Blairs Legacy: A Coastal navy

#23
I was just reminiscing with dozybint about the good old days when sending a gunboat was the first measured response, not the only fecking gunboat we had!

The issue of size versus the commitments of the RN is a joke, so much so that out of sympathy I have stopped teasing my brother-in-law about it! It is just unbelievably sad that we are considering buying the CVF's when we cannot even protect them, let alone be sure that we have the right air component for it's own force. That of course is if the project can be successfully delivered. In my professional opinion it is going very badly wrong as we speak, with all sorts of idiocy being perpetrated.
 
#24
I agree with cuddles. It really has gone pear-shaped even at this early stage i.e. not a rivet made or a keel laid down. There will be tears before bed-time because of this, but it is the service that will suffer, not the politicoes or the brass in whitehall.

I've got an idea ! Why don't the CVRs get made in Gdansk ? Oh...sorry, all the Poles are over here.

Is that my pint ? Why thank - you.
 
#26
According to the Navy website we currently have eight Type 42 Destroyers, thirteen Type 23 Frigates and Four Type 22 Frigates. We will be gaining in the near future (certainly before the carriers are built) 8 Type 45 destroyers. Does this include the vessels currently mothballed? If so can someone come in with the numbers that are out of action at the moment

According to the Telegraphs 'sources' we will be losing all four Type 22s, two Type 42s and two Type 45s. If none of the above are mothballed then this means we CAN maintain the amount of ships we currently use to shield our Carriers.
 
#27
The newspapers have been suggesting though in the last couple of weeks that the Carrier contract is about to be finally announced. Indeed VT issued this snippet yesterday

"Design work continues to mature on the CVF (aircraft carrier) project and the Group is confident that a manufacturing contract will follow in the new financial year"

Better two CVF's with STOVL than none at all.
 
#28
Sven said:
According to the Navy website we currently have eight Type 42 Destroyers, thirteen Type 23 Frigates and Four Type 22 Frigates. We will be gaining in the near future (certainly before the carriers are built) 8 Type 45 destroyers. Does this include the vessels currently mothballed? If so can someone come in with the numbers that are out of action at the moment

According to the Telegraphs 'sources' we will be losing all four Type 22s, two Type 42s and two Type 45s. If none of the above are mothballed then this means we CAN maintain the amount of ships we currently use to shield our Carriers.
The type 42's are hopelessly out of date sven with the seadart missile system designed in the 60's.The type 23's have no long range missile system as the seawolf only has a limited range.
They should have brought the old Ticonderoga block 1's that the Yanks have now scrapped.I remember in the mid 90's a rumour that they'd offered to sell us those ships!
Regardless of the articles as well sven,I'll believe it with the carriers when i actually see them flying the white ensign with my own eyes!!.Theres still a long time yet for them to come into service.Remember the Upholder class submarines decommisioned by John Majors hopeless Govt when they were built and eventually sold to the Canadians!!
 
#29
Hmmmm.........

1. The new carriers will happen. They will provide all three UK armed forces with significant capabilities. The delays (according to the RN Presentation Team they will still enter service in 2012 and 2015 wibble wibble) are unfortunate.

2. There is a trade of between escorts and carrier aircraft. Without a carrier, proper defence in depth (against air and to a smaller extent surface and subsurface threats) is impossible. The importance of carrier aircraft and defence in depth was demonstrated in the South Atlantic in 1982.

3. Carrier related topics have been discussed at length on PPRuNe (particularly the Future Carrier thread). These issues include CTOL vs STOVL, main gate timings, MASC, escorts etc.

4. One of the first major SDR commitments to be dropped was the Sea Harrier - as discussed at GREAT length here.

5. Admiral Band has stated that and further cuts will prevent the RN from being able to do its job. His predecessor, Admiral West went further, telling the Common's Defence Select Commitee that we need about thirty frigates/destroyers (SDR said 32), not 25 that Hoon said. These cuts have increased the risks caused by the loss of the Sea Harrier etc.

