Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Royal Navy not capable of fighting a real war
EssexBoy    12/3/2007 1:06:54 PM
This is embarassing, thank god french stratege doesn't post here anymore: http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1885442007 The only silver lining is that there must be an orchestrated campaign taking place to push for an increase in the defence budget. I don't believe all these leaks are unrelated to the recent speaches in the Lords and the launch of UKNDA. I wonder what their next step will be? Hopefully a mass resignation by the chiefs of staff at number 10 followed by a press conference just outside. Might work. Essex
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
Padfoot       12/3/2007 7:22:45 PM
*Yawn*

This story gets rolled out every few months, nothing new here.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       12/3/2007 7:52:32 PM

*Yawn*

This story gets rolled out every few months, nothing new here.


Which doesn't make it any less true.
 
Where is the Royal Navy the people ask?... at the breakers yard.
 
Quote    Reply

Padfoot       12/4/2007 12:25:39 AM
I don't understand why the navy is building expensive ships like Daring, QE, PoW, subs like Astute, etc ,. when if all it's interested in is numbers? Why not scrap the carriers and nuke subs and just build 20 or 30 Type 45s - without the expensive radar, arm them with Block IV tomahawks and UAVs. They could also build 4 Ocean type vessels for the Royal Marines, 15 SSK as well. They would probably still have some money left over.

Problem solved 

 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       12/4/2007 8:22:47 AM

Problem solved 

No, because your cheap but plentiful ships all get sunk and everyone dies.
If we genuinely could not afford the military technology and equipment needed to provide our servicemen with what they need to conduct their objectives, then we should not try to on our own, and we should look to regional bodies or collective defence such as through the EU or with the USA.  However the British public, and hence their representitive government, are obligated to provide our servicemen with the best equipment available if they expect for soldiers to put their life on the line.  Luckily we can afford to maintain forces suitable to high end warfighting.  Unfortunately the government is unwilling to act out their obligations.


 
 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       12/4/2007 3:52:06 PM
The UK cannot afford a globe spanning 400 hull fleet.

We have two choices, either a coastal defence force made up of fast pickets to rescue people from drowning and police smuggling.

Or, a reasnobly sized high tech fleet capable of power projection based around two (ideally three) carriers, with associated escorts, subs and marines.

We can afford the latter.

Anything in between is a complete waste of money as it will be unable to project power against anyone who you would want to project power against, and it will be massively more expensive than a coastal defense force.

I know which of the two options above is the only one that makes any sense.

ht*p://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2221531,00.html

Labour though thinks otherwise, the above link suggests we will get 4 Astute, 6 T45, and no tranche 3 for Typhoon... and CVF will be "postponed".

Jam tomorrow for the RN has been the trick since the end of WW2, only for tomorrow to come round and no jam to be seen.

We will pay the price for this error.
 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       12/4/2007 4:06:54 PM


Problem solved 


No, because your cheap but plentiful ships all get sunk and everyone dies.

If we genuinely could not afford the military technology and equipment needed to provide our servicemen with what they need to conduct their objectives, then we should not try to on our own, and we should look to regional bodies or collective defence such as through the EU or with the USA.  However the British public, and hence their representitive government, are obligated to provide our servicemen with the best equipment available if they expect for soldiers to put their life on the line.  Luckily we can afford to maintain forces suitable to high end warfighting.  Unfortunately the government is unwilling to act out their obligations.



 

"Collective defense" is an oxymoron.

A small RN will provide the US with nothing that they don't already have. 6 Destroyers and 4 subs do not buy a seat at the table.

Belgium, Denmark and the rest will never sail to defend the coast of the UK if her own coast is under threat.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       12/4/2007 5:18:41 PM
Found this on :

Royal Navy "would struggle to fight a war"  
A report in the Sunday Telegraph, and followed up elsewhere, claims that a leaked internal MOD document shows that fleet reductions have left the Navy less able to perform as a strategic power.  
 
The Government values the Royal Navy greatly and has invested billions of pounds in new Type 45s, Astute submarines, Trident submarines, and has made the decision to order two new aircraft carriers - which will be a state of the art technology and allow us to project force around the globe.  
 
The new ships entering the Royal Navy today are better equipped than ever before and because of this increased quality and capability they can achieve far more operationally than their predecessors.  
 
 Unfortunately, this omits the trivial detail that all the other navies in the world are better equipped than ever before, so by standing still we are going backwards.


 
Questions over defence funding levels  
Various media continue to call into question the overall level of defence funding, and extra strain placed on the budget due to current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  
 
Following the Comprehensive Spending Review the Defence budget in 2008/09 will be around £34bn. This settlement sees the continuation of the longest period of sustained real growth in planned defence spending since the 1980s.  
 
The additional costs of current operations are met from extra funds provi
 
Quote    Reply

Padfoot       12/4/2007 8:10:56 PM

The UK cannot afford a globe spanning 400 hull fleet.

We have two choices, either a coastal defence force made up of fast pickets to rescue people from drowning and police smuggling.

Or, a reasnobly sized high tech fleet capable of power projection based around two (ideally three) carriers, with associated escorts, subs and marines.

We can afford the latter.

Anything in between is a complete waste of money as it will be unable to project power against anyone who you would want to project power against, and it will be massively more expensive than a coastal defense force.

I know which of the two options above is the only one that makes any sense.

ht*p://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2221531,00.html


Labour though thinks otherwise, the above link suggests we will get 4 Astute, 6 T45, and no tranche 3 for Typhoon... and CVF will be "postponed".

Jam tomorrow for the RN has been the trick since the end of WW2, only for tomorrow to come round and no jam to be seen.

We will pay the price for this error.
That report from the Guardian is a joke, right?

As if the government is going to cut the defence budget nearly in half during a time of war, anytime for that matter.

 Who writes this stuff?  Besides being generally absurd - it states that the 7th & 8th Type 45s and that the next 4 Astutes will be cancelled. That's impossible, considering the fact that they haven't been ordered yet.

Armchair Private, from what I could see, no where did it say that the CVF would be postponed??

Very dodgy reporting if you ask me!!



 
Quote    Reply

paul1970       12/5/2007 5:18:06 AM



The UK cannot afford a globe spanning 400 hull fleet.

We have two choices, either a coastal defence force made up of fast pickets to rescue people from drowning and police smuggling.

Or, a reasnobly sized high tech fleet capable of power projection based around two (ideally three) carriers, with associated escorts, subs and marines.

We can afford the latter.

Anything in between is a complete waste of money as it will be unable to project power against anyone who you would want to project power against, and it will be massively more expensive than a coastal defense force.

I know which of the two options above is the only one that makes any sense.

ht*p://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2221531,00.html



Labour though thinks otherwise, the above link suggests we will get 4 Astute, 6 T45, and no tranche 3 for Typhoon... and CVF will be "postponed".

Jam tomorrow for the RN has been the trick since the end of WW2, only for tomorrow to come round and no jam to be seen.

We will pay the price for this error.

That report from the Guardian is a joke, right?

As if the government is going to cut the defence budget nearly in half during a time of war, anytime for that matter.

 Who writes this stuff?  Besides being generally absurd - it states that the 7th & 8th Type 45s and that the next 4 Astutes will be cancelled. That's impossible, considering the fact that they haven't been ordered yet.

Armchair Private, from what I could see, no where did it say that the CVF would be postponed??

Very dodgy reporting if you ask me!!




cancelled probably means not ordered to the full level as the navy put on their wish list.
they don't need 8 T45s anway...   but if they are having cuts then they should take the astutes as most important.

 
Quote    Reply

bob the brit       12/5/2007 10:38:00 AM
We have two choices, either a coastal defence force made up of fast pickets to rescue people from drowning and police smuggling.
 
i thought the cork jackets had that department?
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics