The Once Proud Royal Navy, slashed by Labour
![[Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c72d3e3f44f8a930a6f8aad5a1efc9a.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 1,696 Forum Member
✭✭✭
The cost of this government's throw money at it attitude as finally come to a head, as it looks as though our once proud, and capable fleet will be slashed to no more than a small coast guard. Since 1997 the Frigate and Destroyer numbers (i.e. the ships that really matter) have been halved, and with that are signs that international piracy have increased dramatically in areas where we have withdrawn.
The seas are now open to terrorism, the US traditionally just thought about force protection, we thought about defence of the seas.
90% of all British trade uses the seas, so for us not be able to defend it leaves us in a dangerous situation. The French Navy will soon (with these Naval Cuts) be larger in both manpower (as it is now) and in terms of active ships. As well as being limited to just two Naval Bases, Plymouth and Clyde (remarkably Portsmouth is apparently earmarked for closure, might be because it is in a seat Labour have little chance with at the next election, compare to Plymouth and a Scots seat!)
To put this into perspective, if there was another Falklands invasion we would be unable to defend and regain the Islands ourselves, and the Argentines have the "Malvinas" on their minds, every single Argentine Military doctrine revolves around the Malvinas, and the lessons learned.
Thank you Labour, we will be limited to no Aircraft Carriers and a few minesweepers soon. The Nation that once ruled the waves will soon be unable to do anymore than check fish stocks in the North Sea.
Please do not stand by and let Labour wreck our military, the British people need to understand that we need our military and our navy for defence, and unfortunatly it needs to be paid for.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=CBQPG1LXXQ12VQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/01/05/navy05.xml
The seas are now open to terrorism, the US traditionally just thought about force protection, we thought about defence of the seas.
90% of all British trade uses the seas, so for us not be able to defend it leaves us in a dangerous situation. The French Navy will soon (with these Naval Cuts) be larger in both manpower (as it is now) and in terms of active ships. As well as being limited to just two Naval Bases, Plymouth and Clyde (remarkably Portsmouth is apparently earmarked for closure, might be because it is in a seat Labour have little chance with at the next election, compare to Plymouth and a Scots seat!)
To put this into perspective, if there was another Falklands invasion we would be unable to defend and regain the Islands ourselves, and the Argentines have the "Malvinas" on their minds, every single Argentine Military doctrine revolves around the Malvinas, and the lessons learned.
Thank you Labour, we will be limited to no Aircraft Carriers and a few minesweepers soon. The Nation that once ruled the waves will soon be unable to do anymore than check fish stocks in the North Sea.
Please do not stand by and let Labour wreck our military, the British people need to understand that we need our military and our navy for defence, and unfortunatly it needs to be paid for.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=CBQPG1LXXQ12VQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/01/05/navy05.xml
0
Comments
I would do both.
britannia no longer rules the seas, and hasnt done so since the end of the second world war.
This discussion was a question and answer in one of the defence committees.
The upshot of this session was that Britain needs to have a force of 15 Nuclear Powered submarines (At present 4 Nuclear Armed Submarines and 11 conventionally armed Submarines). The reason for this is that if we have less than this the companies that builds (and refits) the Nuclear Powered Submarines will be unable do this.
The explanation for this is that the companies that build the submarines need a certain amount of guaranteed orders to be able to keep their highly trained workforce. They cannot make these workers redundant and the employ replacements when the work comes in. There would not be enough people with the required skills to make this possible.
So this means that that in order to keep the capability to build our own Nuclear Powered Submarines there would need to be a constant order for new Nuclear Powered Submarines. Admittedly they do not need to be Nuclear Armed. They could be conventionally Armed but we would still need to build some Submarines or lose the ability to make Nuclear Powered Submarines. This would mean that we would have to buy them from someone else (France or America). I can’t imagine many people being happy with this except the French and American companies.
If Argentina attacked the Falklands again the UK forces would beat them by lunch. Might be less in number but the Argentines have hardly updated since 1982.
