Royal Navy cut to smallest size ever - 25 ships !
Discussion
that article is pure nonsense, sorry but i stopped reading after the "the Navy has offered to cut down to just 12 surface ships" bit.... so we go down to 6 x T45, 6 x T23...... errr what about Ocean, Bulwark, Albion, Echo, Clyde, the River class....are we scrapping them?, selling them?.... utter nonsense...
h, ain't it.pablo said:
that article is pure nonsense, sorry but i stopped reading after the "the Navy has offered to cut down to just 12 surface ships" bit.... so we go down to 6 x T45, 6 x T23...... errr what about Ocean, Bulwark, Albion, Echo, Clyde, the River class....are we scrapping them?, selling them?.... utter nonsense...
The first line in the article say - "Under the plans, the number of warships would be cut by almost half to just 25, with frigates, destroyers, submarines, minesweepers and all amphibious craft scrapped."All of that to save "both" Aircraft carriers.
It's just bluster from the Navy calling the Governments bluff. If they get the carriers they will lose Amphibious assault and minesweeping capability that we provide NATO, NATO will not be happy with HM Gov. But the Navy want both carriers and have no doubt got a counter argument over what will happen if they don't get them both. They will argue that the last two Invincible class TDCs will need X£billion to update and maintain if they keep them, but they cannot operate the new aircraft needed. So they need both carriers to maintain a "one at sea at all times" service as well as being able to operate the F35 or Super Hornets (which I think they would prefer and be proper CATOBAR again).
So it's "you want us to make cuts to have both, we'll make drastic and unworkable cuts then. Balls in your court now."
Ps. FOr NATO also read UN as in our minesweepers protecting UN ships in the Gulf.
Edited by FourWheelDrift on Friday 8th October 22:04
It does seem rather ridiculous that an island nation would even consider cutting their Navy back so far.
The argument over aircraft carriers seems to come around every generation - last time the Navy was going to lose their aircraft carrier capability, the Argentines proved that it was a really stupid idea.
(Both by not having a decent carrier themselves and by under-estimating how much damage could be done by one rusty old shed and something that looks like a Matchbox toy in comparison with a real carrier)
I may be missing something here - but the Invincible class carriers would still have been a relatively potent force if the Sea Harriers had been upgraded / GR9s had been navalised - wouldn't they?
The argument over aircraft carriers seems to come around every generation - last time the Navy was going to lose their aircraft carrier capability, the Argentines proved that it was a really stupid idea.
(Both by not having a decent carrier themselves and by under-estimating how much damage could be done by one rusty old shed and something that looks like a Matchbox toy in comparison with a real carrier)
I may be missing something here - but the Invincible class carriers would still have been a relatively potent force if the Sea Harriers had been upgraded / GR9s had been navalised - wouldn't they?
Could one of the people declaring this to be an outrage please enlighten me as to exactly what the impact of the changes would be?
Am I being naive in thinking that we're unlikely to see either a breakdown of NATO, or any non-NATO power deciding to take on the massed naval ranks of NATO?
On the assumption that we're not very likely to be seeing any pitched naval battles, what need do we have of a major navy? Is an extra destroyer here or there going to make any difference to the outcome when we're fighting terrorists in RIBs?
As far as I'm aware, the size of the navy has seesawed massively over the centuries, hasn't it? It doesn't seem to have been too much of an issue up to now.
Am I being naive in thinking that we're unlikely to see either a breakdown of NATO, or any non-NATO power deciding to take on the massed naval ranks of NATO?
On the assumption that we're not very likely to be seeing any pitched naval battles, what need do we have of a major navy? Is an extra destroyer here or there going to make any difference to the outcome when we're fighting terrorists in RIBs?
As far as I'm aware, the size of the navy has seesawed massively over the centuries, hasn't it? It doesn't seem to have been too much of an issue up to now.
The last time these kind of cuts were proposed, the Argentines invaded the Falklands, and a rapid U-turn was made, once it was realised that you can't rely on anyone else to bail you out, and you just don't know you're going to need something until it has gone and you really need it.
Kermit power said:
Could one of the people declaring this to be an outrage please enlighten me as to exactly what the impact of the changes would be?
See those Somali pirates who rob and pillage in the Indian Ocean?If they fancied doing the same off, say, the coast of Cornwall, who would stop them?
Exaggerated argument for sure, but the principle is valid.
An alternate view: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/08/carrier_st...
Ayahuasca said:
Kermit power said:
Could one of the people declaring this to be an outrage please enlighten me as to exactly what the impact of the changes would be?
See those Somali pirates who rob and pillage in the Indian Ocean?If they fancied doing the same off, say, the coast of Cornwall, who would stop them?
