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.

 

Royal Navy to cut fleet by half?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 03:24 AM
link   
blue cell, sorry to say it mate but I did tell you so very early on about destroyer numbers, stu I like your optimism but frankly only 8 destroyers will not defend the falklands, acension, gib and guam all on thier. We have no frigates to replace our older 22's and 23's, the astues I can see are the only good thing to come out of the deal so far because they dont require destroyers or frigates covering thier backs.




posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Naval forces seem to be highly undervalued by civilian governments and the voters they must please.

For a nation not threatened on its own landmass, such as the US, Australia, or the UK, to not have a navy is almost not to have a military, particularly in this post cold-war age where the chances of them having to defend their own territory seem at least 20 years remote.

Unless the UK anticipates an attack on its own soil, it should do away with its armored divisions as well as its navy. How does it intend to deploy them against any compelling threat without a destroyer screen or carrier cover sufficient in modernity or number to offer protection?


In my mind, as the gap between the West and its most likely adversaries grows and the common conflict becomes smaller, the navy takes on an ever more important role.

There was some talk at the time that Lebanon was the war of the future: techno-guerillas with C-802 antiship missiles and surprisingly effective militia forces, wailing away with antiquated rocket artillery just to provoke the superior force into coming in to be dealt an indecisive but politically shaking blow.

Perhaps that is the war of the future, perhaps not, but in that case and many others it behooves the west to have a reinforced batallion with airpower and naval gun and cruise missile support always nearby, prepared to offer a painful surgical cut as a first warning, or to see its nationals safely out of the area of the conflict.

If you can have 10 divisions at home and 1 carrier or expeditionary strike group, or 10 strike groups and 1 division at home, choose the second. Not only will you be better suited to the majority of crises, but nobody will ever come near your home.

Western militaries are not deployable enough these days, and it is a product of our obsession with expensive but indecisive airborne weapons systems at the expense of the navy- the workhorse which gets you there "the firstest with the mostest", as General Forrest put it.

Afterall, amatuers study tactics. Professionals study logistics. No navy, no deployability, or worse yet, the possibility of getting in and then not being able to sustain your force or get it out.

Out of morbid curiousity, what does the MoD have in mind for the Eurofighter? Please don't tell me they've decided not to cut their orders at least a bit for a pretty little toy that will probably never be called upon to make an air-to-air kill.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Nope, the Royal Navy just got totaly raped again.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

My wifes sisters in the final leg of her selection process for the Royal Navy as an Intensive care Nurse (Officer Selection, as she has 6 years post qualification time, and teaching experience). She just the last week got told her process would be frozen for a minimum two years.

So.... seems like the poor Royal Navies gonna get cut to shreds to support two wars in far away foriegn lands.

Now, the RAF has not got enough heavy lift aircraft or helicopters, the navies not got enough supply / combat support ships, the armies being run on a shoe string...and Blaire has us in 5 combat / potential combat zones, AND peace keeping AND the war on drugs as well.... FFS.


[edit on 6-1-2007 by D4rk Kn1ght]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Simply put, I strongly (and I cannot emphasize this enough) doubt this story to the core. It's utter madness and BS...


And that makes it different from new labours recent military decisions how? And last night sky news was reporting that Invincible the aircraft carrier was already suposedly being stripped and being readied for sale



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by solidshot

Originally posted by stumason

Simply put, I strongly (and I cannot emphasize this enough) doubt this story to the core. It's utter madness and BS...


And that makes it different from new labours recent military decisions how? And last night sky news was reporting that Invincible the aircraft carrier was already suposedly being stripped and being readied for sale



wow you are real quick off the mark we have known about the invincible for months. As for the destroyers being mothballed isnt it more of the case for them being mothballed early to save money with the introduction of the type 45s



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
i mst admit this made me laugh when i was looking through google news:-

www.thespoof.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

posted by Westpoint23
Stu, lets not buy into the hype, with only 48 surface to air missiles and one helicopter that statement is very bold indeed.


Not really. The Type-42 has only a twin Sea dart launcher on board, plus a collection of guns of various calibres, plus Phalanx CIWS.

With only 4 Type-42's in service, that makes a total increase in SAM launchers of 280, if you take it as 6 Type-45's and not 8.

As you can see, the Type-45's not only massively increase AA cover for the Fleet, but there will be a Type-42/Type-45 replacement ratio of 2:1.


posted by Westpoint23
Anyway, can one Type 45 be at three places at the same time? Think about world commitments and ongoing operations. With six destroyers how many are going to be ready for deployment at any given time? Five at best? If a major conflict breaks out on distant shores you would have to commit your entire destroyer force and abandon other duties and commitment you may have. Think about defending shipping lanes, supporting on going coalition operation, defending UK waters, and fighting a distant war like the Falklands at the same time. Now you see why number play a key role, it good to have quality as well as reasonable quantity. Six destroyers is not enough for a country like GB unless you are ready to reduce your influence.


As I said above, the Type-42's are each being replaced by 2 Type-45's. So the overall Destroyer capability is being doubled in ship terms (providing we get the 8), but increased in AA ability by a factor of at least 36.


posted by Westpoint23
The same goes for the carriers, how many will be available for operation at any given time?


Well, we're getting two, so I would hazard a guess and say at least 1 will be at Sea and the other either training or, when it gets to a certain age, refit. There will be times when both will be at Sea though.


posted by Westpoint23
Frigate numbers will go down as the Type 22 class will be decommission in the coming years, not to mention the older Type 23 boats.


I don't understand why the Type-23's are bing discussed as old and nearing decommission. The first entered service in 1990 and the latest in 2000. They are hardly old. Only the Batch 1's (the oldest) have been got rid of and they were sold to Chile. That still leaves 13 in service

The Type-22's are getting rather creaky, but there are only 4 in service anyway. Granted, a replacement hasn't been discussed, but then, is there a need to replace 4x25+ year old ships? Especially as the last SDR was committed to making the RN a Blue Water Navy again.


posted by Westpoint23
The UK is not building enough new units to make up for the ships which will be decommissioned, therefore current numbers cannot be sustained, the overall size will be reduced. And that's without any cuts mind you, should this report prove true the situation becomes even more dire.


I agree. I am concerned that the only seface ships being built are the Type-45's and the new CVF. But, there is plenty of time left to replace the Type-23's as they have a good 15 years left in them at least...

One thing that has to be said is that if Labour does cut the Fleet in half, as is being discussed, they will be mauled in Parliament and would face a Political nightmare. This would be suicide, even for the (typically Scottish) penny-pinching, tight-arsed Brown.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
It truly saddens me that such a glorious navy is be nuetered by bean counters. But its not just happening in england it is happening in us as well.
are costly war is felt in all our defense budgets. It killed these weapon systems, the comanche helicopter, the seawolf attackl sub, it almost killed the raptor. troops in field have had eqiupment supply problems.are navy is also under the knife. and yes i understand that seawolf was replaced by the virginia class its not as good at antisub roll. May Hms Invinceble sail the seas forever. for we have already lost the mighty saretoga.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by chron
May Hms Invinceble sail the seas forever. for we have already lost the mighty saretoga.


Invinceable was retired over a year ago and everyone knew it was happening for years prior to that.

The two new CVF's will be built and are due between 2012-2015..

EDIT: Put it this way, if the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales don't get built, then our purchase of the F-35 is down the toilet and we all know that is going ahead.

One thing I might point out is that The Telegraph is staunchly Tory, so is probably stirring up some anti-Labour nationalism and the Daily Mail is a right-wing rag, so don't trust ANYTHING they claim.

[edit on 6/1/07 by stumason]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
This would be suicide, even for the (typically Scottish) penny-pinching, tight-arsed Brown.

Typically scottish? Ah yet again the ignorance of the english people is shown



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by stumason
This would be suicide, even for the (typically Scottish) penny-pinching, tight-arsed Brown.

Typically scottish? Ah yet again the ignorance of the english people is shown


C'mon, DW, everyone knows the Scots are tighter than a Duck's arse!



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
C'mon, DW, everyone knows the Scots are tighter than a Duck's arse!

Yeah right, ever tried getting a fiver out of an englishmans hands? Like trying to part the red sea!



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by stumason
C'mon, DW, everyone knows the Scots are tighter than a Duck's arse!

Yeah right, ever tried getting a fiver out of an englishmans hands? Like trying to part the red sea!


Blame that on the King of Taxation, Mr Brown, as boring and as tight arsed Scotsman there ever was!


Besides, I am Cornish, not English....



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Blame that on the King of Taxation, Mr Brown, as boring and as tight arsed Scotsman there ever was!

Mr Brown is the typical scottish acountant, ducks arse incarnate.


Besides, I am Cornish, not English....

Bloody awkward git!
Just wait, you'll get nuked first by the ruskies if it goes hot because your still at war with them!



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Bloody awkward git!
Just wait, you'll get nuked first by the ruskies if it goes hot because your still at war with them!


I think your confused with a small town on the Scottish/English border


Cornwall was absorbed by England (without an Act of Union or Annexation, I might add!!!!!) sometime in the 15-1600's...



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I think your confused with a small town on the Scottish/English border


Its all part of england, same rubbish diffrent part of the country



Cornwall was absorbed by England (without an Act of Union or Annexation, I might add!!!!!) sometime in the 15-1600's...

Ah you probably deserved it...

EDit: I found this on the SCC forums..

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2007/01/06/navy06.xml
Now not only will we not have a navy but we wont have any above LT commander to man it!

I can see there being a large influx of 2 and 2 and a half ringers in the upcoming years if this paper is true.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Now not only will we not have a navy but we wont have any above LT commander to man it!

I can see there being a large influx of 2 and 2 and a half ringers in the upcoming years if this paper is true.




That is probably taken slightly out of context. The aim of the freeze is to ensure what the Navy doesn't get too top heavy with Brass. No point having dozens of Commodores and Admirals if there are no Junior Officers or ratings to command, is there?



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
That is probably taken slightly out of context. The aim of the freeze is to ensure what the Navy doesn't get too top heavy with Brass. No point having dozens of Commodores and Admirals if there are no Junior Officers or ratings to command, is there?

Or is it to try and increase the number of crews we have availible for ships with the upcoming defence cuts that will cause an increase in duties for crews. Mabye they're sacrificing careers for man power?



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
What upcoming defence cuts?

As I said above, in regards to what is a highly sensitive political matter, I would not trust the Telegraph or the Mail (The Mail especially so) to report on actual facts, but rather wild specualtion...

We only had a SDR a couple of years back and any "cuts" would have been spelt out in that.

I believe what the papers seem to be clinging on to is the fact there is no replacement on the table for the Type-23's, which, if they went, would reduce the fleet by "half". But a replacement will not be needed for 10-15 years yet.

Without the Type-23's (or a replacement) that would make the Type-45's useless, as they have a limited ASW capability and the new CVF's would be useless without a good ASW screen, so if they did bin the Type-23's, they might as scrap the Fleet entirely, which isn't going to happen.

Again, this is just a BS story blown out of proportion. Before the 23's are mothballed, there will be a replacement. Otherwise all we will have is 6 Daring's and 2 Carriers which would be so woefully exposed as to make any investment in them a waste.

Also, to the story about the CVF's being cancelled, if that was true, why are we plowing ahead with the F-35 procurement?

This story is bogus



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Not really. The Type-42 has only a twin Sea dart launcher on board, plus a collection of guns of various calibres, plus Phalanx CIWS.

With only 4 Type-42's in service, that makes a total increase in SAM launchers of 280, if you take it as 6 Type-45's and not 8.


Umm... where are you getting your figures from? There are eight Type 42's in service, and they will be replaced by six Type 45's. Stu, each Type 42 carries more than two missile onboard in their internal magazine. You also forgot the torpedoes and the fact that it has three more guns than the Type 45.


Originally posted by stumason
As you can see, the Type-45's not only massively increase AA cover for the Fleet, but there will be a Type-42/Type-45 replacement ratio of 2:1.


Nope, depending on the load out of a Type 42 it is either a marginal increase or no increase at all. Where the Type 45 is better is in the fact that it carries the more advanced Aster 30 and 15 along with a more capable radar system. But it has no torpedoes so it decreases the ASuW capability of the fleet. And don't give me any "fitted for but not with", I'm going by current plans not hypothetical what ifs.

However still, the quantity issue has not gone away, six destroyers are not enough.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join