They've blown it now...

[C]

A horrifying bit of news in the Telegraph today...

10 years in power and it looks like the present UK Government has really sealed its "legacy" for our armed forces.

Lord Nelson would be turning in his grave.

Royal Navy to cut its fleet by half

The result cutting back, and then of trying to do too much with too little (and a small bill from a couple of wars...)

A disgrace. [smiley=angry.gif]

[Romulus111VADT]

It's expensive to have a military. The US has been cutting bases all over the place. Leaving 10's of thousands out of work in the civilian sector.  ::)

[Woodlouse2002]

I hope this is just the media jumping the gun and presenting suggestions as fact.


This line was interesting though...

Defence sources said it would be unlikely that the Navy could now launch an armada of the kind that retook the Falkland Islands in 1982.

We havn't been able to launch an armarda of the kind that retook the Falkland Islands since that armarda came home and the Hermes was scrapped.

[dcunning30]

Wow.  ......all the while China has been transitioning at a feverish pace from a costal defense force to a world class blue water navy.  There will come the day when China begins it's international swagger and all the "very smart" people will wonder where did they come from?  1st target, Taiwan, 2nd target, Japan.  Payback's a mother....  :o

[dcunning30]

The article mentioned the French will build a carrier.  I'm curious, what role would such a carrier serve?  In the US Navy, carriers project power, protect sea lanes, etc.  Are the French seeking to operate in such a role, protecting sea lanes, etc?  ....just curious.

[Craig.]

The french already have carriers Dcun. So your argument is kind of curious.
The article fails to mention the fact that the Royal Navy will be getting two super carriers within about 50 years.

[Woodlouse2002]

The article fails to mention the fact that the Royal Navy will be getting two super carriers within about 50 years.

It mentions concerns that the carriers won't be built. Of course, that is ludicrous. The MOD would never remove the RN's airboune capacity. Surely.

[Hagar]

It mentions concerns that the carriers won't be built. Of course, that is ludicrous. The MOD would never remove the RN's airborne capacity. Surely.

Didn't I read somewhere about a replacement for Trident missiles? Sound familiar?

[C]

The MOD would never remove the RN's airboune capacity. Surely. :o

Er, they already have. The two "Royal Navy" Harrier Sqns are effectively rebadged RAF Harrier Sqns, and those two Sqns are just operating with an RN>RAF personnel bias*, rather than the RAF>RN bias of the previous few years Joint Force Harrier.

*and one of them isn't going to get it's aircraft for another year.

And the Helicopter force has been Joint Helicopter Command for several years too...

Didn't I read somewhere about a replacement for Trident missiles? Sound familiar?

The thing with Trident is it is the "price" we have to pay to retain enough credibility to keep our place as one of the five permanent members on the UN Security Council.

This is a thought though. This is the first government the UK has had in recent times where the politians, and most of their influences and advisors have never served in the military (bearing in mind most of the main figures in the 1980s Tory government would have had to do National Service). The current lot (I understand the Chancellor has a particular grudge against the Navy) are nothing but a disgrace.

[Woodlouse2002]

The MOD would never remove the RN's airboune capacity. Surely. :o

Er, they already have. The two "Royal Navy" Harrier Sqns are effectively rebadged RAF Harrier Sqns, and those two Sqns are just operating with an RN>RAF personnel bias*, rather than the RAF>RN bias of the previous few years Joint Force Harrier.

*and one of them isn't going to get it's aircraft for another year.

I know. But at least they've tried to keep something that can fly from the current carriers while the yanks keep hammering out the defects from their next white elephant.

[C]

I know. But at least they've tried to keep something that can fly from the current carriers while the yanks keep hammering out the defects from their next white elephant.

Mmm, Gr.7/9s aren't too good at shooting down Mirage and Skyhawks though.

To be honest, as has been mentioned elsewhere, the MOD has effectively been bankrupted since we decided to do both Iraq and A-ghan. I think the carriers may just be the things that go. The penny pinchers will argue we don't need carriers - and use the Tornado/soon to be Typhoon det at Mount Pleasant.

I wonder how the Argentine press will report the story?

[dcunning30]

The french already have carriers Dcun. So your argument is kind of curious.

Don't read anything into my question.

[Woodlouse2002]

To be honest, as has been mentioned elsewhere, the MOD has effectively been bankrupted since we decided to do both Iraq and A-ghan. I think the carriers may just be the things that go. The penny pinchers will argue we don't need carriers - and use the Tornado/soon to be Typhoon det at Mount Pleasant.

I wonder how the Argentine press will report the story?

They'll be the same penny pinchers who said the Typhoon wouldn't need a gun right?


The Argentinians are probably getting ready to buy some of our ships in preparation for another invasion.

[Woodlouse2002]

The french already have carriers Dcun. So your argument is kind of curious.

Don't read anything into my question.

[dcunning30]

This is a thought though. This is the first government the UK has had in recent times where the politians, and most of their influences and advisors have never served in the military (bearing in mind most of the main figures in the 1980s Tory government would have had to do National Service). The current lot (I understand the Chancellor has a particular grudge against the Navy) are nothing but a disgrace.

I'm not offering an opinion on the current UK government, but this is a consideration that I see tremendously obvious in the US.  Just because someone runs for office and wins doesn't automagically transform that person into a geopolitically savvy policy wonk.

And also, just because a politician once served as a Jr. Grade officer in a branch of the military, that also doesn't automagically bestow upon that person the credibility of military matters that is often bestowed upon them.

That's like saying just because a manager supervised the assembly of driver side airbags doesn't mean they suddenly know how to design the whole automobile.