Shrinking RN

Not_a_boffin

War Hero
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.
 

hammockhead

Lantern Swinger
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.
 

Lurch

Badgeman
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.
 
hammockhead said:
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.


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
 

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
Greenie said:
hammockhead said:
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.


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

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
 

DingDong

Lantern Swinger
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
 
Top