Halb said:
Ayahuasca said:
Kermit power said:
Could one of the people declaring this to be an outrage please enlighten me as to exactly what the impact of the changes would be?
See those Somali pirates who rob and pillage in the Indian Ocean?If they fancied doing the same off, say, the coast of Cornwall, who would stop them?
Ayahuasca said:
Kermit power said:
Could one of the people declaring this to be an outrage please enlighten me as to exactly what the impact of the changes would be?
See those Somali pirates who rob and pillage in the Indian Ocean?If they fancied doing the same off, say, the coast of Cornwall, who would stop them?
Exaggerated argument for sure, but the principle is valid.
We need to use our defence resources to defend us from credible threats, not to pander to some sort of misplaced nostalgia.
Kermit power said:
If you're going to take that line, then who is going to defend us from the little green men from Mars? It's about as likely as Somali pirates in the channel, after all.
We need to use our defence resources to defend us from credible threats, not to pander to some sort of misplaced nostalgia.
You don't know who is a credible threat until it's too late, though.We need to use our defence resources to defend us from credible threats, not to pander to some sort of misplaced nostalgia.
4 of these 25 ships are Vanguard Class Ballistic Missile Submarines. These are city killers. Who needs lots of vulnerable expensive surface ships when we can turn every countries capital city into a radioactive car park? If having a smaller fleet means we retain our nuclear deterrent then that's fine by me
Fabiao said:
Kermit power said:
If you're going to take that line, then who is going to defend us from the little green men from Mars? It's about as likely as Somali pirates in the channel, after all.
We need to use our defence resources to defend us from credible threats, not to pander to some sort of misplaced nostalgia.
You don't know who is a credible threat until it's too late, though.We need to use our defence resources to defend us from credible threats, not to pander to some sort of misplaced nostalgia.
Fabiao said:
Kermit power said:
If you're going to take that line, then who is going to defend us from the little green men from Mars? It's about as likely as Somali pirates in the channel, after all.
We need to use our defence resources to defend us from credible threats, not to pander to some sort of misplaced nostalgia.
You don't know who is a credible threat until it's too late, though.We need to use our defence resources to defend us from credible threats, not to pander to some sort of misplaced nostalgia.
Kermit power said:
Could one of the people declaring this to be an outrage please enlighten me as to exactly what the impact of the changes would be?
Am I being naive in thinking that we're unlikely to see either a breakdown of NATO, or any non-NATO power deciding to take on the massed naval ranks of NATO?
On the assumption that we're not very likely to be seeing any pitched naval battles, what need do we have of a major navy? Is an extra destroyer here or there going to make any difference to the outcome when we're fighting terrorists in RIBs?
NATO helped us a lot in 1982 didnt they?Am I being naive in thinking that we're unlikely to see either a breakdown of NATO, or any non-NATO power deciding to take on the massed naval ranks of NATO?
On the assumption that we're not very likely to be seeing any pitched naval battles, what need do we have of a major navy? Is an extra destroyer here or there going to make any difference to the outcome when we're fighting terrorists in RIBs?
NATO helped us a lot in Sierra Leone didnt they?
All our allies helped us in Iraq didnt they? (Dont forget Iraq was an ally in 1988 and we were going to war with them in 1990/1991)
All Americas allies helped a lot when they bombed Libya didnt they? Especially France and Spain...
What assumption that we're not likely to see major naval combat? Remember when Japan and China weresquaring up about a month ago and things could have gotten pretty nasty? Who would have stepped in to our committments to Malaysia and Singapore? NATO?
Basically if we had 25 ships 1/3rd would be tied up alongside at any one time, if any military action was needed it would draw near enough our entire navy to it and we couldnt absorb any losses. This means we would have to pull out from any comittments, from supporting the defence industry, anti-drug duties, anti-smuggling duties and so on. And with no ships in the South Atlantic what exactly is there to stop Argentina shutting down any future oilfields down there?
As to will it make a difference when we are fighting terrorists using RIBs, well what are you going to launch the RIB from? What are you going to use to protect that RIB, how are you going to get your people back if they get captured? How are you going to steer a RIB onto hostile people? How are you going to launch boarding actions on foreign registered ships? The marines cant train and live on the RIB. Cant fly a helicopter off a RIB either...
Kermit power said:
Fabiao said:
Kermit power said:
If you're going to take that line, then who is going to defend us from the little green men from Mars? It's about as likely as Somali pirates in the channel, after all.
We need to use our defence resources to defend us from credible threats, not to pander to some sort of misplaced nostalgia.
You don't know who is a credible threat until it's too late, though.We need to use our defence resources to defend us from credible threats, not to pander to some sort of misplaced nostalgia.
But I'm also sure people said that about Germany in the 1920s.
It's a difficult balancing act - but as an island, with island dependents, we have to have a fairly strong navy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff