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.

 

UK cancels type 45.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
www.defense-aerospace.com...

and

news.bbc.co.uk...


The government has cancelled plans to build an extra two Type 45 Destroyers for the Royal Navy.

Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth told the Commons it would not be taking up the option to build the seventh and eighth warships.


6 warships to replace 2 whole classes....

this government is beyond a joke.




posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
oh what ?........

They are having a bloody laugh aren't they ? 6 ships to replace every thing that was scrapped....



What next ? just what else will they scrap because iraq and afghanistan are bleeding us dry ?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
By the time they have finished we will hardly have a coastal defence force let alone a navy, how long before they decide to cancel one of the new carriers as well?

/me waits for all of the Nu Labour fanboi's to enter the thread and try to pretend that all is well and our armed forces are stronger than ever



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
The ships that are being fielded don't appear to have a full weapons fit because of cost.

I noticed quite a few "provision for" statements in regards to SSM and CIWS fits.

Thank goodness they have iPod chargers though, those things are lethal.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
no great suprise really...but i havent seen anything on this till now...not even in the daily mail.

suppose it's 2 less ships to hand over to the french



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Hello

I just about cried when i saw this, is it a coincidence just after a scummy EU naval force has been hyped??

why can we not learn? big coast big navy???? bring back Elizabeth the 1st

I'm proud of our heritage and its being flushed away daily.

still if we go to a proper all out war or have to fight off an invasion i'm sure i could lay my hands on a raft and and an air rifle

disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by solidshot
 


how long would it take to sink 6 ships???????

not long in my opinion



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
This is a sad day for the Royal Navy.

When all the signs are pointing towards a renewed round of potential political tension and a greater need for the armed forces, the government chooses to cut them. I wonder when we'll hear that the Type 22 and Type 23 frigate replacement or the Astute SSN programme is also being slashed in numbers.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Lord Nelson and Lord Rodney must be spinning in their graves...

Truely a sad day for the Royal Navy. I truley hope this isn't the lasting legacy of sailors that ruled the seven seas for so long...



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 05:27 AM
link   
and this is the basis for it, The six destroyers already on contract will be formidable warships and far more capable than first envisaged. With their advanced technology they will play a key part in the future force protection package for high value ships.

to save costs the rn should do what the canadians are doing,
- 15 ships based on a common hull design will replace Canada's destroyers and frigates, starting in 2015;



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I believe the R.N. will be concentrating on fielding more advanced submarines ,rather than a surface fleet.Advanced sub shield / and minimal but highly powerful anti electronic warfare shield ships for the new carriers .



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Whatever you think, I believe that the Royal Navy can best be served by having a smaller surface fleet and a much smaller hunter/killer and cruise missile submarine force.

The two new aircraft carriers that are due to be constructed next year will, in my opinion, need a tad more than 3 Type 45 'Destroyers' each, to protect them.

Having put my considerable brain power to good use and after thinking about the Future Royal Navy for 30 seconds, I have had what I can only describe as a brilliant and far reaching idea.

We have round our beloved shores, hundreds of ships tied alongside, doing absolutely nothing. True they are only deep see trawlers, but by God:

Imagine if they had Block III or the Astor PAAMS fitted and the 114mm mk 8/1 medium-calibre gun coupled with the twin 30 mm Raytheon Phalanx CIWS, and imagine if they had nuclear power-plants.

We'd have a Royal Navy that was second to none and we would truely rule the waves.

Because believe me, that can't be worse than what we've got under Labour!

[edit on 22-6-2008 by fritz]



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Lets hope for the British navy that what they now are more missing in pure size, make it up in pure quality or else the party is over faster then ever before.

Remember: Hitler didnt invaded the UK because off the RAF. But because off the sheer size and strength off the navy. Thats why he wanted air superiority to enable him to crush the navy pathing a way for his invasion forces.

It was the RAF and the Navy who saved the day. One off those 2 away means the end off the line.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 


It's true that ships have become more expensive and sophisticated, requiring fewer of them to do the same job. But 6 destroyers is just a token force; it can't protect a carrier group AND be deployed to trouble spots around the world at the same time.

The government needs to backtrack on this. Funny, isn't it, how they can afford a £2.7billion tax cut but can't afford a couple of destroyers?



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
6 ships to replace 14 , and quite liekly the replace the type 22/23 figs as well

the Royal Navy is now smaller than the French Navy - a sad day indeed.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:08 AM
link   
I'm waiting to see what the Argentinians do over the next few years now, what with our troops being tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan and now our navy being decimated we would have very little chance of retaking the Falklands if any invasion were attempted in the near future



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by solidshot
 


As far as I'm aware, the Argentinians have suffered deep cuts in their military since 1982, particularly since 2000 as their economy went into recession.

Still, you never know...

Oh, and Harlequin, apparently a separate ship is being designed to replace the frigates... haven't seen any specs or numbers though.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
i know there supposed to be a seperate ship - but this is labour who will cut anything



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652
Oh, and Harlequin, apparently a separate ship is being designed to replace the frigates... haven't seen any specs or numbers though.



And they will take what a decade? until they are ready for service? leaving us with a woefully under resourced fleet



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
i know there supposed to be a seperate ship - but this is labour who will cut anything


I've suggested before that 'Googling' the words PYM, KNOTT and Navy Cuts, really does put to rest the belief that this government is any worse than previous governments with regard the Navy budget. I'm much more concerned about the number of Astutes we are likely to get. The 45's carry on the RN tradition of anti aircraft destroyers and are valuable in the context of the expeditionary role the Navy is developing. But flexible/general purpose, they are not. There also is a common denominator in many Defence Budget dilemmas at present and that is the complete inability of BAE systems to deliver any project on time or on budget. As for the RN having fewer ships than the French Navy, that was the situation at Trafalgar. Plus ca change.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join