We are basically like Horthy's Hungary, hanging on to the coattails to the real power.
Well possibly the government whilst it is cutting our Armed Forces left right and centre to make up for shortfalls elsewhere in their little world of cockups should think , if we have to downsize then maybe they should reduce our committments elsewhere to match the size of our forces.
As for not being and independent power , well sorry but I believe we still are.
But in all honesty what this government have done to our forces is nothing short of irresponisble , allowing them to make decisons about the security of this country is a bit like putting a schoolboy from the Tuck Shop in charge of Marks and Spencers . Ludicrous.
I am not asking us to be a World Power, I am saying we need a fleet large enough to protect ourselves, and our trading routes, all important things considering as how I said that 90% of all British trade, both imports and exports come through the seas.
Furthermore, the Royal Navy is not just there for war, it has provided countless amounts of humanitarian aid to disaster hit areas, has been able to deter terrorism on the high seas, and makes countless catches of drugs, destined for British shores, whilst they are still in the Americas. As I said Piracy an International problem, has grown greatly with the demise of the Royal Navy.
And I am saying that Defence spending needs to increase to 3% of GDP, not a huge amount compared to other Nations but enough to fund the shortfall. I also believe strongly in the Nuclear deterrent, and am thankful that we have it. I do not wish to rely on either America or France to defend us from Nuclear weapons, and the Submarine based system is the most cost-effective option for the UK.
The Royal Navy is out there everyday, and I think that it is unfortunate that quite possibly due to the fact that the defence Chief of Staff is currently an Air Force Officer, that he is trying to save his lot at the expense of the Navy. Despite the fact that RAF pilots are renowned in their services for remote drop offs in helicopters, and poor shots, whilst both Army and RN Pilots are renown for doing their job better.
And as to the claim that we would beat the Argies, I'm not so sure, without an Aircraft Carrier we would have very little force projection, and bear in mind that British Frigates and Destroyers have been underarmed for years, when compared to their French cousins.
The French need a bigger navy, they still have some balls and are actually still capable of independent thought and action unlike this country...
Basically the whole country needs to kick this scoundral and his pals (basically New Labour, or any sort of Labour) out of Governance, they only ever mess things up.
Oh and can anyone tell me, if under the Tories, the Officer's of the forces publicly complained about the government to the same level that the current lot are? We have had former Generals, former Admirals (curiously no Royal Air Force officers....) and current Officers complaining about size, manpower, equipment and facilities.
:rolleyes:
Despite what people say, it's good we have got America as an ally and I wouldn't trust the French at all,many of the people are fine but government wise forget it.
There's an ever increasing amount of drugs coming into this country and routes are changing, there needs a good presence to try and seize what is coming through.
I have noticed a few issues as well regarding increases of piracy attacks on the news it may well be then due to downscaling.
Perhaps they should just focus on using the Navy for conflicts and leave charity organisations to sort out Humanitarian aid issues.
The Royal Navy is the second largest navy in the world in terms of gross tonnage. There are currently 90 commissioned ships in the Royal Navy, including aircraft carriers, submarines, mine counter-measures and patrol vessels as well as the ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
The Royal Navy is a constituent component of the Naval Service, which also comprises the Royal Marines, Royal Fleet Auxiliary and associated reserve forces under command. The Naval Service had 38,710 regular personnel as of November, 2006.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=CBQPG1LXXQ12VQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/01/05/navy05.xml
''There are also fears in the Admiralty that two new aircraft carriers, promised in 1998, might never be built''
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0600uk/tm_headline=-no-decision-to-mothball-warships-%26method=full%26objectid=18394387%26siteid=50082-name_page.html
''It (the daily telegraph) also reported that the Navy was expected to lose one of its three carriers, Invincible...''
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2223
''Thus the Royal Navy intends to retain, and ultimately to look to replace, its three aircraft carriers.''
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/
''The new UK CVF Royal Navy aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, are expected to enter service in 2012 and 2015.
