Debate on Monday 26th in HoC about 'State of Royal Navy'
- Thread starter delpower
- Start date
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]
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)!
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)!
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.
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.
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.
They're already cutting the steal for no 6 already. T45 doesn't have a CEC, I know this because i've chatted to the Adm who wrote the statement of user requirement.
Bear in mind this. The olympic project is heading for a £6 billion overspend. Ken Livingstone is saying Lonfon council tax payers aren't going to foot the bill, Ruth Kelly is saying that other departments should be paying for the overspend.
Work it out, what costs £3.4b??
Bear in mind this. The olympic project is heading for a £6 billion overspend. Ken Livingstone is saying Lonfon council tax payers aren't going to foot the bill, Ruth Kelly is saying that other departments should be paying for the overspend.
Work it out, what costs £3.4b??
No doubt the bit about "the best shipbuilding programme in almost 20 years" will be trotted out from the government benched. As I have pointed out in other threads, much of that capability was ordered under the Tories and the main Labour ordered items are the 6 RoRos and the 4 LSDAs. The question that really needs to be asked is what will be delivered over the next 10 years - that is where the deferral of FSC really shows up.
If you wish to follow proceedings after they have arisen but before they are printed in the Commons Hansard and issued at 0800 tomorrow morning, you can access the information via this link. Select the link Read Today in The Chamber.
There are currently NO data as the House only sits today from 1430 onwards. The Debate will not begin until AFTER 1530 at the ealiest, see Summary Agenda below.
There are currently NO data as the House only sits today from 1430 onwards. The Debate will not begin until AFTER 1530 at the ealiest, see Summary Agenda below.
If any London based RR'ers are interested in attending the Debate the details about how to go about it are here.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/visiting/debates.cfm
PM me if you are interested, before 1630. I intend to go over to listen to it after 1700. If more than 4 contact me, then you'll have to queue with the public!
Steve.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/visiting/debates.cfm
PM me if you are interested, before 1630. I intend to go over to listen to it after 1700. If more than 4 contact me, then you'll have to queue with the public!
Steve.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Armed Forces Pensions Debate: 31 Jan 2007 | Current Affairs | 1 | |
| N | Armed Forces Debate 2006 | Current Affairs | 11 | |
|
The Energy Debate | Current Affairs | 27 |
Similar threads
Latest Threads
-
-
Speech: Liberia: Important lessons for today's peacekeeping agenda- Started by MoD_RSS
- Replies: 0
-
News story: Europe’s largest military exercise gets under way in UK
- Started by MoD_RSS
- Replies: 0
-
-