6. Try clicking on my user name to see my previous RN related posts!!
 
#30
Yokel said:
Hmmmm.........

1. The new carriers will happen. They will provide all three UK armed forces with significant capabilities. The delays (according to the RN Presentation Team they will still enter service in 2012 and 2015 wibble wibble) are unfortunate.

2. There is a trade of between escorts and carrier aircraft. Without a carrier, proper defence in depth (against air and to a smaller extent surface and subsurface threats) is impossible. The importance of carrier aircraft and defence in depth was demonstrated in the South Atlantic in 1982.

3. Carrier related topics have been discussed at length on PPRuNe (particularly the Future Carrier thread). These issues include CTOL vs STOVL, main gate timings, MASC, escorts etc.

4. One of the first major SDR commitments to be dropped was the Sea Harrier - as discussed at GREAT length here.

5. Admiral Band has stated that and further cuts will prevent the RN from being able to do its job. His predecessor, Admiral West went further, telling the Common's Defence Select Commitee that we need about thirty frigates/destroyers (SDR said 32), not 25 that Hoon said. These cuts have increased the risks caused by the loss of the Sea Harrier etc.

6. Try clicking on my user name to see my previous RN related posts!!
SDR was just one of new labours first execises in spin and deception in 1997,( to make them look like they knew about defence issues),
there real agenda is now becoming apparent.

The simple reason is, it does far more for there simple consonance's to spend money on wasters, asylum seekers, key performance targets, offenders, and more spin, that it does on the brave service personnel who defend our rights and freedoms, which this government would love to curtail under the guise of anti-terrorist legislation.
 
#31
The ludicrous thing is that the delays to CVF may be a blessing in disguise, because the aircraft for them won't be operational over here in 2012, and probably not in 2015 either...

The cunning plan would see the first JCA/JSF unit form in 2013, more likely 2014 and given the possible US congress inspired delays to JSF, this could slip. The last Harriers would go out of service in 2019. There is, therefore, a risk that a service entry of 2012 and 2015 could leave us with two very large carriers that have to operate a declining number of Harrier GR9s (the Harrier's fatigue index will be a problem before too long) for several years.
 
#32
It almost literally makes me weep to witness the continuing degradation of the fleet. A sufficiently large and capable navy is the cornerstone of foreign policy. For example, look at the current Iranian abduction fiasco, this may be the small end of the scale, but our vessels were outgunned and outclassed, never mind the heavy hitters of the fleet, we don't even have sufficiently capable coastal patrol boats. The shame of our Royal Navy surrendering to a bunch of Persian pirates leaves me with a very bad taste in my mouth. Nelson must be turning cartwheels in his grave.
 
#34
I would not bank on any of the promises made by this labour government about building any new ships.
 
#35
Ah, but you're missing the point.... by the time the new carriers come into service the Navy will be so small that we'll all be able to live on them.. forever....and we won't need service housing or shore bases....and by that time the ice caps will have melted and we'll ALL be forced to live on ships...but we'll have ours first, oh yes we will, and we won't let you come on ours, oh no, cos you laughed at us... then we'll see whose laughing HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

nurse...nurse.....its happening again nurse......
 
#36
Outstanding said:
So, what's to be done then?
The first thing to be done is to start up an entirely new political party full of individuals who have a fcuking clue as to what they're on about, instead of a bunch of self-serving cnuts who've never had shyte under their finger nails - whether they be Tories, Labour or LibDems (all equally useless).

We can do two things:

Tread the World stage - in which case we'll need credible forces with the ability to power project. This will take money... lots of it. But no worry, as there's shitloads of it. It just needs the individuals with their fingers on the decision making button to be far more accountable for every single penny spent than they are now, when it seems that it can be spent on any fcuking initiative that gets dreamt up (£50m to the Congo's rain forest 'protection' for instance).

Or...

Disappear up our own arrse, tell the EU & NATO to poke, transform ourselves in to a little offshore equivalent of Switzerland, fcuk the spams off and sit and watch the rest of the World turn to ratshit with a smug grin on our faces.

