HMS Albion on standby

[Vieste]

I am glad they did not just scrap it straight away as planned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-1530808...

[Simpo Two]

Extended readiness sounds so much more positive than mothballed.

[Oily Nails]

We're mothballing an 10 year old vessel?????

[MK1 GIT]

It'll probably be what they call R9 readiness which basically means its shutdown dehumidified and at 180 days notice to come back into service but in reality it'll take twice as long as that and loads more money to put it back into service.

[Elroy Blue]

HMS Invincible was on 'extended readiness' even when she was nothing more than a rusty tin can. I'm surprised we've not given her to India (along with a few billion to run her for a good few years). Cameron could at least spout his usual bks then.

[wildcat45]

It makes sence to run the LPDs like this. We did it with Fearless and Intrepid from time to time.

I know its a cost cutting measure but....

You keep one operational and save a lot on hull life of the laid up one.

Swap them about in a few years so the other can be refitted/rested.

A much better option than getting rid.

And it works. Its how we ran the Invincible class and how we will run the QEs.

Having said all that, I would prefer it if she was on 30 days notice and put to sea now and then to prove the capability.


Add to say, the only Invincible to complete the cycle properly was Invince. Cameron bksed it up with the early demise of ArkR. Lusty should have been LPH cover for Ocean, with Ark as the fixed wing. Lusty would have gone R9 in 2014 then to scrap 2018 ish when Ark would go R9 until the second QE worked up. But sadly it didnt work out like that.

[glazbagun]

Not for the first time Albion looks to be out of lives.

I've never understood the desire to scrap these given the use we got out of HMS Ocean. How much is it costing to keep the ship in reserve? I'm guessing it's a bit more involved than leaving it in a dock & turning over the engine now & then.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2k0292v0w1o

[Simpo Two]

Government raises £40Bn in one budget, but spends £20Bn on 'carbon capture' and £10Bn on compensation claims. The other £10Bn has no doubt already been spent.

Government then ratchets up international tension by allowing UK missiles to fall on Russia, and scraps some armed forces to save a mere £0.5Bn. Awesome.

[glazbagun]

Selling missiles to Ukraine will presumably be profitable if they survive to pay us back, the drones being ditched are old models. Keeping the Russian border closer to Russia is worth it IMO.

I'm more interested in why the knives have been out for Albion for so long (this thread started in 2011). Did the type 45's take the place of amphibious docks? Is the concept just outdated, or are we just done with military expeditions.

[Hill92]

glazbagun said:

Selling missiles to Ukraine will presumably be profitable if they survive to pay us back, the drones being ditched are old models. Keeping the Russian border closer to Russia is worth it IMO.

I'm more interested in why the knives have been out for Albion for so long (this thread started in 2011). Did the type 45's take the place of amphibious docks? Is the concept just outdated, or are we just done with military expeditions.

Shortage of personnel to crew them as much as anything else.

[FourWheelDrift]

Hill92 said:

Shortage of personnel to crew them as much as anything else.

Are they still making experienced military personnel redundant (before they can collect a healthy pension) whilst still trying to recruit for juniors to replace them?

[IanH755]

FourWheelDrift said:

Are they still making experienced military personnel redundant (before they can collect a healthy pension) whilst still trying to recruit for juniors to replace them?

Generally no, but kind of yes.

So everyone knows there's a large shortfall in both recruitment and (more importantly I would say) retention of experienced people in all of our Armed Forces and for which both parties over the past 40 years hold most of the blame, alongside some truly awful management by all 4 services 1* ranks and above (aka General, Admiral, Air Commodore and above) so I don't see Labour suddenly having "the fix" as even short term cash bonuses don't really work that effectively any more.

However, to be fair, there hasn't had any "redundancies" in over a decade now.

[Rockets7]

wildcat45 said:

It makes sence to run the LPDs like this. We did it with Fearless and Intrepid from time to time.

Served on both Deathstars!

[Stick Legs]

RFA are losing the Wave class tankers.
RAF are losing the Pumas & older Chinooks.
RN are losing the ships that would get Marines ashore.

Giving up islands possessions.

International attention elsewhere.

Good job there isn't a strong man wannabe in Argentina looking to make a name for himself...


Tom Clancy couldn't write it better.

[sherman]

Stick Legs said:

RFA are losing the Wave class tankers.
RAF are losing the Pumas & older Chinooks.
RN are losing the ships that would get Marines ashore.

Giving up islands possessions.

International attention elsewhere.

Good job there isn't a strong man wannabe in Argentina looking to make a name for himself...


Tom Clancy couldn't write it better.

Slight difference is now we can just send an icbm through his window in Buenos Aires if required to send a message of intent.

We dont need 13 tankers and a bomber.

[ATG]

sherman said:

Stick Legs said:

RFA are losing the Wave class tankers.
RAF are losing the Pumas & older Chinooks.
RN are losing the ships that would get Marines ashore.

Giving up islands possessions.

International attention elsewhere.

Good job there isn't a strong man wannabe in Argentina looking to make a name for himself...


Tom Clancy couldn't write it better.

Slight difference is now we can just send an icbm through his window in Buenos Aires if required to send a message of intent.

We dont need 13 tankers and a bomber.

Any ideas how/if this ties in with restructuring of RM corp announced a few years back? Felt at the the time (to me as a total non-expert) that it was making RM less of a self-contained operation and more integrated and reliant on the rest of the Navy. I think one of the ideas was that 42 would become more pure infantry and that marines would get deployed from aircraft carriers. Perhaps the move away from artillery also makes deployment from aircraft carriers easier?

[ATG]

Quick bit of googling seems to show that the ships currently being decommissioned were actually central to the brilliant new idea for the marines, which suggests their restructuring/repurposing is either a complete st show ... or ... a brilliantly executed subterfuge to make The Enemy mistake it for a complete st show.

[Stick Legs]

sherman said:

Slight difference is now we can just send an icbm through his window in Buenos Aires if required to send a message of intent.

We dont need 13 tankers and a bomber.

We could in 1982.

In fact we could have at anytime since 1968.

If you mean a SLCM that’s different.

But still not a way to retake the islands.

[Stick Legs]

ATG said:

Quick bit of googling seems to show that the ships currently being decommissioned were actually central to the brilliant new idea for the marines, which suggests their restructuring/repurposing is either a complete st show ... or ... a brilliantly executed subterfuge to make The Enemy mistake it for a complete st show.

And that’s the last thing they’ll expect us to do which is why it’s exactly what we will do!

[Hill92]

Stick Legs said:

We could in 1982.

In fact we could have at anytime since 1968.

If you mean a SLCM that’s different.

But still not a way to retake the islands.

The whole point of RAF Mount Pleasant is to ensure we don't lose them again in the first place.

And how ever perilous are Armed Forces are now, the Argentines are in far worse condition.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/argentina-no-threa...