The design continues to evolve but CVF is expected to displace 55,000t to 65,000t, a size between the USA's 100,000t Nimitz class and the French 43,000t Charles de Gaulle class aircraft carriers, and three times larger than the 20,000t UK Invincible class carriers.
In January 2003 the Ministry of Defence announced that the preferred prime contractor for the UK Future Aircraft Carrier is BAE Systems with Thales UK as the key supplier. The industrial partnership between BAE Systems and Thales UK is known as the Future Carrier Alliance. In February 2005, Kellogg, Brown & Root UK (KBR) was appointed as preferred 'physical integrator' for the project and is responsible for developing the optimum manufacturing strategy. VT Group and Babcock have also joined the Alliance.
In December 2005, the UK MOD approved funding of the demonstration phase for detailed design of the carriers, the first part of the Main Gate decision. The second part, approval for construction, is expected by the end of 2006.''
A guide to some of the warships under construction, on order or planned for the future
Im afraid we can't use Defence Spending as Job Creation and Employment Protection by the back door. The UK are one of the worlds biggest arms exporters, one reason being we make joint bids for work for the US. Why should other countries employ us, if we protect our own contracts?
This plea was made on behalf of the John Knot Appreciation Society!
Nonsense.
1--We have a full garrison and a substantial air wing based there to defend it for starters.Any invasion would be a disaster.And we still have enough manpower and ships to retake even as present,albeit the ridiculous weakening.
2-The Argentine Military has deteriorated even more than the British - the Argentines don't have the slightest capability to take the Falklands.
I'm from Chatham, so that is probably one of the biggest mistakes the Tories made.
Re: Argies have no hope of capturing the Malvinas. And keep in mind that the Argies are buying new military technology, with 13 modern destroyers or frigates (mainly German MEKO Ships) in situ, with a former Type 42 in Reserve, as well as three capable submarines. Furthermore they have more Aircraft in situ, compare our 4 Tornados, to their countless more Mirage and Skyhawks, as better as the Tornado is, it cannot be compared to more aircraft.
Without the UK being able to send at least one aircraft carrier to the Falklands we would be unable to win the Falklands back, thus requiring a reliance upon the US to provide such aid, and could or rather would the US do such a thing unless we were to say give them a lease on the Falklands after?
As I have said elsewhere, in the past few months the senior officers (both serving and retired) of all three services have criticisised the Government's handling of defence spending. Much more than under any other government, perhaps there is some truth in today's Sunday Telegraph article, that New Labour do not like the Traditional Armed Forces, who represent things that New Labour hate, such as teamwork, honesty, integrity, and a willingness to make personal sacrifices with little personal gain.
Just wanted to point out that it is a Myth that the Conservatives look after our defence, or the economy better just becuase they are Conservatives. It's policies that count. So anyone hear of Cameron promising the Armoured Forces oudles of Taxpayers money?
My understanding of current Conservative policy-in-working (which is admittedly exceptionally hard to put a finger on what is what at the moment) is more funding for the military to match what they do. But I doubt that any Tory government would have halved the numbers of frigates and destroyers (the most useful of all ships) from 1997 to 2007, it is a disgrace.
And thms, well done we can all find posts from wikipedia and random websites, however it says that the new Aircraft carriers should have been ordered in late 2006, it is now 2007 and the Navy is beginning to think it will never see them. The Royal Navy is a subject rather important to me, and I believe I probably have more first hand experience of the Service than you do, and trust me, it is in dire need. Please bear in mind that the gross tonnage item is misleading, due to the misprotionate size of our Hydrographic and Minesweeping vessels to, the main-stays of any Navy, the Frigates and Destroyers, it is these which are important, and it is these which make the distinction between a Blue Water and a Green Water Navy.
I think we have to distnguish between Defence, and Defending National Interest, as typified by the US. There are other World Class economies who see no need to have to police the worlds oceans as part of their National Interest.
I agree with others that reducing the Navy, is a total disgrace.
and someone has to stop us keep invading others countries at some point.