It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nelson would turn in his grave if he had to fight with the present Royal Navy

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wodan

Originally posted by klain
the truth about the uk ibelive is that we are a falling people we have little resourses here and we need to make bigger breakthroughs in tech b4 we can get back our empire


Oh man, you brits still dream of a new empire?



americans have patriotism why cant us "brits" want to make our country great as well?


[edit on 30-6-2005 by klain]




posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
they cant have a new empire cuz the have no resources... i think they have a nice navy though



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by M6D
wait wait..dont tell me..you picked this up from another newspaper?

hm...was it, the sun?! or....the daily mirror by any chance?

No this was on TV, but you will tell me not to believe them either. Just because i use Tabloids to prove a point, doesn't mean I'm wrong. I think the British armed forces have been severely downgraded because of spending cuts. New Labour wants to spend more on making the citizen less free with its identity cards and tracking devices in cars. Lets be honest here , we cant fight a war against anybody on our own now.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by klain

Originally posted by Wodan

Originally posted by klain
the truth about the uk ibelive is that we are a falling people we have little resourses here and we need to make bigger breakthroughs in tech b4 we can get back our empire


Oh man, you brits still dream of a new empire?



americans have patriotism why cant us "brits" want to make our country great as well?


[edit on 30-6-2005 by klain]


you are threw the US



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by russiankid
they cant have a new empire cuz the have no resources... i think they have a nice navy though

I think this thread talks about the British Navy and not the US navy.
I observed that you were getting confused, thus the clarification.

Also hasn't Britan had its chance? As far I know the UK doesn't have the resources to take on any of the global powers or some upcomming powers even. Thats not a bad thing really, you get to watch other people fight now and make the same mistakes your Empire made! Dominance is ludicrous, if you can protect your country then that should be reassuring!

[edit on 1-7-2005 by IAF101]


M6D

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
okay, perhaps our countries forces, have been downgraded, but not nearly as much as you seem to believe so...the quality hasnt gone done, the quantity has.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   
All this genralized clap trap but no specifics, so here we go.

The Type 22 finally came of age with the 4 Batch 3 ships, Harpoons and the excellent Goalkeeper system finally made them useful.

The Duke class Type 23 Frigates introduced Seawolf VLS, but they lack a true area defence weapon.

The proposed Horizon class destroyers will have less capability than an Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class and they are still years away. Unbelievably they will still use mechancally scanned radar arrays instead of electronically scanned arrays (like SPY-1/SPY-1A).

However, when you realize that we are talking about an island that's about the same size as Pennsylvania and has modern warships, Trident missile subs, and is planning on building some aircraft carriers - they still kick butt.

Compare the RN to other European navies and you'll see that with the possible exception of France, they still have a powerful fleet.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
The Type 22 finally came of age with the 4 Batch 3 ships, Harpoons and the excellent Goalkeeper system finally made them useful.


They also have hanger space for two linx helicopters and a large command and control facilties making them very useful as flagships for any operations or task forces where the carriers or amphibious units are not present.




The Duke class Type 23 Frigates introduced Seawolf VLS, but they lack a true area defence weapon.


As they are frigates optimised for antisub warfare there was never any suggestion for them to have anything other than point air defense weapons systems. Area air defence has to now been the job of the type 42's and soon to be type 45's



The proposed Horizon class destroyers will have less capability than an Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class and they are still years away.


Project Horizon was ended years ago. If i assume you mean the type 45's they are easily a match for an Arleigh Burke. They are also being built as i type this (the first will be launched next summer and will be in service by 2008) an so are not 'still years away'



Unbelievably they will still use mechancally scanned radar arrays instead of electronically scanned arrays (like SPY-1/SPY-1A).


I am assuming you mean the fact that the sampson radar rotates. In which case you have misundestood its design. the whole array rotates but the actual radar is electronically scanning.

BAE have stated clearly on a number of occasions why they opted for a rotating design.

"BAE Systems says that employing two rotating active arrays, as opposed to four fixed arrays, is "better" because of the high cost involved in procuring the arrays and the problems associated of mounting the relatively heavy arrays as high as possible on the ship, to make maximum use of the available type of ship-defense missile. "You'd want to place the MFR as high as possible in the ship, against sea-skimming missile attacks; getting that extra bit of radar horizon could make the difference in getting that extra salvo away to deal with the leakers," a BAE Systems manager said. Furthermore, the company predicts that enemy tactics for attacking a fixed array-equipped ship will be to concentrate a massed missile raid on one side of the ship, thereby saturating one array while effectively making the other three useless."





Compare the RN to other European navies and you'll see that with the possible exception of France, they still have a powerful fleet.



Now go look at the French amphibious capability (or lack thereof). The RN is by far the most effective naval force in Europe even with the current underfunding and hull number issues.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   

I am assuming you mean the fact that the sampson radar rotates. In which case you have misundestood its design. the whole array rotates but the actual radar is electronically scanning.


If it doesn't rotate, it doesn't scan - that's the point of a fixed array.



BAE have stated clearly on a number of occasions why they opted for a rotating design.

"BAE Systems says that employing two rotating active arrays, as opposed to four fixed arrays, is "better" because of the high cost involved in procuring the arrays and the problems associated of mounting the relatively heavy arrays as high as possible on the ship, to make maximum use of the available type of ship-defense missile. "You'd want to place the MFR as high as possible in the ship, against sea-skimming missile attacks; getting that extra bit of radar horizon could make the difference in getting that extra salvo away to deal with the leakers," a BAE Systems manager said. Furthermore, the company predicts that enemy tactics for attacking a fixed array-equipped ship will be to concentrate a massed missile raid on one side of the ship, thereby saturating one array while effectively making the other three useless."


Typical British SA80A2 style bluster - the mechanical array is cheaper - period. So as usual the UK puts pounds ahead of sailors lives. Strangely the Americans don't seem to have any problems identifying sea skimming threats a LONG way out with SPY-1, maybe they just don't understand that they had it right in 1950 with mechanical arrays mounted on top of the ships super structure.

I remember GEC/Marconi spewing out the same BS when they were devloping the Nimrod AEW. About how you didn't need a big array like the E-3A and how their system would be so much better because of this feature and that feature. Well we all know how that ended.

Or how about the Foxhunter radar in the Tornado F.2/F.3 - another super advanced radar that would trounce the competition but took forever to fix and was barely average when they did get it running.

BAe is using a 1950's style mechanical array because it's cheaper and the technology is less demanding, i.e. less risky to "develop". Unless Ferranti made it, I wouldn't trust a British radar, the UK's track history over the last 30 years has been lousy.

And the last time I checked, 2008 is still "years away", 3 to be precise.



[edit on 6-7-2005 by Winchester Ranger T]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
To be even more precise it's about 2 and a half.


M6D

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
er.....thanks man, for supporting our millitary.........really, its nice to see people like that around here winchester



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Making sure that servicemen get the best equipment IS supporting the military.

It serves more purpose than tying yellow ribbons around mail boxes.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
IMO Nelson was a man of depth, consideration, sense and sanity and he would look at the UK's alliances in the world and our total 'power' and feel great pride that the UK was fundamentally more secure and more at peace than she had been for centuries.

Unfortunately a band of war-perv military fan-boys in the UK media (usually right-wing tory mouth-pieces making ridiculous petty party political points.......as if their heros in the tory party didn't ever 'cut') insist on periodically making absurd puffed up idiotic notions complaints out loud that the UK could somehow recover her Empire status and they usually go on to make ludicrous comparisons with the peak of Empire and now as if the world (and us in the UK) had not moved on from then.

Naturally whilst doing this superficial wailing over the reduction in outright numbers there is no sane assessment of actual capability or need.

Nor do they ever consider the cost of attempting to recovering a position where the UK could take on anyone alone; never mind the sanity or need for it.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
When you mean were at peace did you forget about Iraq and the Baltic states we fought in , how about Afghanistan. We are required to defend the Falklands , Gibraltar , Belize etc. The Royal Navy has been cut to the barebones and will soon not be able to stop the drug patrols it does in the Caribbean. I want this country to stop cutting its forces as we are needed worldwide to help people.


M6D

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Isnt that the media's job? to inflate and blow things out of proportion? theyre never happy, and always conplaining, id like to see the media run a goverment.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
When you mean were at peace did you forget about Iraq and the Baltic states we fought in , how about Afghanistan.


- No; I am well aware of Iraq, Afghanistan and the various 'peace-keeping' roles the British military is involved with.

In actual fact since the winding down of the 'need' to commit so many to Northern Ireland the fact that overall numbers are palnned to decrease is off-set by the increased availability of manpower thanks to the changes in NI.

What do you think Bulldog? Should we have armed forces so huge that many of them aren't really used at all, anytime, no matter what the countries' actual specific 'need'?
(Despite the obvious dangers you'll not find many service personel going along with that little idea.)


We are required to defend the Falklands , Gibraltar , Belize etc.


- Yeah. And. So. What?

These are your huge threats to the UK's national security now are they?
This is what you use to justify a call, for what!?
Increasing military spending (and cutting elsewhere) by what? 10%, 25%, 50% or a doubling of UK military spending? More?
What exactly does this fantasy and complaint actually call for.....is it ever specific?

.......and as you are harking back, when was there ever 'enough', what should we be aiming for and how much should we be funding, hmmm?

But to deal with your specifics.
The fact is that the threat to the Falklands is minimal and the permanent British 'presence and strength' has never been greater than it is in Falklands now.
Even if the Argentinians had the appetite and suitable forces for another go (which they don't) we'd see them preparing, we'd reinforce and then if they were foolish enough to actually attack we'd tear them a new one thanks to excellent facilities and kit at Mount Pleasant.

......and have you completely lost touch with reality and are claiming a military threat from Spain over Gib or a military threat to Belize!?

I think it reasonable to presume that the UK can handle a diminishing 'need' in Afghanistan (especially given the number of other countries helping there) and the on-going Iraqi situation.......a situation don't forget that is already being looked at for scaling back.


The Royal Navy has been cut to the barebones and will soon not be able to stop the drug patrols it does in the Caribbean.


- Stop exaggerating Bulldog.

The RN has fewer ships compared to years ago, yes, but to try to spin that as the RN having no strength at all is absurd.

Once again the RN's actual capability has probably never been higher......and is set to increase in the coming 5 - 10yrs as the new carriers and other surface fleet renewals come in.


I want this country to stop cutting its forces as we are needed worldwide to help people.


- Then you must be mighty glad to have seen the increases in spending and that new kit the forces are getting thanks to this Labour gov over the last few years and the coming years, huh?
Yeah right.

The problem with your original premise (Nelson and these ineffective defences you imagine) is that it doesn't bare any proper examination for more than 10 seconds or so; well not with anyone who is in the least bit genuinely informed about the UK armed forces and their history and the history of UK government.
You would be well advised to stop relying on the 'mainstream' media for much of your information (especially the so obviously politically slanted brands of it).

It is plain as day that the root of all of this is a blatent (ab)use of the UK armed forces purely for petty points scoring for party political ends.

Nevermind the costs or any actual need for this ludicrous military fantasy, right?

Nevermind that Britian is probably safer now than she has ever been thanks to her effective alliances and great diplomatic successes (as well as previous military successes) in helping to create a 'local region' as well as world which is itself probably safer than it has ever been, certainly in moden history.

When crying about Britian 'not being able to go it alone' you might consider that we haven't been in that position since the 19th century; even WW1 and WW2 were only won thanks to our alliances.

Instead of complaining about or sneering at this reality you might pause to consider it's proven value, the British lives it has saved and the way of life it helped sustain......in addition to proving a remarkably successful way of maintaining and sustaining the peace the vast bulk of us enjoy; in short what those alliances have done for us in the not so distant past.

Nelson would be proud of that IMO.
Nelson would be happy to see his country not having to waste so much of it's potential, efforts and young people.

IMO Nelson would be astounded and overjoyed that this country faces no serious credible threat to it.
No doubt the terrorist threat would be disappointing to him but I think on balance if that is all we face he would consider his lifes' work and those that followed him well done.

