End of the Royal Navy??

DanCanovas · 05-14-07, 07:30 AM

this is ridiculous!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007220067,00.html

go on Steed, work your magic mate!

Oberon · 05-14-07, 07:36 AM

If it's true, it doesn't surprise me, the RN's been going downhill for years, ever since the late 80s in fact. The government has looked for a quick money fix as opposed to preparing for possible future conflicts and the navy has suffered as a result. Which considering we're an island nation, does seem rather silly....but there you go, I guess that's why I'm a waiter and not a politician.

DanCanovas · 05-14-07, 07:58 AM

i think its remarkable at a time of increasing interference in regional affairs. the government seeks to increase its involvement and influence and yet wishes to operate a crippled and inefficient armed forces.

fatty · 05-14-07, 08:10 AM

High turnover will be a recipe for an accident. After the mixup with Iran it's amazing nobody upstairs has thought that maybe the Navy is actually worth investing in. Yet the government is happy to spend the billions that would fix these problems on new ballistic subs which will serve little to no strategic purpose by the time they're ready.

DanCanovas · 05-14-07, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatty

High turnover will be a recipe for an accident. After the mixup with Iran it's amazing nobody upstairs has thought that maybe the Navy is actually worth investing in. Yet the government is happy to spend the billions that would fix these problems on new ballistic subs which will serve little to no strategic purpose by the time they're ready.

well in Britain we have 4 Vanguard class SSBNs and im not aware of anymore coming through but i'd love to know where all the money that they're saving is actually going. The NHS is a mess, the police are not recruiting, the prisons are throwing people out, the rubbish looks like it might be collected every 2 weeks now, the roads in my area are a mess. Im just trying to work out where its all going as taxes are on the rise!

The Avon Lady · 05-14-07, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanCanovas

the rubbish looks like it might be collected every 2 weeks now,

Someone go down to the pub and wake up Kaptain! :p

bradclark1 · 05-14-07, 08:41 AM

Wow! Talking about flopping it out and stomping on it. This can't be serious.

fatty · 05-14-07, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanCanovas

well in Britain we have 4 Vanguard class SSBNs and im not aware of anymore coming through...

Back in March.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

I'm yet to be convinced that's such a good thing...particularly in the case of close water patrols, now I know that the Skipjacks and LAs have been doing close water survellience off Murmansk for years without many problems, but an AIP sub would probably be better for missions where you really can't make a sound. In that respect, the Germans have us nailed with the Type 214 which is probably quieter than a Kilo, with better endurance (when it works).

Yes, you are absolutely right. For a nation that relies much on trade (UK combined imports/exports in 2006 value at 46% of the total UK GDP for that year) close monitoring of sea lanes should be a given. AIP subs are great at that.

Oberon · 05-14-07, 08:37 AM

Indeed, you've only got to look at how badly delayed and over budget the Astute got, although that was primarily down to poor management by BAe than lack of funding. I think the current downward trend in funding of the Royal Navy definately started at the end of the Cold War, primarily (in my eyes anyway) with the cancellation of the Upholder program and subsequent sale of the four subs that were built, to Canada. Now while this is terribly nice to the Canucks and I have no doubt they'll put them to good use (once they've fixed them after BAe screwed them up), it does put us in with the US in having an all nuke sub fleet...and I'm yet to be convinced that's such a good thing...particularly in the case of close water patrols, now I know that the Skipjacks and LAs have been doing close water survellience off Murmansk for years without many problems, but an AIP sub would probably be better for missions where you really can't make a sound. In that respect, the Germans have us nailed with the Type 214 which is probably quieter than a Kilo, with better endurance (when it works).
Still, Germany always has known how to build its subs.

So meanwhile, as we're selling our navy off to the highest bidders, the government is not willing to put the money back in to replace it, so our fleet size gets smaller and smaller and smaller, more and more people are drawn into the Army and Air force by their flashy adverts (and the fact that they're probably a little bit more funded by the gov than the Navy) and once again the Navy loses out. So here we are, in 2007, with a handful of ships, no carrier air cover, an SSBN fleet which is coming to the end of its lifespan, and a grand total of three new units being rolled out any time soon.

