Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Feb 28, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Surely Aviation assets are better suited for attacking warships than other surface ships. Why wait until you are both within missile range? I'd much rather use air launched exocet / Harpoon than the ship launched one.
WRT to the frigates- why wait until you are within missile range, why not use Lynx / Merlin with an anti-shipping missile?
It's just a shame we won't be getting more carriers.
Because we are getting rid of both. Carriers have to travel in a protective bubble otherwise they are just big targets.
Surely it was the white ensign that protected the sea-lanes not the union jack.
Can't be arrsed to even look up who this Knob-jockey is and what is his agenda.
I'll get my teeth into the article later. I suspect the author doesn't know what FSC is. Even if we had the money and the industrial capacity to build the fleet armchair admirals want, are we going to flash up the press gangs too?
As for stronger alliance partners and the suggestion that Australia would be a good one, we already have an arrangement with Australia (since 1971 IIRC). So while I agree that more ships would be all very well and employable, the article smacks of fairly typical ignorance.
Maybe it's the peace dividend or something - the gobment trashes our forces to such a degree that they aren't fit to be used by Mugabe, let alone going on a US regime change op. Thus, we don't go to war.
Sadly its pretty much true.
We can go through all the debates again about how much of a Navy we need (personally I think a pretty big one) but the simple fact of the matter is the Royal Navy has been deliberatly dismantled to the point it is just about incapable of defending the shores of this country.
We can blame that on whatever you like, as far as I am concerned it is Treason on the part of those who have set out to do this.
I understand what you mean with this, however why not use carrier aircraft to provide that bubble?
I could never see the logic in relying on carrier escorts for protection. It doesn't matter how good the radar is on the new Type 45's, it's approx 30 Feet off the water so the furthest away it could pick up a exocet is just under 12k. Traveling at 1130 Km/h that gives you just under 40 seconds to detect it and then shoot it down or seduce it away from you.
I'd rather they spent the money on a decent AWACs type aircraft (like the E2 Hawkeye) instead of relying on retrofitted Sea Kings.
IMO the insistence on using 'harrier carriers' (i.e. Ski Jump) is a far bigger problem. We've not even built the things and we're already limiting the aircraft we can use on them. If we would allow ourselves to use a decent AEW radar then we wouldn't have to rely on Sea Wolf in the first place, but rather use it as a last resort.
"John Nott was Britainâs Defence Minister when the Falklands War broke out in April 1982. Nott, along with Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington, was criticised for the invasion but kept his position despite hostility shown towards him the media. This hostility towards John Nott was based around the belief that it was Nott himself with his proposed naval cuts that had seemingly encouraged Argentina to think that Britain was no longer concerned about her overseas possessions. This primarily involved the planned scrapping of the âEnduranceâ, a ship that was a play a vital role in the re-taking of South Georgia."
1982. so that would be the Tories.
Author doesnt know what FSC is, while he makes no mention of the Amphib force that is qualitively and quantatively the 2nd largest in the world for projecting power beyond a coastline. Also don't forget that most other countries are reducing their escot fleets too - nowadays you have 2 real choices - lots of cheap expendable escorts that are no use at all once missiles fly, or high end expensive vessels with the sensors and C4I to match. We've gone for the latter, as thats what enables us to integrate into USN battlegroups. They don't want numbers, they want capability.
"Watching the British lose confidence in themselves, the oft-lamented "Suez Syndrome," is terrible. But, as much as it pains me to say so, perhaps it's time we look for new, stronger allies for our special defense relationship -- perhaps in the Aussies or Japanese.
This sort of Yank crap annoys me. What has the decision of the Enemy Within to scrap most of the RN got to do with losing confidence? It is more a result of:
a. We have run out of money and therefore cannot afford a real navy
b. It is part of the wider agenda of the Enemy Within to destroy the forces and run them down to the point where we have no option but to join an EU Navy etc.
No lack of confidence here, just the result of having the scum of the ZaNuLabour Party in power.
So? Are you suggesting that because the Tories fcuked up Defence then the current shower of sh1t should do the same?
i dont understand why we cant rely on the US navy... we are afterall "special" allies...
i mean lets be honest... who has the power to attack our navy anyway? beyond the US and maybe some of the EU countries... only russia is left and the US would help us there...
the army and airforce are now the most important... the sea stopped being important long ago in warfare, the coast guard, coastal defenses, and the remains of the navy would stop any concievable threat... afterall, theres no one left with a decent navy barre the afore-mentioned ruskies.
correct me if im wrong please.
USS Kohl ring any bells? Don't need many of them if you haven't a lot of ships.
Op Corporate rather relied on RN.
The people who have the power to attack our Navy are the ones you don't know about yet. Who knows what the world be like in 10 years time? You can't just rattle togther a Navy in a couple of weeks.
Answer - cut the welfare budget in half and you could build the Armed Forces we need. No votes in that though, particularly from the scrounging classes.
Separate names with a comma.