Navy to weak

Discussion in 'Royal Navy' started by mattyw, Aug 24, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. mattyw

    mattyw Old-Salt Reviewer

  2. rampant

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Dammit where did I put that Fantasy Fleet of mine......
     
  3. rampant

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

  4. Too weak for what?

    And whose fault is that?

    Money is tight for everybody; has been for a while. Admirals did no favour to their own service by sacrificing ships and crews on the promise of 2 large grey boats some time in the future. A strategy that had more to do with inter-service rivalry than providing the right ships and capabilities for UK defence and security needs.

    A recent RUSI paper on the Navy's future did the normal thing of promoting the CVF and claimed the cost (at £5 billion) was a snip when you consider ops in Afghanistan cost us that much a year. Clever deception as the bigger picture: we can pull out of Afghanistan and thus incur no further cost; can't just stop paying for CVF after the build programme AND clever exclusion that the £5 billion CVF spend gives us no crew or aircraft!!!

    Nevertheless, being "too weak" is relative to what the RN is expected to do. Just what do you expect the RN to do and are you prepared to fund it?
     
  5. So you haven't read the article then, WC?
     
  6. I think it's called Jane's Ships of the world 1929.
     
  7. mattyw

    mattyw Old-Salt Reviewer

    The article is about that the navy is to weak to face any force and the navy needs atleast 10 new frigets
     
  8. And here is What Dr Fox had to say on the subject back in March

    Which implies that the Royal Navy should have been maintained at 12 submarines and 35 Frigates/ Destroyers. So not counting old age/ end of life we are short 4 attack submarines and 13 frigates/ destroyers.
    Nothing has changed since March, will it have changed by the time of the SDSR?
    We need a fairly serious build program to return the RN to the minimum reasonable strength, both Labour (*****, the lot of them) and Conservative have repeatedly said the RN needs to be at the strenght given in the 1998 SDR, the only thing that has changed has been gross economic mis-management and plundering of the public purse. Tha Navy and the country needs those ships.


    I will be more than a little interested to see what he has to say in October
     
  9. rampant

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    The bindings gone on mine and all the pages are stuck together........ er
     
  10. Not thoroughly, Not yet. When I find the time to give it the attention that it may deserve, I shall; and if necessary repost in this thread.

    However, I'm always suspect of an article that begins by inventing a concept (silent principles) which low-and-behold just happen to be the perfect raison d'etre for the pet service of the authors. And furthermore, also goes on to promote, in the very first paragraph, the idea that the security paradigm of the 17th Century should be the main driver in determining our military and security architecture in the 21st Century. That smacks of academic desperation that the argument is already, or on the point of being, lost.
     
  11. Do you think the RN would swop two promised grey elephants for the promise of 4 attack submarines and 13 escorts?
     
  12. By grey elephants I presume you mean to shiney new aircraft carriers?
    In which case no, I do not. I think the RN should be at the strength declared appropriate by the 1998 SDR and Dr Fox's stated opinion in March this year. 12 attack submarines, 35 Destroyers/ Frigates and 2 Aircraft Carriers (plus assorted others, not material to this discussion)
    I would go further and say that really we need more, but the level set by the last SDR is deemed appropriate by people far more qualifed than myself, including the current minister.
     
  13. SDR stated 32 FF/DD, 10 SSN, 22 MCMV + CVF (x2).

    "About thirty" was what the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Alan West said to the Commons Defence Select Commitee in 2004 when asked how many escorts the UK needs.