sweeney said:Comrades...
Am I missing something? Coz I've looked though the packs and it seems to me that the RN is not losing capability, just changing its terms of reference. I dunno. Maybe this isn't even a question.
Yes we are losing force projection capablity
But carriers for example. Is it such a big deal if they don't get built and we change to a navy better suited to where we are in the world?
Without carriers we are out of the 'real' Navy game and become just a glorified Coast Guard
.
The replacement for the Type 42 Destroyer will be the Type 45, the first of which is due to enter service with the Royal Navy in 2007. Equipped with the world beating Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS), the prime role for the Type 45 destroyer will be Anti-Air Warfare. In concert with the Future Aircraft Carrier, the Type 45 will provide the backbone of the Royal Navy's air defences protecting UK national and allied/coalition forces against enemy aircraft and missiles. The Type 45 will be capable of conducting world wide expeditionary operations ranging from humanitarian assistance, defence diplomacy in times of peace and tension, to war, in climates ranging from the tropics to Atlantic winters.
The ability to operate aircraft is expected to remain an essential component of most operations - be they deterrent, hostilities, peace-keeping or major humanitarian efforts. The ability to put combat aircraft, or support helicopters, into the air over international waters or inland during operations without support from a host nation is likely to be a key factor in our success. Thus the Royal Navy intends to replace its three aircraft carriers with two new, larger carriers.
sweeney said:Comrades...
open and honest question here from meself who works in the defence industry now (construction of stuff). I've recently been to a shed load of presentations on the future of naval ops sizing etc etc etc and have thought about it and looked through the slide packs bumpf etc etc etc (and read reviews developemnts etc etc form lots of other naval powers).
What I cannot seem to match up in my head (bearing in mind I am a bear of little brains) is the topics posted here about the RN going down the swannee, compared to the stuff I'm reading about real time activity etc etc etc.
Am I missing something? Coz I've looked though the packs and it seems to me that the RN is not losing capability, just changing its terms of reference. I dunno. Maybe this isn't even a question.
But carriers for example. Is it such a big deal if they don't get built and we change to a navy better suited to where we are in the world? Thats it... burble over. I'm not actually trying to be a c**t here (its a natural thing for me) but i'm honestly asking...
sweeney said:Thanks guys for the inputs. Still not overly convinced by the power projection / trade/ british overseas territories (Mexico invading the caymen islands?) argument, but there we are.
I don't see whats all that wrong in principle in an integrated coastal defence program with other NATO/EU members. After all they have as much interest/requirements in maritime trade as we do. But hey ho, I gues sit doesn't really matter that much.
sweeney said:BTW, Putin is a lovely man.
sweeney said:BTW, Putin is a lovely man.
Maxi_77 said:sweeney said:BTW, Putin is a lovely man.
Your taste in men would appear to be some what suspect, perhaps you should have a chat with AAC.