Mirror: "Britain Needs A Bigger Navy And Fast, To Combat Russian Threat"

Discussion in 'MoD News' started by soleil, Apr 10, 2014.

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:

    • Like Like x 1
  1. Good luck with that, they can't even retain the navy we have.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. It's ok, neither can Russia.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. No they just steal Ukraine's.

    Sent from my iPhone, cos the wife is using MY iPad :(
    • Like Like x 1
  4. It's a double bluff Flags. You tell your enemy you can't detect him and he thinks he has the upper hand. While in reality you know exactly what he's up to and when the time is right the needed action can be taken. A bit like blind man's buff with a hole on the blindfold.
    • Like Like x 4

  5. I take it you've never been in the trail of an Oscar or a Mike then................

    No names, no pack drill, but we once had a very uneventful patrol. Until all the data was anaysed on our return. When it was discovered thet we had discovered a new design. Without even having a scooby that it was out there.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. So you don't think we need to strengthen our armed forces?
  7. Thanks for that FH............... maybe I've been watching too many repeats of Red October..............'Let them shing'
  8. Would this be the same Tom Watson who has a history of pushing several anti-military agendas?

    Last edited: Apr 10, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Levers_Aligned

    Levers_Aligned War Hero Moderator

    It's a noble thought.

    But 'do-able'? When we are building two ****-offty massive carriers, have just finished building six pretty modern anti-air destroyers and are planning new frigates and the 'deterrent'?

    Sure, we could afford a Top Trumps Navy. If we got rid of the bombers. Do we need that?

  10. Fair point. Tactically and militarily fieldable, no. Politically and strategically, yes. The "big stick" needs to be seperate from the Naval or even the core Defence Budget. The money is there for in service support but will need to be balanced against the Capital expense of the replacement. Balance will not happen and the Navy will be screwed for the shortfall. Bless his heart but 1SL needs to say "don't put it on my Line, I don't need it". His predecessors have already mortgaged (OK, sacrificed) the DD/FF force for the QEs.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2014
    • Like Like x 2
  11. But we are getting a "bigger" Navy in the shape of two bloody useless air craft carriers!! We, UK, are no longer a roaring lion projecting power all over the globe, we are a small island nation, luckily separated from Europe by the channel. How many small, fast patrol vessels could have been built for the cost of one carrier? The sum spent on the other White elephant could have provided some good frigate/ destroyers.
  12. The pollies probably think that we don't need a bigger navy because our friends across the pond have one in size large. They'll come and help if we get in the shit. Might be 2 or 3 years late though!
  13. The problem we have in the RN is that we are too damn good at adapting improvising and overcoming. We always make do and get on with the jobs at hand. This means the actual problems never really get solved.

    As media reads these forums I won't go in detail about it. The state of the RN isn't good as those in service know. To quote one officer high up the chain when he spoke to us. "The RN is ****ed"
  14. Why would we need a few billion pounds worth of fast patrol vessels?
    • Like Like x 1
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page