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!

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....

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

DanCanovas · 05-14-07, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

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

:rotfl: i forgot about that, ill have words with him!

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.

DanCanovas · 05-14-07, 09:04 AM

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.[/quote]

I agree but we are having recruitment problems as it is so i don't think they would go for diesels with AIP.

fatty · 05-14-07, 09:06 AM

Someday

DanCanovas · 05-14-07, 09:21 AM

when I applied to join the submarine service (RN) i was offered about £6,000 if I had a successful application. Apparently because i'm allergic to peanuts my application will be rejected.

Chock · 05-14-07, 09:33 AM

As much as it depresses me - being from the UK - I think that the UK needs to stop pretending it is a superpower. It hasn't been one for many, many years, and certainly hasn't got the kind of income that would enable it to adequately fund a Navy of that nature.

With that in mind, the UK does need to consolodate its forces into something more suited to the kind of missions it is likely to be involved in. Virtually all of the UK's military equipment has a legacy of designs that were intended to combat a supposed head to head with the Warsaw Pact, and the troops have suffered as a result in many recent theatres of engagement: Helicopters unsuited to desert operations, ships with no suitable air cover, and a fleet of submarines with a missile system dependent on US equipment to enable it to be fully employed, are just some of the things the MOD has had to contend with.

But this latest problem and 'solution' is clearly a very bad idea and will certainly not improve matters.

DanCanovas · 05-14-07, 09:40 AM

the navy we have now is hardly that of a superpower and we're not even prepared to maintain that!

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, 09:21 AM	#13
DanCanovas Grey Wolf Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 778 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	when I applied to join the submarine service (RN) i was offered about £6,000 if I had a successful application. Apparently because i'm allergic to peanuts my application will be rejected. __________________

05-14-07, 09:40 AM	#15
DanCanovas Grey Wolf Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 778 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	the navy we have now is hardly that of a superpower and we're not even prepared to maintain that! __________________

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, 08:37 AM	#6
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, 08:41 AM	#9
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, 09:06 AM	#12
fatty The Old Man Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 1,448 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Someday

05-14-07, 09:33 AM	#14
Chock Sea Lord Join Date: May 2005 Location: Under a thermal layer in chilly Olde England Posts: 1,842 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	As much as it depresses me - being from the UK - I think that the UK needs to stop pretending it is a superpower. It hasn't been one for many, many years, and certainly hasn't got the kind of income that would enable it to adequately fund a Navy of that nature. With that in mind, the UK does need to consolodate its forces into something more suited to the kind of missions it is likely to be involved in. Virtually all of the UK's military equipment has a legacy of designs that were intended to combat a supposed head to head with the Warsaw Pact, and the troops have suffered as a result in many recent theatres of engagement: Helicopters unsuited to desert operations, ships with no suitable air cover, and a fleet of submarines with a missile system dependent on US equipment to enable it to be fully employed, are just some of the things the MOD has had to contend with. But this latest problem and 'solution' is clearly a very bad idea and will certainly not improve matters.