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.

: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 a list of current Belgium Royal Navy ships.

I like the 13 nuclear submarines. Interesting.

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.

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

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

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Not to metnion the fact that alot of the ships are now being withdrawn from service so far we have seen the 688 series go from 57 stong in 1995 to just 41 strong in 2004 its due to be less.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So far the perry class are being withdrawn there are no replacements planned, the 16 carrier navy is due to be cut to 12 so we have heard lately.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.

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.

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

Sry made a mistake
 

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.

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)

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.

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.

Pessimism?
 

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.

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.

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....

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

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?

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: