Express: "‘National Disgrace!’ Britons Furious As Royal Navy Declared Smaller Than Italy's - Poll"

philc

LE
Outraged public: "Its a disgrace", "disgusting" "Shameful" "Something must be done"

The Government: "Hey, outraged public, do you want pay more taxes for a bigger navy?"

Outraged public: Total silence
Public realise nice things need money, our local council asked how much local tax should rise, 3 options, 0, 2% or 4% explaining what the money would do, majority was 4%.

If the money is spent on what it is meant for, wisely and results are seen then not an issue, its when its wasted thats the issue.
 

Fake Sheikh

War Hero
This lot have more ships too......
1582020284880.png
 
Outraged public: "Its a disgrace", "disgusting" "Shameful" "Something must be done"

The Government: "Hey, outraged public, do you want pay more taxes for a bigger navy?"

Outraged public: Total silence
Outraged public: "Its a disgrace", "disgusting" "Shameful" "Something must be done"

The Government: "Hey, outraged public, do you want pay more taxes for a bigger navy?"

Outraged public: "Use the money you give to third world shitholes"

The Government: "Racist!"
 

Yokel

LE
I have not looked at the link and have only looked at the thread briefly. Is the issue the Express are getting excited about that our ships spend too much time in maintenance and training, or that we have too few, or what?

I imagine that they miss the nuances of things like ships (and other units across the three services) being at different levels of readiness?

The Future Navy is centred around capability areas:

Continuous At Sea Detterance
North Atlantic
Carrier Strike
Future Commando/Amphibious Force
Forward Presence
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
IF we had no ships and were asked to design the navy from scratch, would its composition look like the present navy ? Said it many times, you reduce the service, you reduce the commitments, else you risk disaster..... Always answered with the usual suspects shouting about treaties, responsibilities and such like, with a pointless call for more resources where the answer is already known in advance(no).
There's a point being made on the BBC thread about soft power.

The same applies to those many treaties and responsibilities - they're seen to be a cost but they guarantee goodwill and trade.

An example: when Labour, in a(nother) tiresome fit of class spite scrapped the Britannia, they ignored completely the job that the yacht did in terms of trade.

Similarly with anti-drug and anti-piracy work. Seeing that ensign in the right places at the right time is a saving, not a cost.
 

chimera

LE
Moderator
I can't help reflecting that we are most fortunate that one of the best things Gordon Brown did was to ennoble Alan West in 2007, since he has certainly done his best, both in the Lords and the media, to keep the Royal Navy's best interests Lord West's image in the public eye, dare I say it, more frequently and more prominently than many of his successors as First Sea Lord.

Jack
A little tweak for you there. The good Admiral was never one to avoid self publicity. Indeed IIRC he (allegedly) ran himself on as 1SL (thereby f*cking up the chances of some other worthy candidates) simply so he could be "at the helm" so to speak for Trafalgar 200.
 
Thing is you can have a fleet of 100 floaty things, but if you can't get the people to join the Navy to crew the floaty things then all you have is floating empty boxes.

Recruitment seems a massive issue for both the Navy and Army but the RAF are doing better, there has to be a reason for this and until we can get manning levels to sustain the kit we have, building extra kit is totally pointless.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Thing is you can have a fleet of 100 floaty things, but if you can't get the people to join the Navy to crew the floaty things then all you have is floating empty boxes.

Recruitment seems a massive issue for both the Navy and Army but the RAF are doing better, there has to be a reason for this and until we can get manning levels to sustain the kit we have, building extra kit is totally pointless.
Per my previous. And how we treat people has to be got right.

I was at a mate’s for a gathering the other weekend. We were on the same intake and his son is now in. His son was describing a diversity course that they had to sit through. Calling a collective group ‘guys’ is now out, apparently.

The whole room was sat rolling its eyes - because, here’s a thing: it is all bollocks. It panders to a politically motivated minority and it‘s used as a stick to beat people with.

The pendulum in society needs to swing back and some VSOs need to be making a stand for sanity.

...and also stop treating people like idiots.
 
Last edited:
There's a point being made on the BBC thread about soft power.

The same applies to those many treaties and responsibilities - they're seen to be a cost but they guarantee goodwill and trade.

An example: when Labour, in a(nother) tiresome fit of class spite scrapped the Britannia, they ignored completely the job that the yacht did in terms of trade.

Similarly with anti-drug and anti-piracy work. Seeing that ensign in the right places at the right time is a saving, not a cost.
Its always interesting the debate on what benefits accrue from Soft power. Personally, I don't think the nations defence is improved at all..... But it can serve the foreign office, or business to an extent, that one could make the argument that they're should pay for those ships and crew.

Our defence like the other two services is largely built around a supposition, that we only have one threat (russia) and that is containable by our ships of the line(nuke boats)... So most of our capabilities are built around projection and taking on enemies who are a threat to other nations.

I suppose, the people who this thread refer, have a concern that we have insufficient resources to protect us and those sea lanes against an invisible threat. But history often shows the invisible, can become visible all of a sudden and we have a repetitive need to improvise due to the unfounded or not fears of the public.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Its always interesting the debate on what benefits accrue from Soft power. Personally, I don't think the nations defence is improved at all..... But it can serve the foreign office, or business to an extent, that one could make the argument that they're should pay for those ships and crew.

Our defence like the other two services is largely built around a supposition, that we only have one threat (russia) and that is containable by our ships of the line(nuke boats)... So most of our capabilities are built around projection and taking on enemies who are a threat to other nations.

I suppose, the people who this thread refer, have a concern that we have insufficient resources to protect us and those sea lanes against an invisible threat. But history often shows the invisible, can become visible all of a sudden and we have a repetitive need to improvise due to the unfounded or not fears of the public.
I'm very keen that some of the money made should be shuffled back into defence.

It's a bit like how well UK plc has done out of the Forces over the decades in turns of the well-trained and motivated individuals that they turn out.

The country collectively gets a bloody good screw out of that 2 percent of GDP. Defence and the people within it don't.
 
I'm very keen that some of the money made should be shuffled back into defence.

It's a bit like how well UK plc has done out of the Forces over the decades in turns of the well-trained and motivated individuals that they turn out.

The country collectively gets a bloody good screw out of that 2 percent of GDP. Defence and the people within it don't.
A point, I won't deny....... But, how much of that spending is visible to the public these days ? as I said, we both served and I served largely overseas for most of my 9 years, but in a service much larger, which was more visible.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
A point, I won't deny....... But, how much of that spending is visible to the public these days ? as I said, we both served and I served largely overseas for most of my 9 years, but in a service much larger, which was more visible.
Inevitably, I guess, it's reducing. But it's still there. Very many of the guys I joined with still have many years of employment left in them and are actively contributing to the economy in technical fields that the army provided the training for. Many more joined after me (I'm 50) and will make similar economical contributions for longer.

But even non-tech skills are important - mindset, leadership, people-management. All, I suppose, more examples of 'soft' but very necessary skills. That's what I worry is being diluted, or risks being, by diversity lectures and other such nonsense.

Something that will probably keep the value up for a good while is the intrinsic worth of defence systems and their sophistication. We may have fewer people but they're trained in understanding and servicing more high-worth gear. It ain't all SLRs and puttees these days.
 
Meh! They always forget the RM 'Green fleet'

50 rigid raiders!
35 ORC's!
9 Tank landing craft!
8 Infantry landing craft!

102 extra White Ensigns sailing the seven seas!
 
Inevitably, I guess, it's reducing. But it's still there. Very many of the guys I joined with still have many years of employment left in them and are actively contributing to the economy in technical fields that the army provided the training for. Many more joined after me (I'm 50) and will make similar economical contributions for longer.

But even non-tech skills are important - mindset, leadership, people-management. All, I suppose, more examples of 'soft' but very necessary skills. That's what I worry is being diluted, or risks being, by diversity lectures and other such nonsense.

Something that will probably keep the value up for a good while is the intrinsic worth of defence systems and their sophistication. We may have fewer people but they're trained in understanding and servicing more high-worth gear. It ain't all SLRs and puttees these days.
Oooh you said that word, that even a newbie would not dare intone.. Say it three times and probably get ROPs.
 
Public realise nice things need money, our local council asked how much local tax should rise, 3 options, 0, 2% or 4% explaining what the money would do, majority was 4%.

If the money is spent on what it is meant for, wisely and results are seen then not an issue, its when its wasted thats the issue.
What council is it? I seem to remember one asking its local residents for more funding for police, the outraged public said **** off

Edit because I found the link to the story
 
Outraged public: "Its a disgrace", "disgusting" "Shameful" "Something must be done"

The Government: "Hey, outraged public, do you want pay more taxes for a bigger navy?"

Outraged public: "Use the money you give to third world shitholes"

The Government: "Racist!"
The majority of money for 3rd world shitholes is just bribes for UK businesses.
 
There's a point being made on the BBC thread about soft power.

The same applies to those many treaties and responsibilities - they're seen to be a cost but they guarantee goodwill and trade.

An example: when Labour, in a(nother) tiresome fit of class spite scrapped the Britannia, they ignored completely the job that the yacht did in terms of trade.

Similarly with anti-drug and anti-piracy work. Seeing that ensign in the right places at the right time is a saving, not a cost.
Is there any evidence of how much trade Britannia actually created? My guess would be that, for the vast majority of British industry it was bugger all. And, in the globally connected digital age it would be 4/5ths if bugger all.
 

Latest Threads

Top