If any major power invades the Channel, I sure hope the French or Germans will bail us out....

Kazuaki Shimazaki II · 05-14-07, 07:12 PM

Sure, the underfunding's critical, but this is not so bad. The Americans have developed a nice tradition of "hot-shipping" for decades with their ballistic missile subs.

Still, In a few years, the Brits will say "If we had a choice to command the Russian Navy or ours, we'd command the Russian Navy. At least they are trying to keep it running..."

05-14-07, 07:30 AM	#1
DanCanovas Grey Wolf Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 778 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	End of the Royal Navy?? this is ridiculous! http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007220067,00.html go on Steed, work your magic mate! __________________

05-14-07, 07:58 AM	#3
DanCanovas Grey Wolf Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 778 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	i think its remarkable at a time of increasing interference in regional affairs. the government seeks to increase its involvement and influence and yet wishes to operate a crippled and inefficient armed forces. __________________

05-14-07, 07:36 AM	#2
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	If it's true, it doesn't surprise me, the RN's been going downhill for years, ever since the late 80s in fact. The government has looked for a quick money fix as opposed to preparing for possible future conflicts and the navy has suffered as a result. Which considering we're an island nation, does seem rather silly....but there you go, I guess that's why I'm a waiter and not a politician.

05-14-07, 08:10 AM	#4
fatty The Old Man Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 1,448 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	High turnover will be a recipe for an accident. After the mixup with Iran it's amazing nobody upstairs has thought that maybe the Navy is actually worth investing in. Yet the government is happy to spend the billions that would fix these problems on new ballistic subs which will serve little to no strategic purpose by the time they're ready.

05-14-07, 08:41 AM	#7
bradclark1 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Connecticut, USA. Posts: 2,794 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Wow! Talking about flopping it out and stomping on it. This can't be serious.

05-14-07, 08:37 AM	#9
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Indeed, you've only got to look at how badly delayed and over budget the Astute got, although that was primarily down to poor management by BAe than lack of funding. I think the current downward trend in funding of the Royal Navy definately started at the end of the Cold War, primarily (in my eyes anyway) with the cancellation of the Upholder program and subsequent sale of the four subs that were built, to Canada. Now while this is terribly nice to the Canucks and I have no doubt they'll put them to good use (once they've fixed them after BAe screwed them up), it does put us in with the US in having an all nuke sub fleet...and I'm yet to be convinced that's such a good thing...particularly in the case of close water patrols, now I know that the Skipjacks and LAs have been doing close water survellience off Murmansk for years without many problems, but an AIP sub would probably be better for missions where you really can't make a sound. In that respect, the Germans have us nailed with the Type 214 which is probably quieter than a Kilo, with better endurance (when it works). Still, Germany always has known how to build its subs. So meanwhile, as we're selling our navy off to the highest bidders, the government is not willing to put the money back in to replace it, so our fleet size gets smaller and smaller and smaller, more and more people are drawn into the Army and Air force by their flashy adverts (and the fact that they're probably a little bit more funded by the gov than the Navy) and once again the Navy loses out. So here we are, in 2007, with a handful of ships, no carrier air cover, an SSBN fleet which is coming to the end of its lifespan, and a grand total of three new units being rolled out any time soon. If any major power invades the Channel, I sure hope the French or Germans will bail us out....

05-14-07, 07:12 PM	#10
Kazuaki Shimazaki II Ace of the Deep Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 1,140 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Sure, the underfunding's critical, but this is not so bad. The Americans have developed a nice tradition of "hot-shipping" for decades with their ballistic missile subs. Still, In a few years, the Brits will say "If we had a choice to command the Russian Navy or ours, we'd command the Russian Navy. At least they are trying to keep it running..."