I'm actually in favour of the latter. All monies would then go to cleaning up the nation and excavating vast pits for the mass burial of freeloading housing estate filth, pikeys and anyone else who doesn't toe the line.
 
#37
But back in the real world...

In the mid to late 70s, the UK used to give Iranian navy personnel the benefit of our basic training at HMS Ganges, Shotley Gate, near Ipswich. I seem to remember they spent an extended period there learning how to muck about in boats - much longer than the standard 6 weeks that UK trainees got.

Perhaps Blair's legacy will mean the tables will be turned and we can start packing our wet behind the ears youth off to Bandar Abbas for the Iranians to return the favour some day soon.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#38
commander-adama said:
Where does all the money go,the Govt is awash with taxpayers money.
You really don't get it ?

there's an election coming up - and , with respect to sweaty sock arrsers present, I mean a GENERAL election.....the monocular grasping Gordo - Ah, Jilted john where are you in our hour of need? - is hoping to curry favour with Joe Public and bamboozle a few tired votes by announcing a H-O-O-O-O-G-E and yes, completely fake TAX CUT.....which, for reasons of State, will be announced about a week before the next general election.

This is to be financed by the most savage cheese-paring across Defence that we've seen to date.

here's what my old boss had to say in the Other Place earlier this month:

Source:

Lord Boyce: My Lords, this is a scary time for our Armed Forces, and I am not talking about the threat posed by the Taliban, al-Qaeda or any others bent on doing our soldiers, sailors or airmen harm; I am talking about the threat that looms from the Treasury in the shape of the Comprehensive Spending Review.


15 Mar 2007 : Column 859

Unshakeable in its belief that the MoD cannot spend its money wisely or efficiently—although compared with the ineptitude of some other government departments in using their cash to best effect, the MoD is a positive paragon of financial efficiency—the Treasury is showing every sign of keeping the purse strings tightly drawn and not allowing the release of what is required to fund adequately this Government’s aspirations for, and real-time use of, a global expeditionary force.

It is no good the Minister claiming that the defence budget has had it good with year-on-year increases over the past few years without acknowledging that the Strategic Defence Review baseline was never properly resourced in the first place. The annual increases have never closed that gap, which has been exacerbated by the huge increase in defence activity over the same timeframe and a concomitant falling-away of the percentage of GDP spent on the Armed Forces, while defence equipment costs have outstripped inflation by a factor of six or seven.

I am afraid that, in the search for cash to give those departments that are perceived to be the ones that will catch more votes, it has been obvious that defence is all too easy to ignore. The Government still have a peacetime mentality as we engage in full-on war fighting. Our Armed Forces find themselves unable to afford what they need to run themselves properly today. The future prospects for the full equipment programme that they need also looks bleak. On the latter, I would be entirely content to hear the Minister tell me that I am wrong and that there will be room in the programme for such major projects as the future carrier and the Army’s future rapid effects system, both of which are vital if the UK’s defence policy is to be deliverable.

I hope that the Minister will confirm that such programmes will remain intact and safe, not least from being raided to pay for the replacement deterrent. On that, I remind the Minister that we shall be watching carefully to see that the Prime Minister’s promise—that the cost of the deterrent will not be at the expense of the conventional forces—is kept and that there will not be the expected Treasury sleight of hand to make the MoD pay by some other means, such as through swingeing efficiency targets or by cutting the number of Astute-class submarines being built.But I am not holding my breath.

Let us move from the future back to today. The corrosive effect of under-resourcing the present is very plain to see in the cuts that have been visited on what some perceive is the second line and the support area. For example, will the Minister confirm that the fleet remains unable to meet all its required levels of readiness following the damage done by the policy of reduced fleet support that was inflicted because of shortage of in-year cash between 2004 and 2006? That policy has led to mass cannibalisation and store robbing, which has left the majority of ships operationally impoverished in order to keep the few on deployment competent to do their duty, with all the fall-out effects that that had on training and morale. Will he comment on the study that is being conducted into cutting one of our three naval bases?

That was initiated not for strategic reasons—such a move could not possibly weather any strategic logic—but to find more cash to prop up inadequate funding of running costs or suffer the penalty of having more ships axed. What about training? Is the Minister satisfied that the criteria for the tiers of training that our Army brigades need to undergo to be at full war-fighting effectiveness are in accordance with their defence planning assumptions?

There are appalling stories about how some of the families are being treated in their service accommodation. The fact is that the rear line—especially the domestic conditions for our service people—is impoverished. As the Public Accounts Committee has identified, about a third of the Armed Forces are not able to meet their war-readiness states. To use a well worn phrase, they are not fit for purpose. That is down to money, not to the people, who do brilliantly with their can-do attitude at managing their shortfalls manfully and at doing the best with what they have got.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the treatment of the so-called second line is second class because there are not the funds to keep those people at the level of training and thus the readiness that they should be at to take their turn on the front? I believe that that is at the heart of the concern expressed last week by the Chief of the Defence Staff about the Armed Forces’ ability to maintain the current tempo of operations within existing resources. In the other place, the Secretary of State for Defence said of the operational tempo that,

“we cannot sustain it in the long term without doing damage to the core of our troops”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/07; col. 625.]

That statement is myopic. Such damage is being inflicted now. Incidentally, while I was derided some four years ago for saying that it would take us at least two years to recover from the operational tempo at that time, I would put that figure significantly higher now.

I also say, en passant, that we are hardly helped here by our so-called allies. I reflect wryly on the number of times that I was told in the Ministry of Defence by Ministers and their bean-counting advisers, as well as by the Treasury, that we could afford to take risks with holes in our capabilities because those holes would be filled by our allies with whom we would always go to war. That is fine as long as no fighting is required, as the pathetic performance in Afghanistan of some of these allies of ostensible strength shows. Lest your Lordships think that I am being unduly pejorative about some of our European partners, let me quote the Secretary of State for Defence, who said of them a couple or so weeks ago:

“The sooner people remove those caveats”—

that is, restricting foreign commanders’ ability to deploy troops appropriately—

“and allow their troops to be deployed where they are most needed, the better it will be for all of us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/07; col. 624.]

--------------more in same vein....................

good stuff Sir.

This government , more than any other, is intent on routinely portraying the House of Lords as a bunch of passed over old buffers doddering about in ermine, waiting for God to finish it all for them.

Guys, read that debate......there is more hands-on military experience in the House of Lords than in the rest of Windyminster put together....OF COURSE Bliar and his spineless toady crew want rid of them - people in the Upper House know what they're talking about and have no fear of the Party Whips whatsoever.

Keep your eye on the MONEY......


Le Chevre
 
#39
"According to the Navy website we currently have eight Type 42 Destroyers, thirteen Type 23 Frigates and Four Type 22 Frigates. We will be gaining in the near future (certainly before the carriers are built) 8 Type 45 destroyers. Does this include the vessels currently mothballed? If so can someone come in with the numbers that are out of action at the moment

According to the Telegraphs 'sources' we will be losing all four Type 22s, two Type 42s and two Type 45s. If none of the above are mothballed then this means we CAN maintain the amount of ships we currently use to shield our Carriers"


Actually Sven only 6 45's are on order - the last 2 are about to be cancelled by your beloved Government as we can't afford them, due to our need to give benefits to rumanian beggars. The 45's will replace the 42's over the next 10 years. Its common knowledge in the RN that the batch 3 22's are due to be mothballed - mainly because they are the only type of ship to use the conventional seawolf system rather than the VLS system - get rid of them, save a lot of money. Also the moment they go into mothballs, a lot of navies will pay a lot of money to buy them -they are the best escorts in the fleet, so naturally we're scrapping them.
Most pundits are now betting on a 15 esscort RN within 10 years - 6 45's and 9 23's.
 
#40
its a cunning plan if we only have one folding kayak theres no way it can go anywhere dange :twisted: rous so the irainain can't nick it
 

Similar threads

Top