Shrinking RN

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by FlagWagger, Oct 16, 2006.

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. FlagWagger

    FlagWagger Book Reviewer

    Many of us have commented on the ever decreasing strength of the RN and its decreasing ability to maintain the current operational tempo. It looks like this is finally being recognised in the press with today's Telegraph reporting on senior officers' doubts over the RN contributing to a N Korea blockade.

    Once again, the lack of reality checks in Whitehall coupled with an overwhelming drive to reduce bottom line costs is returning to to bite us :(
     
  2. Bagsy NAMESIS Manager MTO Fukuoka please!
     
  3. NAMESIS is shit.

    But on the main subject, there are many people high up in the Mob who dream up great ideas to make things better.

    E.g. JPA, the Warfare branch and OMs, new uniforms, a fleet HQ in Portsmouth (at the cost of the main dockyard itself) and a new class of destroyer that is so over engineered that it has 50% less weapons that a similar ship of US design. Since when is fuel economy more important than being able to kick the **** out of the enemy??

    The ploticians seem hellbent on coloborating with the Europeans, which ultimately means that we get screwed.

    Once upon a time you could read Jane's FS and think that we had a decent, large Navy with lots of strength in depth. Now we look like every other European Navy with not much to show. Even the Spanish and Dutch have better ships that were in service way before anyone really believed that the RN was going to get T45.

    Makes me cringe - to add insult to injury Desmond Browne comes out to see us to say what a great job meanwhile fat boy Gordon is stripping us to the bone.
     
  4. Over recent months, I've read Mb upon Mb of people whinging about the money "wasted" on Cold War inspired weapons and platforms. Some well timed Oriental sabre rattling suddenly concentrates our minds on how big and scary the World is. Immediately, AA and ASW capability emerges as a required asset. Surprise sur-bloody-prise!

    The RN has been starved of resources to sustain the Army in its various current roles. Similar is probably true of the Nimrod force, that was originally tasked for maritime reconnaissance; not grubbing for snakes in the sandpit nor providing a land comms extension. We would now be hard pressed to field a credible contribution. Even though the N Korean Navy is principally a coastal defence force, they have sufficient SSKs to make their presence felt. At this stage, of course, we don't know what indirect threat there will be from China. How apt to say that we live in interesting times.

    Let's hope that the 1st Sea Lord is as frank and honest as the CGS has proved to be
     
  5. Thats a bit harsh, are you saying that a lot of what I have trained for during the last 2 years is worthless?

    I guess it depends what you use it for, but for us to seems to do the job.
     
  6. without going to far into the weeds, it tells us what we already know. That merchant ships generally ply the oceans between recognised ports - imagine that? But then add to the equation, sending this information off every 4 hours so that people back home can confirm that everything over 500gt does in fact travel between recognised ports (all of this is open source by the way) how exactly are we doing anything new??

    We know each other by the way
     
  7. Could you not say it in that tone, you know what the sad gits on here will make of it!

    PM me!
     
  8. mmmm wonder what my next deployment will be then???
     
  9. At least with a bargain basement flat top around we can get chaff steel away hahahaha good luck. i hear that factor 50,000 is quite good against a nuclear blast!!!!

    Just watch team america a couple of times, an imagine that kim jong il really is a dolly
     
  10. In the Sunday Telegraph: 15 Oct 06, p.B2 MoD and shipyards in profit share deal (I don't have a link to the electronic version, I'm afraid) they have a report discussing a new deal between the MOD and shipyards to reduce ship construction costs further. Essentially the MOD will encourage the shipbuilders to cut costs (cut corners?) and in so doing share the costs of the savings with the MOD. The significant paragraph reads...

    'It will be an incentivised contract whereby the lower the alliance can get the cost the more profit it will make...'

    Will they ever learn? But of course it isn't their kids who are going to be serving in these vessels in wartime! :evil:
     
  11. ooh look i've got a medal.

    FSL - Fleet Sabotage Limited. They could refit an airfix model
     
  12. FlagWagger

    FlagWagger Book Reviewer

    Has anyone seen the Petrobras Power-Point presentation? The one that shows their P36 oil-platform sinking off Brazil with the words of a Petrobas executive over-laid on the pictures trumpeting how they had cut costs and thrown off the proscriptive shackles of conventional engineering discipline? There's some detail (but no pictures) at Petrobas P36 Wiki
     
  13. The problem is less to do with the shipyards (although Big & Expensive Ships don't help themselves) and more to do with the prevailing mindset in MoD Centre and DPA.

    If you look at the overall Equipment Programme provision and more importantly the assumptions that go with it, they invariably assume a flat defence budget, decreasing build rate and increasing individual ship cost. Only one of these (ship cost) is certain to happen and even then perhaps not at the assumed rate if MoD (and industry) got their poo in one sock. We do not necessarily have to have a flat budget or a decreasing build rate - in fact we may actually need to increase both.

    Guess what, the Naval Base Review will be based on these same assumptions, despite the fact that the ships on order (and I'm not just talking about CVF) will be substantially bigger than those they replace. T45 is much longer than a T42B2, Astute is bigger than a T-boat, the LSD(A) are massively bigger than the LSL and you can bet that the MARS vessels will be bigger than the Rovers they replace. All this points towards needing more wharves / jetties for the future fleet and yet based on a bland statement on reductions in hull numbers which includes the tupperwares btw, we're charging headlong toward a permanent reduction in base (never mind refit) capability.

    These assumptions are actually a recipe for extinction. Ultimately, the logic behind them will result in anything being deemed "unaffordable" and either postponed or cancelled. What is required is a substantial injection in the medium term EP (say £10-12Bn pa for three or four years), plus a permanent increase in the STP to pay for increased wages / allowances to compensate for teh current Op-tempo.

    That fat scottish c*nt is currently hoovering in £500Bn per annum in tax revenues of which defence gets around 6% in total. A temporary 2% increase (probably even less) would solve virtually all the ills currently faced (including crabair and the pongoes). Compared to the money that has been thrown at the NHS, Education (actually LEAs rather than schools), quangoes left, right and centre and the vast blob of hopelessness that is the ODPM, it's about time the only government department that gets anywhere near its stated objectives gets something other than the sh1tty end of the stick.

    Rant off. Out.
     
  14. I have to say it's not the best bit of reporting by the Telegraph. We got rid of the Far East Fleet in 1971: N Korea is as far away from our area of operations as you can get.

    And they mentioned Malaysia as a country that might want to follow N Korea's lead. What a joke.
     
  15. DingDong, Without being rude, when's the last time you used NAMESIS - as it's meant to be used? I'm not even in NCAGS and I've got great results from it.
     

  16. I was there in the Far flung when we left and the Singapore base was passed over to the capable hands of the ANZAC forces-----so maybe the Aussies /New Zealanders will do a bit of off shore patrolling.
    Apart from that the Japanese have very good 'Defence' Force
     
  17. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    The Ozzies also have some nice D/E Boats, so they should be able to get up close and comfortable, if they are not there already
     
  18. Even if we wanted to delpoy to Korea, it would mean stripping someone from somewhere else. We're already 3 T23s down after getting rid of MARL, GRAF and NORF. Basically, if we want to deploy to Korea someone somewhere will pay.

    We'd probably loose another carrier
     

Share This Page