Britain's naval power on the skids

[STEED]

Thank you Mr Blair and Mr Brown for being a swine to our Navy.

Navy chief calls for £1bn boost or become 'Belgium' (http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=258342007)

The way things are going.........................:damn:

[Oberon]

Mweh, won't be long before Russia's navy is in better condiction than ours....hell...it probably already is!! :damn: :damn:

To think that we used to rule the waves :nope: :nope: :nope: :nope: :nope:

[AJ!]

To think that we used to rule the waves :nope: :nope: :nope: :nope: :nope:

that was the first thing i thought when i saw that news....

[mr chris]

A complete shoddy state of afairs. :nope::nope::nope::nope::nope::nope:
It complete outrages me that defence spending is cut year on year and the armed forces never get the best kit that money can buy and yet the nation and the Govement expects the armed forces to do more and more year on year.
People in power need to take a look in the mirror.:yep::yep:
BTW. The Austrailians spend a hight percentage of there GDP on there armed forces than we do!!!!
And we are supossed to be the big daddy of the comonwealth do me a favour:damn::damn::nope::nope:

[loynokid]

Im from the US...

if you want your naval forces in a better state, then you better stop electing people like brown and blair into office. A Conservative Cantidate would increase military funding far more than a liberal one would. Look at George Bush. Most of the world hates him, but he has increased funding to the US's armed forces by about 300 percent.

[mr chris]

Well the problem is that the UK is full of lilly livered Liberals and PC fools and would rather wast money on pandering to the views of select few. Rather than bring the armed forces to the 21st century.

[STEED]

Well the problem is that the UK is full of lilly livered Liberals and PC fools and would rather wast money on pandering to the views of select few. Rather than bring the armed forces to the 21st century.

Don't look at me. As you all know I am bloody sick of these wet liberals and PC Loonies, the problem is a lot of people have forgot how to think for themselves and can not see this stinking government is all smoke and mirrors. And if that swine Brown get's in, say good bye to your money as Brown will bring in more and more tax in. :damn:

No wonder are armed forces are bleed white. I got more respect for are armed forces in Iraq than that stinking lot of scum who sit on there fat backsides in Westminster.

[mr chris]

Aye Steed that statement was not aimed at you at all mate. But the people who it was know who they are.:nope:
As i have said before the UK needs more poeple like yourself mate. Then maybe us members of HM Armed forces might get the funding and kit we need to keep the country safe and do all the jobs that seem to keep poping up.

[Tchocky]

Im from the US...

if you want your naval forces in a better state, then you better stop electing people like brown and blair into office. A Conservative Cantidate would increase military funding far more than a liberal one would. Look at George Bush. Most of the world hates him, but he has increased funding to the US's armed forces by about 300 percent.
Um, wars cost more than peace. And haven't benefits for soldiers been cut, terms of duty extended?


To think that we used to rule the waves :nope: :nope: :nope: :nope: :nope:
A large empire needs policing. At the time, a strong navy was the only way to go, and it worked. Maintaining a similiar force in this day and age would be prohibitively expensive. THere's only so much tax a government can take in, and I for one would prefer to see it spent on schools & hospitals. The new subs (delavyed as the are) and the CVF will go a long way towards improving Britains naval capabilities.

And if that swine Brown get's in, say good bye to your money as Brown will bring in more and more tax in. :damn:
GB has done an awful lot for the UK economy since the turn of the century, I can't see that changing if he moves house to No 10. Unemployment is low, growth is steady and stable, and inflation isn't a problem (around 2%). He's taken the wrong approach to the NHS though, just chucking money at it won't solve anything.

[bigboywooly]

Now answer this one
How can inflation be at 2% or whatever when local governments increase council tax at around 10-12%
Electric and Gas companies have increased prices at around the same figure if not higher

True wars cost more than peace but only cos of ordinance used
You still have to pay the armed forces whether they are sat in Aldershot or Iraq
The airforce still fly and ships still sail

What ships and airforce we have that is

The problem is the conservatives wont be a great deal better

All much of a muchness
:nope:

[Tchocky]

Now answer this one
How can inflation be at 2% or whatever when local governments increase council tax at around 10-12%
Electric and Gas companies have increased prices at around the same figure if not higher
Because inflation isn't a composite of council tax and energy bills. I can't answer for local governments in the UK, I don't live there. Inflation rates differ across sectors. Medical inflation, for example, is at around 10%. This is why throwing a 9% increase at the Health budget has no effect.
Have you noticed the war(s) in the Middle East, and the possibility of war with Iran? Any sort of global instability results in oil price rises, which fuel worldwide inflation

True wars cost more than peace but only cos of ordinance used
You still have to pay the armed forces whether they are sat in Aldershot or Iraq
The airforce still fly and ships still sail I was answering loynokid's post about American military spending. An increase in expenditure says f-all about increase in capability.
True, armed forces always cost money. But I hardly think Geroge Bush would be asking for emergency appropriations bills amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars if all the US had going on were exercises.
Wars cost a hell of a lot more than peace and it's not just due to ammunition usage.

[mr chris]

All i will say is that the army is very short of cash.:yep::yep:
My regiment has had to cancel two exersises this year alone as we have run out of cash and we can not do fark all about it till April.

[Bort]

Im from the US...

if you want your naval forces in a better state, then you better stop electing people like brown and blair into office. A Conservative Cantidate would increase military funding far more than a liberal one would. Look at George Bush. Most of the world hates him, but he has increased funding to the US's armed forces by about 300 percent.

Umm..that is simply not true.
The US Navy has actually fallen quite dramatically in force numbers (across the board, ships aircraft and personell) under Bush and the Republicans. As some have mentioned, the vast majority of that money is going towards the war(s). You should also check this out:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/future/agenda/
the conflicting Defense plans of Al Gore and Dubya during the 2000 election before 9/11. Al Gore wanted to increase the defense budget by more than twice the amount Bush did. Being liberal or conservative has nothing to do with it, plenty of liberal governments have increased spending and plenty of conservative governments have pared it back.:roll:

[ASWnut101]

Ok, then who cut the Seawolf program?

I'll give you a hint: The congress between the Bushes.

[loynokid]

Remember when the US was in the Vietnam war? We lost because our leadership didn't have the guts to fully fund our troops over there and our leaders didnt have the guts to send enough troops. guess who our leaders were. Dems, liberal dems. thats all there is to it. Thats just one example of the trend. Conservatives support the military more than liberals do, there is no more to say, and there is no arguing it, (unless you are from california... lol):know:

[Tchocky]

Ok, then who cut the Seawolf program?

I'll give you a hint: The congress between the Bushes.

Yeah, the Seawolf program was designed for a situation that no longer existed. It should have been cut. I would have expected a Republican congress to do the same

I vote Virginia, because it is better suited to today's missions than the monster Seawolf. Seawolf is in alot of ways the ultimate SSN, but in even more ways it is a dinosaur, built for a mission that ceased to exist before it ever touched the water. I also say it's time for the administration and congress to stop goofing around with this one or two boats a year building plan and crank up production of the Virginas to replace the old 688's and rebuild the Sub force to a reasonable number.:stare:

[TteFAboB]

loynokid, liberals only speak against the military, wars and etc. When it comes to voting, they vote for all of those. The difference is that recently they've started being more virulent in their speech but wait and you'll see that while they speak against all of these, they don't hesitate voting for more troops, more money, etc. etc.

Don't let their appearance fool you. Unmask them.

[Bort]

Hmm:hmm:
1. The entire Seawolf program was canceled by the Bush 41 administration, under the direction of then SecDef Dick Cheney. The Clinton administration revived the program and pushed for the construction of three submarines of that class in order to keep Electric Boat running until the Virgina class could begin production.

2. Gutless liberals in Vietnam? Well, one of those liberals started that war, Lyndon Baines Johnson. I can't honestly think of a more liberal recent president than Johnson, he spent his terms instituting the largest public support program of modern times, the Great Society, and Civil Rights legislation that dealt a death blow to the south's official policies of racism.

Go ahead "unmask" me TteFAboB, I thought the Iraq war was moronic and without justification before it even started, while I was still in High School. I though Dubya was full of it then and I still do now, and thus far history seems to be bearing out my predictions as correct.

[Tchocky]

Thank you Mr Blair and Mr Brown for being a swine to our Navy.

Navy chief calls for £1bn boost or become 'Belgium' (http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=258342007)

The way things are going.........................:damn:
From your source -

BELGIUM ROYAL NAVY

2 Frigates
6 Minehunters
5 support ships
1 river boat
2 aircraft carriers
3 helicopter carrier "platform" vessels
17 frigates
8 destroyers
13 nuclear submarines
16 minehunters
24 patrol ships


um, wtf?

alternate - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6369655.stm

[loynokid]

loynokid, liberals only speak against the military, wars and etc. When it comes to voting, they vote for all of those. The difference is that recently they've started being more virulent in their speech but wait and you'll see that while they speak against all of these, they don't hesitate voting for more troops, more money, etc. etc.

Don't let their appearance fool you. Unmask them.


So which one do they believe in then, they speak agaisnt the military and vote for it. I think that they should take one side or the other. for example... lets say mr jones hates the sun and hot weather, he has a chance to go to an indoor swimming pool or the beach on a lake. he chooses the lake. (there are no outside influences such as his girlfriend was going to the beach) Why does he choose the lake? there is no sensible answer that i can see. that was probably a pretty crappy example (lol) but it gets the point across. i just dont get it, and also did you catch the houses vote on the unbinding resolution to defie the president's decision for a 20,000 troop surge in Iraq? So i also dont think that they always vote for military strength.

[Tchocky]

loynokid, liberals only speak against the military, wars and etc. When it comes to voting, they vote for all of those. The difference is that recently they've started being more virulent in their speech but wait and you'll see that while they speak against all of these, they don't hesitate voting for more troops, more money, etc. etc.

Don't let their appearance fool you. Unmask them.

TteFAboB, there's many a voter who disagrees with the actions US troops are fighting in, but want to see them win. You say it yourself - "liberals" speak against wars, but vote for funding for troops. They may not want the troops to go into combat, but if they are committed, they want to see them victorious. Seems fairly simple to me.
There's a difference between being pro-war and pro-military.

[Oberon]

Thank you Mr Blair and Mr Brown for being a swine to our Navy.

Navy chief calls for £1bn boost or become 'Belgium' (http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=258342007)

The way things are going.........................:damn:
From your source -

BELGIUM ROYAL NAVY

2 Frigates
6 Minehunters
5 support ships
1 river boat
2 aircraft carriers
3 helicopter carrier "platform" vessels
17 frigates
8 destroyers
13 nuclear submarines
16 minehunters
24 patrol ships


um, wtf?

alternate - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6369655.stm


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Methinks they mean our Navy rather than the Belgium Navy...though it'd be quite cool if the Belgium Navy did have that.

Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Navy#Ships_of_the_Belgian_Navy) a list of current Belgium Royal Navy ships.

[Takeda Shingen]

Thank you Mr Blair and Mr Brown for being a swine to our Navy.

Navy chief calls for £1bn boost or become 'Belgium' (http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=258342007)

The way things are going.........................:damn:
From your source -

BELGIUM ROYAL NAVY

2 Frigates
6 Minehunters
5 support ships
1 river boat
2 aircraft carriers
3 helicopter carrier "platform" vessels
17 frigates
8 destroyers
13 nuclear submarines
16 minehunters
24 patrol ships


um, wtf?

alternate - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6369655.stm


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Methinks they mean our Navy rather than the Belgium Navy...though it'd be quite cool if the Belgium Navy did have that.

Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Navy#Ships_of_the_Belgian_Navy) a list of current Belgium Royal Navy ships.

I like the 13 nuclear submarines. Interesting.

[STEED]

GORDON Brown must give the Royal Navy another £1 billion or Britain's naval power will end up no greater than that of Belgium, a naval chief warned yesterday.


I know nothing about Belgium, so I am thinking he is saying the rate we are going we will have a big fat zero. Or a fleet that is a joke.

[TteFAboB]

Go ahead "unmask" me TteFAboB, I thought the Iraq war was moronic and without justification before it even started, while I was still in High School. I though Dubya was full of it then and I still do now, and thus far history seems to be bearing out my predictions as correct.

Bort, I didn't knew you back in highschool, can't do anything about that, sorry.

TteFAboB, there's many a voter who disagrees with the actions US troops are fighting in, but want to see them win. You say it yourself - "liberals" speak against wars, but vote for funding for troops. They may not want the troops to go into combat, but if they are committed, they want to see them victorious. Seems fairly simple to me.
There's a difference between being pro-war and pro-military.

Thus the mask! There's no difference between voting to send 20k troops to Iraq and voting to send 20k troops to Iraq. Libs were using the excuse of a Republican Congress, now they have the Congress but pretend that they don't. That's the point. To speak anti-war when your actions are pro-war.

[Tchocky]

Thus the mask! There's no difference between voting to send 20k troops to Iraq and voting to send 20k troops to Iraq. Libs were using the excuse of a Republican Congress, now they have the Congress but pretend that they don't. That's the point. To speak anti-war when your actions are pro-war.

Agreed, there's no difference between voting to send 20k troops to Iraq and voting to send 20k troops to Iraq

[Kapitan]

LONOYKID person i very much doubt the US has raised the spending by 300% for the millatery infact if it raised it even by 60% the country would probably be bankrupt inside 10 years.

Not to metnion the fact that alot of the ships are now being withdrawn from service so far we have seen the 688 series go from 57 stong in 1995 to just 41 strong in 2004 its due to be less.

So far only three virginias have been put into service (TWO NOT FINNISHED YET) the rate is so far 3 ships decommisoion to every 1 put into service that means that america will have what just 20 odd subs active buy the time the last 688i pays off? (figures are rough not 100% accurate)

So far the perry class are being withdrawn there are no replacements planned, the 16 carrier navy is due to be cut to 12 so we have heard lately.

The older spruence class is barely existant, not to metnion the ancient mine warfare and some older auxilaries which have no replacements yet.

To be honest america i think has slashed its millatery budget and is running on a shoe string, the reason behind the ohio conversions could be that the cost of maintaing 18 nuclear missile submarines is too great convert 4 of them the cost is less over all.

The americans dont realy need these submarines 688i's and cruisers and destroyers are fully capbile themselves of doing what that one sub can do.

[Kapitan]

Our fleet will be down to 2 men in a rubber dinghy with a 50cal machine gun welded onto it and the dinghy being second hand from a fishing company full of patches.

[Takeda Shingen]

Our fleet will be down to 2 men in a rubber dinghy with a 50cal machine gun welded onto it and the dinghy being second hand from a fishing company full of patches.

Sounds top-heavy. Not for use in rough seas.

[Kapitan]

Probly come with a sign "not for use out side controlled pools"

[loynokid]

LONOYKID person i very much doubt the US has raised the spending by 300% for the millatery infact if it raised it even by 60% the country would probably be bankrupt inside 10 years.

Not to metnion the fact that alot of the ships are now being withdrawn from service so far we have seen the 688 series go from 57 stong in 1995 to just 41 strong in 2004 its due to be less.

So far only three virginias have been put into service (TWO NOT FINNISHED YET) the rate is so far 3 ships decommisoion to every 1 put into service that means that america will have what just 20 odd subs active buy the time the last 688i pays off? (figures are rough not 100% accurate)

So far the perry class are being withdrawn there are no replacements planned, the 16 carrier navy is due to be cut to 12 so we have heard lately.

The older spruence class is barely existant, not to metnion the ancient mine warfare and some older auxilaries which have no replacements yet.

To be honest america i think has slashed its millatery budget and is running on a shoe string, the reason behind the ohio conversions could be that the cost of maintaing 18 nuclear missile submarines is too great convert 4 of them the cost is less over all.

The americans dont realy need these submarines 688i's and cruisers and destroyers are fully capbile themselves of doing what that one sub can do.


Very sorry, i meant about 30 percent not 300 and also i think that info is a bit out of date, ill have to recheck it. Also we dont need a huge arms race gigapower navy, we need a more littoral, smaller ship type thing to help fight terrorists. Terrorists dont come out to sea with a bunch of destroyers and start shooting at us as you probably know, they hide in towns and use urban warfare tactics instead. you are telling the truth when you say that our navy is cutting in size and firepower, but mabye you should consider that what we need to win the war on terror is not all size and firepower.

[Kapitan]

America needs a navy at least its current size to deter any kind of sea threat have you not noticed they are getting a little itchy hence why they want this 1000 ship navy passed in because they cant afford the 600 ship navy reagan wanted.

If any thing the budget has not gone up 30% its gone down 30% the fact in cold war days the americans would have said ok to nearly everything which would have ment 24 seawolfs (as planned) and two dozen DDX (as planned) but now they are forced to sell off alot of stuff.

They even offerd the UK 5 of its ticonderoga cruisers (to which we declined).

If you dont have control of the seas then simply you have no control at all the sea is where its made or not every super power on the planet going back to romans or even before he who had control of the seas won still the same today.

americas small ships are unheard of all you see realy is the major warships because america doesnt realy care about the small ships its only recently that they aquired some new patrol craft theres been no new mine warfare ships for years.

america wants only major warships DDG and up hence theres no plans yet to replace the perry FF's (not FFG anymore dont have missiles)

[Kapitan]

Everything is about size and firepower why do you think america doesnt want war with china or russia or india or iran because if they invade then they havnt enough people to fight it.

[Takeda Shingen]

Also we dont need a huge arms race gigapower navy, we need a more littoral, smaller ship type thing to help fight terrorists. Terrorists dont come out to sea with a bunch of destroyers and start shooting at us as you probably know, they hide in towns and use urban warfare tactics instead. you are telling the truth when you say that our navy is cutting in size and firepower, but mabye you should consider that what we need to win the war on terror is not all size and firepower.

But America's enemies are not hiding in Mexico or Canada. They are hiding in remote nations, over vast oceans. So long as the United States is committed to seeking out these enemies where they hide and live, a large blue-water navy will be required to launch, land and host the nation's operatives. Since much of that will take place using large assets, ie carriers, battle groups, which include numerous frgates and destroyers, as well as a number of support ships, will be critical to the nation's interest.

[loynokid]

America needs a navy at least its current size to deter any kind of sea threat have you not noticed they are getting a little itchy hence why they want this 1000 ship navy passed in because they cant afford the 600 ship navy reagan wanted.

If any thing the budget has not gone up 30% its gone down 30% the fact in cold war days the americans would have said ok to nearly everything which would have ment 24 seawolfs (as planned) and two dozen DDX (as planned) but now they are forced to sell off alot of stuff.

They even offerd the UK 5 of its ticonderoga cruisers (to which we declined).

If you dont have control of the seas then simply you have no control at all the sea is where its made or not every super power on the planet going back to romans or even before he who had control of the seas won still the same today.

americas small ships are unheard of all you see realy is the major warships because america doesnt realy care about the small ships its only recently that they aquired some new patrol craft theres been no new mine warfare ships for years.

america wants only major warships DDG and up hence theres no plans yet to replace the perry FF's (not FFG anymore dont have missiles)


Look at all the information you have just gave me. It is all facts about America's navy and how it is failing to build in military power (in which I would have to beg to differ). I did not see you write one remedy to this. All you give me is a bunch of pesimistic numbers. I'm not even sure where you got these numbers, do you care to tell me what your sources are? I would sure like to hear some proposals to fix this so called crisis in the United States Navy.

[Kapitan]

Sure i snap my fingers and theres the remedy, but seriously.

If america stopped spending so much time effort and money in iraq then it would have alot more money to play with currently theres going to be one big defecit come the end of it all!

America is pushing more and more on its land based troops to do more and more things is ill equiped to deal with (same as the UK).

So what should we have done?

Turn the clocks back to 2002 time is rife to invade iraq saddam hussien is in his late 60's early 70's so he is blocking weapons inspections big deal, theres other ways and means around this why not use them? be cheaper in the long run spies and spec ops teams can go in and scout out the place they do it daily in panama.

so its not 2003 you sent the spec ops teams and spies in you currently moiter the situation chances are saddam is going to die inside the next 12 years due to some illness age related.

So far you have spent just a fraction of the total cost of an invasion.

You now have a few extra billion dollars to play about with result well build and improve current naval and air force as well as other millatery equipment.

That 600 ship navy isnt far away now is it looks more appealing doesnt it?

come 2012 saddam dies of a heart attack the country is in rack and ruin its civil war ****es v muslims what should we do now?

Invade to keep the peace set up a democratic government that takes into consideration both sides (****e and muslim) its still less than the real 2003 invasion !

Iraqies thank you for the peace and instead of killing you they thankyou for making them safer not to mention free

so now its 2015 only a small peace keeping force remains iraq is doing well and stable.

Worked in bosnia why not in iraq?



by doing it that way you prbly saved a good few billion that could be spent on upgrading or even putting new FFG's and patrol craft into service and also allowing the navy to buy the DDX rather than the CNO and top admirals having a jaff over the artist impressions of the things, meaning that the navy would eventualy be in a better position in the long run.

Sources come from a wide range of places interfax, BBC, ABC, CNN, FAS,golbal security and many many others some of the figures come from janes and also publicaly availible sources.

[Oberon]

Why for the love of god did we decline those Ticos? I mean, I know the 45s new radar and missile intercept tech is supposed to be on the level of, or surpassing that of, the Ticos, but even so...our Type 45s probably won't be comissioned or available in any great number until 2010, or possibly later if BAE screwed up anything in the electronics department. A few Ticos in the fleet could surely only be a good thing, particularly in 'Rogue missile' areas such as the Persian Gulf.

Gah...dammit...we need to withdraw from everything and rebuild this country, not just the armed forces, everything. The US has already had its isolationist moments and emerged stronger for it (despite Pearl), we need one too.

Can't see that happening though, in fact, it's just as likely as Admiral Band getting his money, or any of our new fleet programs getting out of the drawing board without massive cuts. :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn: :damn:

Well, US, looks like you're in charge of the waves until our ministers get their heads out of their arses and do something about it....and we're a small island fercrissakes....

Oh, this is one thing that really does piss me off....

[Kapitan]

Reason why its failing is due to lack of money, if they didnt invade iraq they would have.

Few months back the USS Honalulu SSN-718 paid off it had a good 8 or more years service life left and its the same with alot of the submarines these days, and not just american british french as well.

Russia and china as well as india are the only ones so far regenerating thier navies russia is currently remaining 1 on 1 replacement.

America is currently deactivating 3 to 1 which means for every 3 submarines paid off 1 is brought into active service idealy you want to keep it 1 on 1

[XabbaRus]

I find it quite interesting that you say defence spending has been cut when as a percentage of GDP the UK is the second only to the US, spends more than France and Germany. I suppose when they say shrinking defence budget they mean the budget is tehre but instead of Iraq and Afghanistan getting extra funds they are coming out of the current budget thus the real reason cuts are being made.

In fact we have less total number active personel than France but a higher budget. I don't think it is overall short of cash, just spent in the wrong places.

Also I read about the scrapping of vessels in various papers and a good many of those being scrapped are old and decripit. Sir Gallahad types still on the list. Fearless and Intrepid too. Also some of teh Type 22s we might as well get rid of as it costs more to maintain than is worth.

i do agree the RN gets the short end of the stick. Always has done...RAF gets more cos fighter jets are sexy. Even then the RAF might get shafted in not getting Typhoon tranche 3.

I personally would order teh bloody carriers now, bump the Type 45 back up to 8, sell off the Tranche 1 Typhoons and get Tranche 3 and upgrade Tranche 2.

Then once F-35 comes in use the STOVLE one for combined RAF and Harrier squadron and CTOL F-35 as a Tornado replacement.

As for declining the Ticos. You have 5 non RN ships with different tech requirements. Would be more of a burden to maintain plus what it would cost to refit them to RN standards would mean money better spent on current T-45 build and otehr current programs. Also from what I understand SAMPSON is supposed to set the standard for the next gen of radars.

At the moment there is a lot of spin concerning the RN and its state, different agendas. Also I don't think Brown would want to scupper the carriers as they will be built in his constituency. I'd be more worried about getting screwed by the French.

Also can you trust a Scotsman article that gives Belgium 13 nuclear submarines?

[Oberon]

Good point Xabba, I never really considered the tech difference, I guess they'd have spent most of their time in dock getting overhauled and refitted to bring them to British spec.

I just don't like it when the obsolete date of one part of our fleet comes before the new stock is in service....in particular, the Harriers.

Just ain't right... :nope:

[Kapitan]

Agreed kinda with xabbarus theres no need to be in iraq or afghanistan that is an american war they bombed the twin towers it was on american soil as far as i see it the thing is an american problem same for iraq they invaded thier problem.

they shift the crap to us and we are the ones who end up paying.

[ASWnut101]

America is currently deactivating 3 to 1 which means for every 3 submarines paid off 1 is brought into active service idealy you want to keep it 1 on 1

Ah, but all the ones getting retired are the older 688 unimproved class. Those are to be replaced by our new Virginia's, but in two years that may never happen. Besides, it takes forever to build a Virginia.

