Her Majesty's Navy

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by forth60, Dec 2, 2007.

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. witsend

    witsend War Hero Book Reviewer

    yip,,,,,but i now dont give a sh*t with only a few years to go. Had a div meeting the other day where i was informed that due to manpower shortages (cat A&B) i was prob going to be shafted (mta & location).

    PS ,,,,RILOR gone,,,,whats GHY ,,,,lmao
  2. As mentionedin the article and often said by the heiarchy,

    The new ships (when we ever get one fully working that is) are far more capable than those they replace.

    A point I cannot dis-agree with, However one new ship replaces 4-6 old ones.

    Not hard to work out the maths.

    How on earth do we keep the same commitments we have now.

    We cannot

    Non stop deployments and even more personel will leave.
  3. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    Sadly nothing new, but satisfying to see government get another well-deserved poke in the eye.

    When all is said & done, trying to fight two wars overseas simultaneously, regardless of the supposed moral & legal illegitimacy of them, will inevitably be very costly on many levels. What dwindling source of money (in real terms ) is left is insufficient to maintain an operationally capable fleet.

    Sadly we will have to start losing battles and endure the horrors that entails before any halfwit politician recognises how vulnerable we now are. We nearly lost the Falklands conflict. Had the Argentinians had the presence of mind to fuse their bombs correctly we would have lost 25% of the surface fleet on day one of the landings.

    Will they ever learn?
  4. Good job they did as one came through the roof of the field hospital at Goose Green and bounced in the OT
  5. The reduction from 54 to 29 frigates and destroyers over the past 20 years is bad enough but worse is yet to come. The current Government has grudgingly ordered six destroyers and no frigates during its entire tenure. As things stand, these six Type 45s (instead of the 12 mandated by the 1998 Strategic Defence Review) will enter service by 2017 by which time the Royal Navy will have lost all eight of its remaining Type 42 air defence destroyers. Any of the four remaining Type 22 frigates still in service will be at least 29 years old and any of the 13 remaining Type 23 frigates will be at least 16 years old.

    The ordering of new warships in such penny packet numbers not only risks our future as a maritime nation (how else do you deliver, protect and sustain 'boots on the ground' without host nation support?) but also results in much higher unit costs for design, build, development, spares, through-life maintenance, appropriately skilled manning and specialist system training. Owing to routine maintenance, training and other commitments, it takes three ships to guarantee the availability of one to meet any sudden operational requirement. Modern warships may be highly capable but they can only be in one place at a time. This paucity of numbers will also lead to a risk-averse mentality as each one will be too precious to consider losing. The two long-promised aircraft carriers, now nine years without an order in sight, will also be too vulnerable to risk in hazardous environments if they lack sufficient escorts to protect them from the full range of threats.

    Few people in 1929 (only 11 years after "The War to End All Wars") imagined that the world was only 10 years from being enveloped in another large scale conflict so it is the height of arrogance to discount such a possiblity. The present focus is on the mainly land battles in Iraq and Afghanistan but you do not cancel your fire insurance after suffering a spate of burglaries. Like fire insurance, warships and their trained personnel cannot be plucked out of thin air after a catastrophe has occurred. We must resume paying our full premiums now.
  6. All this penny pinching shoots itself in the foot in the end.
    Witness a very large airline that has cut crew numbers to the bare minimum now needing to cancel flights; some highly profitable ones as well.
  7. Radary types onboard have mentioned that only two of the T45's will actually have the Samson radar fitted! Whats the point of having them without it?
  8. Let's hope that no one in the military in Buenos Aires is reading the Telegraph today, we don't want them getting any ideas now do we.
  9. Maybe we do. Maybe it would be the wake up call the country needs.
  10. The people of Buenos Aires will read the Telegraph, this website and probably everything else inbetween.And be well aware of our obvious limitations. I believe Argentina has recently ordered ex-IAF F16s in significant numbers-now that oil is $100 a barrel and the FI area has potential oil and gas reserves....... But Im deviating - this mornings paper made grim reading. Cant help but worry we may be heading for a nasty wake up call, so many potential trouble spots on this surly old earth.
  11. I doubt that this Government would have the spine to send a fleet down south to retake the islands should Argentina ever decide to take them by force again. If they did, it would be a vastly smaller fleet than in 82.
  12. Well of course! Haven't got the ships to send the same numbers down South!

    I don't think Labour likes the Falklands Islands anyways, one of the few remaining outposts of Empire!
  13. Yet more doom and gloom.

    Scandalous stuff but will your average bloke on the street cast his vote on the back of the Govt funding of the RN, alas no :(

    I hope things will change but im not hopeful.
  14. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    NuLabour is probably hoping that the new common EU Foreign Policy will give the Falklands away and that will solve that (RC countries will push that through). Sod the islanders, of course.
  16. But we would not need such a large fleet, what with all these new ships which can do several times more than the old ships which they replaced. And as for the new Harrier, why all we need is one squadron. Sorted.
  17. Fair enough the new ships are supposely capable of doing far more than the current ships in the fleet. But can the small fleet cover all the areas of interest at the same time?

    I personally don't think they could. I personally don't think the man power is there to cover them all either.

    But this is my opinion based on what I've seen or heard doesn't not mean it's correct. Just my opinion
  18. Ironically, the reason we managed to get the Yanks on side in '82 was that the Falklands were deemed by the (then) EEC to be part of Europe by virtue of being UK Territory, and therefore part of NATO. And as we know, any attack on a NATO country means that another NATO country can come to its aid - hence the 9L Sidewinders were taken out of NATO warstock for use by the FAA and RAF.

    It'd be funny if the same organization suddenly turned around and said that the Falklands were now part of South America. And NuLab would do fcuk all about it, I reckon....

  19. And that means all the 22's will be at least 4 years beyond their expected life and all the 23's will be at least 1 year beyond theirs…

    The Geriatric Royal Navy.

Share This Page