persistent suggestions that six more will be mothballed, leaving an effective destroyer and frigate force of only 19; demands urgent clarification from the Government about their proposal to close Portsmouth or Devonport naval bases and calls upon the Government to provide an assessment of the implications for the long-term strategic vulnerability of the remnants of the surface fleet; sympathises with Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the current First Sea Lord, that a failure to proceed with the Future Aircraft Carriers, which have still not been ordered though scheduled in 1998 for deployment by 2012 and 2015, would make his position untenable; and calls on the Government to clarify its intention on naval procurement in the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review.
charlieoppo
Badgeman
Re: Navy Debate
I can't recall any of the other parties stating what their defence policies may entail. (please feel free to correct me on this one). I suspect that they'll take a leaf out of Labour's book and continue cuts or at best retain the status quo and not commit to any major projects, i.e. Carriers.
But, at least it is coming up for debate and something positive may come out of it.
I can't recall any of the other parties stating what their defence policies may entail. (please feel free to correct me on this one). I suspect that they'll take a leaf out of Labour's book and continue cuts or at best retain the status quo and not commit to any major projects, i.e. Carriers.
But, at least it is coming up for debate and something positive may come out of it.
Jimmy_Green
War Hero
I think we can sum up the state of the Navy in one brief sentance. 'It's fcuked.'
During the forthcoming debate I expect nothing less from this bunch of slimy politicians than to avoid giving clear and concise answers, and to go out of their way to justify the continued reduction of investment in the RN.
Todays politicians are good at talking, that's why they're nothing but a bunch of mass debaters.
During the forthcoming debate I expect nothing less from this bunch of slimy politicians than to avoid giving clear and concise answers, and to go out of their way to justify the continued reduction of investment in the RN.
Todays politicians are good at talking, that's why they're nothing but a bunch of mass debaters.
Similar threads
Latest Threads
-
Australian Business Summit held in support of the Race To Zero- Started by MoD_RSS
- Replies: 0
-
-
It’s not too late to reverse biodiversity decline by 2030, UK’s five leading nature bodies say
- Started by MoD_RSS
- Replies: 0
-
-
Foreign Secretary to convene meeting of Foreign Ministers from the UN Security Council’s permanent five members
- Started by MoD_RSS
- Replies: 0
