Financial Times: "Royal Navy: Debate Centres on Carriers"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by soleil, Feb 3, 2010.

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. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    Re: Financial Times: "Royal Navy: Debate Centres on Carriers

    How disappointing, the FT thread title implies there are going to be designated centres onboard to conduct debates.

    I thought is was a new title for a messdeck, following-on from the penchant to call things by different & confusing titles.

    (Well done FT in making the item unreadable/vanish after the annoying pop-up is closed.)
     
  2. Re: Financial Times: "Royal Navy: Debate Centres on Carriers

     
  3. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    It will not be recalled, because it is inconvenient, that between the Gulf Wars during one of the Saddam upsets it was intended to send Tornados to the Gulf .... but this could not be done because of problems over over-flying rights. So, surprise surprise, we sent a carrier instead.
     
  4. Re: Financial Times: "Royal Navy: Debate Centres on Carriers

    The British do not have the economic muscle to continue with the carrier builds. Cyclops has tried some political posturing by saying that they will be built, but this is purely to put the next government on the spot and give NuLiebour a stick to beat Cameron with when he makes the inevitable announcement that the carriers will be cancelled.

    The EU won't mind this at all; it will prevent the UK setting unilateral foreign policy and that British seat on the UN Security Council will devolve to the EU in the near future.

    The dire economic situation that the Brits are in is bad - but it could be even worse. I can just picture Liang Guanglie the Chinese Minister of National Defence talking with Xie Xuren and explaining that it would be in China's interests that Britain has no expeditionary capability. A little squeeze here, a little shorting of sterling there and the British economy slips a little more. The 99% certainty of the carriers being cancelled becomes 100%.

    Far better to sink them on the drawing board than to have to face them at sea.

    RM
     
  5. Re: Financial Times: "Royal Navy: Debate Centres on Carriers

    Agreed, and the Scotsman is reporting that the announcement by Bob Jobsworth to "ringfence" the carriers is great news for the RN and Scottish jobs :? So all those North of the Border will have even more reason to hate the Tories when they are forced to announce the cancellation.
     
  6. Blackrat

    Blackrat War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Whatever battles we may be facing in the future, one thing is certain. Air support is crucial. It may not be practical to send in the SAS/SBS/SFSG/Pathfinders to secure an airfield for planes to be flown in to operate from there. A carrier is a different thing altogether. Armour & Infantry do a great job, but do an even better job knowing they can rely on fast air if things get a bit iffy. My opinion? We need carriers just as much as we need "Boots on the ground". It doesn't matter anyway as the Military will end up getting shafted as usual.
     
  7. Several defence commentators are likening the possible amalgamation of the three services into a unified structure as producing something like the USMC.

    This seems like a splendid idea to me and one that is long overdue. The Royal Navy becomes part of the Royal Marines and supplies sea transport and boaty things. The Army becomes part of the Royal Marines and supplies land transport, long range snipers, cooks, bottlewashers and all manner of things that Perce is good at. The RAF becomes part of the Royal Marines and supplies air transport, CAS and brylcreem supplies.

    The Royal Marines re-form all of our missing Commando Units and in turn supply the three new support arms with tradition, esprit de corps and very importantly - something to aspire to. Perce in particular will love this; the opportunity for them to become lean, bronzed gods, with chiselled good looks, supernaturally fit and utterly attractive to any female on the planet will be irresistable to the average Tom. Couple this to being taught how to wash and shower on a regular basis and the Army is in a deffo win-win situation.

    This might work out very well after all :lol:

    RM
     
  8. To be fair I've always thought the USMC is pretty much the full package.
     
  9. To be fair Royal Marines have bigger packages - it's part of the RM screening process. :thumbleft:
     
  10. :D as soon as I typed it, I knew......
     
  11. Re: Financial Times: "Royal Navy: Debate Centres on Carriers

    From what some doom-mongers are saying, anyone would think that the UK has become a third world country instead of the 5th or 6th (depending on source) richest economy on earth. We may only have around a fifth of the USA's GDP but, proportionally, this should see our Armed Forces three times the size they are. All that is being asked is that those we have are properly resourced.

    It might also help if the politicians stop ballooning project costs by constantly interfering in them for political ends and deferring/cutting them to meet short-term objectives.
     
  12. Blackrat

    Blackrat War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Say again all after "Several.." (Apart from the bit about the crabs. I'm with you on that one!)
     
  13. BR - Was it something I said? Tell me it isn't so :angel9:

    RM
     
  14. Re: Financial Times: "Royal Navy: Debate Centres on Carriers

    I have come to the conclusion that the Navy and RAF( especially the FAA) are more or less one force now anyway. I don't know where the Army Air Corps. comes in to this? Funnily enough I was thinking marine corps as well.
    The government needs all party talks to sort out just what sort of defence we need/want. If they still want to have an effective world presence then they need to project that power by giving the forces the equipment/vehicles/ships/manpower it needs. If they don't(or it is too expensive) then stop messing around and let's just have a UK defence force.
    I know it all comes down to cost but when you see the amounts spent on other things defence is way down the league but as usual it is an easy target for the politicians.
    For years I have thought that it is time we started buying off the peg. B.A.E. etc now own a lot of U.S. defence companies so surely it would make sense?? UK companies could then be used in support roles,servicing etc. and there must be lots of surplus that could be bought at a reasonable cost?
    I believe we were offered a Blackhawks package that the government turned down in favour of the Chinook mods! Then there is the SAAB Gripen(with Bae input already) and dare I mention Rafael??? We have bought plenty of U.S. stuff in the past but then spend a fortune modifying it to protect British jobs but it comes at great cost and delays. If you go out to buy a car you look around for the best deal and try a few until you get the one you want,you don't take it home then rip it apart and fit british stuff. I wish the government would sort out what they want and don't interfere once ordered!!!
    I remember the problems in Lebanon a few years ago when some people had to be evacuated and the papers/public at the time kept asking where the Navy was? The truth is we no longer have a world navy capable of being everywhere at short notice.Remember the various fleets we used to have eg Home,Mediterranean,Atlantic,Pacific,China etc. Probably any one of them was bigger than the whole fleet today!
    By the way does anyone know what the size of the ACTIVE fleet is? Not the theoretical stuff we are supposed to have at short readiness only vessels seaworthy or could be got ready in days?
    Phew didn't realise I had all these thoughts,no need for the psychiatrist now. Thanks rum ration :?
     
  15. Blackrat

    Blackrat War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    :shakefist: :thebirdman: :D
     

Share This Page