......and I doubt he'd have much time for those that try and (ab)use him and his great name in such obvious petty party political persuits......nor those that would use unnecessarily over-sixed armed forces, at the expense of the people - our people, as some sort of a badge or absurd totem.


[edit on 8-7-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkeyIMO
Nelson would be astounded and overjoyed that this country faces no serious credible threat to it.

[edit on 8-7-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


Try turning on your TV Einstein, 37 dead people want to disagree with you.

Anyone who quotes a white prostitute beating Liberal like Martin Luther King wouldn't support military spending even if the enemy were shooting at him.

I could stomach people like you were it not for the fact that if you were around in 1938 you would have been preaching appeasement of the Nazis and asking why we should spend money on making more Spitfires.

Gun hating, terrorist hugging, bean curd eating, sandal wearing Liberals - we should put them all on an island - and nuke it.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Try turning on your TV Einstein, 37 dead people want to disagree with you.


- Actually it is estimated to be more than 50 dead in yesterdays outrage, brains.

.....and terrible as it was, a terrorist attack (just as when the IRA was bombing Britain) is nothing like on the same level as the threat of armed invasion Nelson faced.
Think.

How the hell do you manage to equate a terrorist attack as a 'credible serious threat to the nation' of the kind Nelson faced, hmmm?


Anyone who quotes a white prostitute beating Liberal like Martin Luther King wouldn't support military spending even if the enemy were shooting at him.


- Jayzuss H, do you have to practise at being so offensive?

Lame and pathetic......and not even that good at it, not to mention laughably wrong and surely against the rules of ATS.

Shall we examine the man you quote, Churchill, for a perfect private personal character or would you think it best to consider his public words and actions for their wisdom and successful effect, hmmm?

Coo here so short a time and already making 'an impression'.



I could stomach people like you were it not for the fact that if you were around in 1938 you would have been preaching appeasement of the Nazis and asking why we should spend money on making more Spitfires.


- Ah, the old 'you're one of the appeasers' type slander.
Ludicrous.

..... and I note that in your sweeping assertions you completely fail to answer any of the points raised.
Typical troll/sock puppet activity.


Gun hating, terrorist hugging, bean curd eating, sandal wearing Liberals - we should put them all on an island - and nuke it.


- Gee you must be so disappointed Hitler and Stalin lost and have left you all alone to your totalitarian ravings, huh?
Mass (nuclear) murder of those who dare to disagree with you, hmmm......so this kind of attitude makes you different to a 'terrorist' how, exactly, eh?

No doubt you really impress yourself.

(and by the way, I don't wear sandals - except in somewhere hot abroad by a pool, I don't like bean-curd and I eat meat.
I am proud to have grown up sufficiently to have left behind the sadly all too typical (mostly) young male unhealthy fascination for guns and now have a healthy dislike of guns.

Your "terrorist hugging" comment is grotesquely sick as well as grossly offensive and totally worthy of a swift note to a mod which I have sent.)


[edit on 8-7-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Typical lib has gone running to the Moderators because someone set him straight, take your medicine like a man.

Your kind always need someone else to take care of them, you're so liberal it hurts.

Try reporting Al Qaeda to the mods, maybe they can keep them away from you too.

[edit on 8-7-2005 by Winchester Ranger T]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Typical lib has gone running to the Moderators because someone set him straight


- No.
The fact is I went to the mods because you called me a "terrorist hugger".


take your medicine like a man.


- "medicine"?!
You have a very strange idea of what medicine is.


Your kind always need someone else to take care of them


- "kind"!? "take care of"........you do realise this is a message board, don't you?


you're so liberal it hurts.


- You seem to be under the delusion that as a British person I might find the term "liberal" a negative one, you are much mistaken.
British liberalism is a fine tradition and certainly nothing to use as a rather lame insult.


Try reporting Al Qaeda to the mods, maybe they can keep them away from you too.


- Perhaps you'd care top explain your odd ideas of the link between Al Queda and ATS?

Anyhoo, OK, I'll take this as another lot of ridiculous abuse simply worthy of another notice to the mods.
Some of us would rather ATS didn't descend to what is obviously your level.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join