Half of British Royal Navy to be mothballed:

bradclark1 · 01-05-07, 10:50 AM

Quote:

The move is seen as a cost-cutting measure by the Tony Blair government which is reportedly trying to cut the defence budget by 250 pounds amid major armed forces commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I know things are rough so have the PM call me and I'll loan the U.K. the 250 pounds needed.

http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/article...346065&sid=WOR

STEED · 01-05-07, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Quote:

The move is seen as a cost-cutting measure by the Tony Blair government which is reportedly trying to cut the defence budget by 250 pounds amid major armed forces commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I know things are rough so have the PM call me and I'll loan the U.K. the 250 pounds needed.

http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/article...346065&sid=WOR

You can send him a letter.

Tony Blair M.P.
House of Commons
Westminster
London
England

bradclark1 · 01-05-07, 11:13 AM

I just dropped him an email.

Quote:

I know things are rough so I thought I would offer the U.K. the 250 pounds needed to keep your fleet up.
The U.S. and the U.K. are very good friends and I'm half English so I'd like to do my bit to help out.

Edit: I put the article link above the paragraph but I think I should have added a Dear Sir or Dear Prime Minister or something.

StdDev · 01-05-07, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradclark1

I just dropped him an email.

Quote:

I know things are rough so I thought I would offer the U.K. the 250 pounds needed to keep your fleet up.
The U.S. and the U.K. are very good friends and I'm half English so I'd like to do my bit to help out.

Edit: I put the article link above the paragraph but I think I should have added a Dear Sir or Dear Prime Minister or something.

The proper form of address would be "DUDE!!! wassup!??"

Godalmighty83 · 01-05-07, 01:16 PM

according to the mod no decision has been made regarding any future fleet cuts and wont be until 'review', i believe the royal navy has an internal review every summer.

the question was brought up in parliament by the Portsmouth mp to which the answer was pretty much 'no decisions have been made, don't know how this rumour started'

although it is very true that the budget for the royal navy is now very tight following several new projects sucking up funds.

iam really hoping this wont cut the amount of type 45's in the future, ive heard a rumour that more 45 hulls will be made but fitted with different weaponry to replace the current aging frigates without having to research a whole new ship design.

August · 01-05-07, 03:25 PM

I never thought i'd see the day that England would actually consider turning the mighty Royal Navy, savior of Britain many times over, into a mere coastal defense force.

XabbaRus · 01-05-07, 03:29 PM

I have been following this for sometime and it seems very much a typicaly story sex up by the news papers, headline grabbing.

There has been some interesting analysis on Strategy Page and also on navweapons.com website.

AG124 · 01-05-07, 04:04 PM

Is it just me, or has the Royal Navy been cutting down its strength drastically since the Second World War? Even back then, they scrapped every CA they had (unless you count the Southampton and Edinburgh classes as CAs) and then scrapped most of their carriers in the 50s and 60s.

But this seems unbelievable now.

U-533 · 01-05-07, 05:36 PM

:hmm: this has me at a loss for words...

Maybe you don't need that many ships when you fight on sand...:hmm:

idunno...

Godalmighty83 · 01-05-07, 06:12 PM

getting rid of all the old battleships was understandable, trimming the nuclear deterrent is also understandable what difference is there in wiping a enemy country out 50 times over instead of 500 and thats disregarding how modern warfare goes against attacking a full country.

cutting down on defence destroyers /frigates is not. submarines are debatable and IF the 2 planned large carriers come in then even though the total sea-based airforce is lower then id like its still potent. turning the current carriers into multi-role launch bays was imo a good idea seemingly thought out just for another falklands.

but as is theres little reserve /contingency and any extra cuts would completely remove power projection, if the navy had say only one big carrier it would never be used through fear it would be sunk.

bradclark1 · 01-05-07, 07:51 PM

If money is an issue and the ships are put in a well maintained mothball status and can be made active in a reasonable amount of time and a trained naval reserve is available to crew those ships I don't see any actual harm in it.
The U.K. is not an empire any longer so it does not need that dominating navy of times past to defend those colonies that no longer exist. No country today is going to fight a conventional war by themselves so there isn't a need to maintain a naval force larger then a primary reaction force. Unless you want to be a world super power why bother with the expense?
Now that I've used cold logic.....
The Falklands proved that isn't necessarily true but it was also a few years ago. What were the ship numbers from the Falklands?

SUBMAN1 · 01-05-07, 10:10 PM

It's history repeating itself. Democracies always have issues at the end of their times like this. The Roman Army turned purely professional too, remember? Its the beginning of the end. Wait till the people who vote realize they can vote more benefits for themselves - thats when the real end starts!

-S

bradclark1 · 01-05-07, 10:41 PM

Arnold called California a nation state today. Just have to wait for Texas.
Hmmm. The sky appears to be falling.

01-05-07, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradclark1

No country today is going to fight a conventional war by themselves so there isn't a need to maintain a naval force larger then a primary reaction force.

Based on the MSM and liberal left that is what the US is doing now with the WOT.
Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways. Pick one and stick to it.

diver · 01-05-07, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AG124

Is it just me, or has the Royal Navy been cutting down its strength drastically since the Second World War? Even back then, they scrapped every CA they had (unless you count the Southampton and Edinburgh classes as CAs) and then scrapped most of their carriers in the 50s and 60s.

But this seems unbelievable now.

It would be even worse for the RN had the argies not decided to get frisky in 1982.

A few more months of Sth atlantic peace and the Invinceible and her Harriers would have been Australia's

01-05-07, 01:16 PM	#5
Godalmighty83 Sonar Guy Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 398 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	according to the mod no decision has been made regarding any future fleet cuts and wont be until 'review', i believe the royal navy has an internal review every summer. the question was brought up in parliament by the Portsmouth mp to which the answer was pretty much 'no decisions have been made, don't know how this rumour started' although it is very true that the budget for the royal navy is now very tight following several new projects sucking up funds. iam really hoping this wont cut the amount of type 45's in the future, ive heard a rumour that more 45 hulls will be made but fitted with different weaponry to replace the current aging frigates without having to research a whole new ship design. __________________ Were there monkeys? Some terrifying space monkeys maybe got loose?

01-05-07, 03:25 PM	#6
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,197 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I never thought i'd see the day that England would actually consider turning the mighty Royal Navy, savior of Britain many times over, into a mere coastal defense force. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

01-05-07, 03:29 PM	#7
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	I have been following this for sometime and it seems very much a typicaly story sex up by the news papers, headline grabbing. There has been some interesting analysis on Strategy Page and also on navweapons.com website. __________________

01-05-07, 04:04 PM	#8
AG124 Sea Lord Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 1,878 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	Royal Navy Cutbacks Is it just me, or has the Royal Navy been cutting down its strength drastically since the Second World War? Even back then, they scrapped every CA they had (unless you count the Southampton and Edinburgh classes as CAs) and then scrapped most of their carriers in the 50s and 60s. But this seems unbelievable now. __________________ DOWNLOAD GWX HERE: http://www.thegreywolves.com/index.html

01-05-07, 06:12 PM	#10
Godalmighty83 Sonar Guy Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 398 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	getting rid of all the old battleships was understandable, trimming the nuclear deterrent is also understandable what difference is there in wiping a enemy country out 50 times over instead of 500 and thats disregarding how modern warfare goes against attacking a full country. cutting down on defence destroyers /frigates is not. submarines are debatable and IF the 2 planned large carriers come in then even though the total sea-based airforce is lower then id like its still potent. turning the current carriers into multi-role launch bays was imo a good idea seemingly thought out just for another falklands. but as is theres little reserve /contingency and any extra cuts would completely remove power projection, if the navy had say only one big carrier it would never be used through fear it would be sunk. __________________ Were there monkeys? Some terrifying space monkeys maybe got loose?

01-05-07, 05:36 PM	#9
U-533 Samurai Navy Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: On my Boat Posts: 594 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	:hmm: this has me at a loss for words... Maybe you don't need that many ships when you fight on sand...:hmm: idunno...

01-05-07, 07:51 PM	#11
bradclark1 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Connecticut, USA. Posts: 2,794 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	If money is an issue and the ships are put in a well maintained mothball status and can be made active in a reasonable amount of time and a trained naval reserve is available to crew those ships I don't see any actual harm in it. The U.K. is not an empire any longer so it does not need that dominating navy of times past to defend those colonies that no longer exist. No country today is going to fight a conventional war by themselves so there isn't a need to maintain a naval force larger then a primary reaction force. Unless you want to be a world super power why bother with the expense? Now that I've used cold logic..... The Falklands proved that isn't necessarily true but it was also a few years ago. What were the ship numbers from the Falklands?

01-05-07, 10:10 PM	#12
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	It's history repeating itself. Democracies always have issues at the end of their times like this. The Roman Army turned purely professional too, remember? Its the beginning of the end. Wait till the people who vote realize they can vote more benefits for themselves - thats when the real end starts! -S __________________

01-05-07, 10:41 PM	#13
bradclark1 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Connecticut, USA. Posts: 2,794 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Arnold called California a nation state today. Just have to wait for Texas. Hmmm. The sky appears to be falling.