[Oberon]

Oh, I appreciate the idea behind our forces being out there, I mean, although it was the twin towers that got bombed, we've not been exactly short of terrorist related problems in Britain, and we're there for our allies...but at the moment, we're projecting more force than we can actually follow through with, we can help America...but we've got to retire, regroup and rearm before getting ourselves involved in any more conflicts.

[loynokid]

Sure i snap my fingers and theres the remedy, but seriously.

If america stopped spending so much time effort and money in iraq then it would have alot more money to play with currently theres going to be one big defecit come the end of it all!

America is pushing more and more on its land based troops to do more and more things is ill equiped to deal with (same as the UK).

So what should we have done?

Turn the clocks back to 2002 time is rife to invade iraq saddam hussien is in his late 60's early 70's so he is blocking weapons inspections big deal, theres other ways and means around this why not use them? be cheaper in the long run spies and spec ops teams can go in and scout out the place they do it daily in panama.

so its not 2003 you sent the spec ops teams and spies in you currently moiter the situation chances are saddam is going to die inside the next 12 years due to some illness age related.

So far you have spent just a fraction of the total cost of an invasion.

You now have a few extra billion dollars to play about with result well build and improve current naval and air force as well as other millatery equipment.

That 600 ship navy isnt far away now is it looks more appealing doesnt it?

come 2012 saddam dies of a heart attack the country is in rack and ruin its civil war ****es v muslims what should we do now?

Invade to keep the peace set up a democratic government that takes into consideration both sides (****e and muslim) its still less than the real 2003 invasion !

Iraqies thank you for the peace and instead of killing you they thankyou for making them safer not to mention free

so now its 2015 only a small peace keeping force remains iraq is doing well and stable.

Worked in bosnia why not in iraq?



by doing it that way you prbly saved a good few billion that could be spent on upgrading or even putting new FFG's and patrol craft into service and also allowing the navy to buy the DDX rather than the CNO and top admirals having a jaff over the artist impressions of the things, meaning that the navy would eventualy be in a better position in the long run.

Sources come from a wide range of places interfax, BBC, ABC, CNN, FAS,golbal security and many many others some of the figures come from janes and also publicaly availible sources.


I agree, i think that it would have been better to not innitiate a whole scale invasion right at the start of the war, i think your idea is good and practical. I do think though that it is a good way to send a message out to terrorists. its pretty much that if you mess with the US you'll get a boot in your a**, in the words of Toby Keith. I'm kind of split 50/50 on this issue, i think that the invasion of Iraq was not the best tactical move in the book, but also it was probably a good swift counter attack to 9/11. I dont know, Any Opinions on this?

[loynokid]

America is currently deactivating 3 to 1 which means for every 3 submarines paid off 1 is brought into active service idealy you want to keep it 1 on 1
Ah, but all the ones getting retired are the older 688 unimproved class. Those are to be replaced by our new Virginia's, but in two years that may never happen. Besides, it takes forever to build a Virginia.

Yep!, right again ASWnut(whatever the # is) :up:

[Tchocky]

i think that the invasion of Iraq was not the best tactical move in the book, but also it was probably a good swift counter attack to 9/11. I dont know, Any Opinions on this?

How in the world was it a counter to 9/11?

[ASWnut101]

For the 5 millionth time:


Iraq was aiding the terrorists. BUT THAT'S ANOTHER TOPIC. IF WE ARE TO ARGUE, LET US MAKE A NEW THREAD.:)

[Tchocky]

For the 5 millionth time:


Iraq was aiding the terrorists. BUT THAT'S ANOTHER TOPIC. IF WE ARE TO ARGUE, LET US MAKE A NEW THREAD.:)

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=97846
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq-al_Qaeda_Connection

just answering loynokid, if he wants to make a new thread, it's his prerogative. No argument here :)

[loynokid]

i think that the invasion of Iraq was not the best tactical move in the book, but also it was probably a good swift counter attack to 9/11. I dont know, Any Opinions on this?
How in the world was it a counter to 9/11?


Iraq was helping terrorists. We noticed, so we invaded them, thats what happens if you help someone that attacked the US

[loynokid]

For the 5 millionth time:


Iraq was aiding the terrorists. BUT THAT'S ANOTHER TOPIC. IF WE ARE TO ARGUE, LET US MAKE A NEW THREAD.:)


Im sry, didnt mean to come across as arguing, just civilized debating... lol ;)

[Kapitan]

How many virginias are planned ?

[Oberon]

From the Virginia's wiki:


Ships

Virginia (SSN-774) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Virginia_%28SSN-774%29), commissioned and in service
Texas (SSN-775) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Texas_%28SSN-775%29), commissioned and in service
Hawaii (SSN-776) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hawaii_%28SSN-776%29), delivered in 2006. (http://www.gdeb.com/news/news.html#12-22-06)
North Carolina (SSN-777) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_North_Carolina_%28SSN-777%29), named December 11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_11), 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000); delivery in 2008; this is the last ship of the First Block or "Flight"
New Hampshire (SSN-778) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_Hampshire_%28SSN-778%29) has been ordered for delivery in 2010
New Mexico (SSN-779) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_New_Mexico_%28SSN-779%29) has been ordered for delivery in 2011
SSN-780 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSN-780) was ordered in 2005 and is expected to be delivered in April, 2011
SSN-781 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SSN-781&action=edit) was ordered in 2006 and is expected to be delivered in 2013
SSN-782 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SSN-782&action=edit) was ordered in 2006 and is expected to be delivered in 2013
SSN-783 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SSN-783&action=edit) is expected to be ordered in 2008; this is the last ship of the Second Block or "Flight"
SSN-784 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SSN-784&action=edit) through approximately SSN-791 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SSN-791&action=edit) are planned to make up the Third Block or "Flight" and should begin construction in 2009

[Kapitan]

Only about 18 then thats not even 1/4 of the current fleet whats more the 688 series went to 62 i dont think the USA will ever commission that many submarines again for a long time.

About 40 would be a comftable number for the USN i think.

[ASWnut101]

This is off of FAS:

SSN 774-803 = 30 Boats planned, with three already built (USS Hawaii, USS Texas, and USS Virginia)

They are to be commissioned between now and the year 2020.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/nssn.htm (go to the bottom of the page where the boats are listed)


P.S. Anyone know why they wen't back to naming them after states? That was reserved for the boomers only.

[Oberon]

Thing is though, since the USSR went west, it's hard for governments to justify any large scale expenditure in the military. Take a look at the Upholder program for example, they were designed, built and then promptly mothballed in the space of four years. The original plan was to build twelve, but then that got put back to ten, and then to nine as the Berlin wall fell down, and in the end they only built four!

The USS Los Angeles was commissioned in 1976, and the US was still churning them out even after the wall came down, probably because most of them were awarded before 1989 and so the last of the class were probably still being put together. In fact I think the Pasadena was the last of the LAs to be commissioned before the end of the Cold War.

The advanced Seawolf class, originally meant to be produced to a number of 29, wound up at 3 because of the end of the Cold War and the resulting budget cuts to the military.

The people who assign the budgets to the military can only view the then and now, the present threats, they seem to have a strange inability to consider the threats of the future, they aren't able to think of a time in the future when we might look back and think: "Damn...we should have kept with the original number of boats ordered."

And it's because of that our navy gets smaller, and smaller.

[loynokid]

Thing is though, since the USSR went west, it's hard for governments to justify any large scale expenditure in the military. Take a look at the Upholder program for example, they were designed, built and then promptly mothballed in the space of four years. The original plan was to build twelve, but then that got put back to ten, and then to nine as the Berlin wall fell down, and in the end they only built four!

The USS Los Angeles was commissioned in 1976, and the US was still churning them out even after the wall came down, probably because most of them were awarded before 1989 and so the last of the class were probably still being put together. In fact I think the Pasadena was the last of the LAs to be commissioned before the end of the Cold War.

The advanced Seawolf class, originally meant to be produced to a number of 29, wound up at 3 because of the end of the Cold War and the resulting budget cuts to the military.

The people who assign the budgets to the military can only view the then and now, the present threats, they seem to have a strange inability to consider the threats of the future, they aren't able to think of a time in the future when we might look back and think: "Damn...we should have kept with the original number of boats ordered."

And it's because of that our navy gets smaller, and smaller.

Agreed,:know: that's a great point to bring up because its right on the money.:yep: I dont think anyone can really put up a fair argument over this post (exept if your tchochy);) no just joking :lol::rotfl:, yeah, i agree.:up: