Britain's Royal Navy 'woefully low' on warships

[webfact]

Royal Navy 'woefully low' on warships

 

LONDON: -- Britain's defences are at risk amid uncertainty over plans to replace the "woefully low" number of Royal Navy warships, MPs have warned.

 

The Royal Navy has 19 frigates and destroyers, but a Defence Select Committee report says that number could fall unless there is a clear timetable set out for replacing older vessels.

 

It says the UK could "lack the maritime strength" to meet potential threats.

 

But the Ministry of Defence says it is investing billions in the Navy's fleet.

 

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38044967

 

-- © Copyright BBC 2016-11-21

[elgordo38]

What can one say to a topic like this. God help the poor taxpayer. America claims to be in the same leaky old boat although they are spending record amount of tax dollars on defense. I guess it adds up when you pay $800,000 for one military shell. Puts the gold toilet seats and gold hammers to shame. 

[bark]

2 minutes ago, elgordo38 said:

What can one say to a topic like this. God help the poor taxpayer. America claims to be in the same leaky old boat although they are spending record amount of tax dollars on defense. I guess it adds up when you pay $800,000 for one military shell. Puts the gold toilet seats and gold hammers to shame. 

Not sure what army protect your A-- , but you should be thankful, to them.

[jaidam]

Considering the Royal Navy ships are currently being used to shuttle migrants setting off from Libya to the European shores primarily in Sicily and Italy it is a mercy that they are "woefully low" on ships. I can't begin to comprehend how the navy ships are being used for this purpose. These ships were built with the defense of our country in mind, not the opposite.

[elgordo38]

2 minutes ago, bark said:

Not sure what army protect your A-- , but you should be thankful, to them.

No thanks I will pass and no one is protecting my A** At my advanced age it is not worth protecting any more. I am sure the defense industry thanks you for your support. I am beyond supporting these kill for profit profiteers. They are very transparent in the motives I am rather surprised that you have not seen through this as you come across as being highly intelligent. We all have things in our life we must still work on myself included. You have a super fine day and a better one tomorrow. May you be truly enlightened. 

[elgordo38]

4 minutes ago, jaidam said:

Considering the Royal Navy ships are currently being used to shuttle migrants setting off from Libya to the European shores primarily in Sicily and Italy it is a mercy that they are "woefully low" on ships. I can't begin to comprehend how the navy ships are being used for this purpose. These ships were built with the defense of our country in mind, not the opposite.

Yes opposites are becoming the norm. Its a surreal world out there and I hide here and rely on my pensions to survive. I think I am winning because I am close to 80 years of age. You could compare it to 1.00 pm check out time at any lodging place. 

[GinBoy2]

I think you could probably be having the same argument about all UK armed forces.

 

Back in the early 90's I was taking part as a USAF officer with the RAF in Germany, and vividly having a rather animated discussion in the mess with a bunch of RAF officers loudly decrying the 'gutting' of he RAF. As a side note, those dudes could drink!

As if happens I was just reading an article in Defensetech, which makes even gloomier reading:

 

"As the article points out, the RAF had 33 fighter squadrons in 1990, 17 in 2003 and just 12 today. By April 2011, that number will shrink to eight squadrons with the retirement of the U.K.’s Harrier jump jets and the retirement of two Tornado fighter squadrons.

Still, the service is hoping to eventually fly about 100 F-35Cs from land bases and the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, according to the article.

From the sound of it, the newest cuts will leave the legendary RAF with the ability to do little more than defend Britain, the Falkland Islands and participate in the war in Afghanistan. In fact, the cuts worry “the hell” out of Britain’s fighter boss"

 

Now this is an article from 2010, but nothing I've read since suggests the trend as reversed

 

So if my drinking buddies back in 1992 thought it was bad, hopefully the cirrhosis of the liver has already taken it's toll!

 

http://www.defensetech.org/2010/12/14/raf-could-be-reduced-to-just-six-fighter-squadrons-by-2020/

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by GinBoy2

[car720]

40 minutes ago, elgordo38 said:

No thanks I will pass and no one is protecting my A** At my advanced age it is not worth protecting any more. I am sure the defense industry thanks you for your support. I am beyond supporting these kill for profit profiteers. They are very transparent in the motives I am rather surprised that you have not seen through this as you come across as being highly intelligent. We all have things in our life we must still work on myself included. You have a super fine day and a better one tomorrow. May you be truly enlightened. 

 

I like the wit.

I was going to say that the army protecting my A** is an army of one with a zero budget but has done a great job for the last 66 years.

[coma]

Small Island. Small Navy.

[coma]

I guess a lot of US allies have let there defense forces run down over the decades post WW2. Making do on shoe string budgets. Always knowing that Uncle Sam would be their "Knight in Shining Armour". Come and save the day for them. Or at least provide them with huge amounts of weapons and logistics to get the job done.

Now with Trump coming into office. And his well documented stance on "Allies" paying their fair share,  if not look after yourselves. A lot of countries, including the British, are starting to realise that they may well get caught short someday and need to start investing and upgrading their own defense forces.

The irony in it all is that most of America's closest allies would never find themselves at war, if it wasn't for them having a treaty with the United States.

[bangon04]

2 hours ago, jaidam said:

Considering the Royal Navy ships are currently being used to shuttle migrants setting off from Libya to the European shores primarily in Sicily and Italy it is a mercy that they are "woefully low" on ships. I can't begin to comprehend how the navy ships are being used for this purpose. These ships were built with the defense of our country in mind, not the opposite.

maybe the UK government will have to pay other countries to collect their quota of "refugees" from the African coast. Maybe increase the government aid to Libya so the traffickers can buy better quality boats.....

[monkey4u]

Germany still has a few slightly used submarines for sale, after their last deal went belly up 

Maybe Russia will sell their aircraft carrier cheap also

But you need to supply your own tug boat to follow it when it goes out 

[JAG]

5 minutes ago, monkey4u said:

Germany still has a few slightly used submarines for sale, after their last deal went belly up 

Maybe Russia will sell their aircraft carrier cheap also

But you need to supply your own tug boat to follow it when it goes out 

Now need to buy another aircraft carrier . 

We already have 2 (albeit without any aircraft). That's why, defence wise we can't afford bugger all else...

[lvr181]

10 minutes ago, JAG said:

Now need to buy another aircraft carrier . 

We already have 2 (albeit without any aircraft). That's why, defence wise we can't afford bugger all else...

 

Sell one carrier an invest in some aircraft for the other one? A carrier with a couple of Sopwith Camels? 

 

Cannot be all bad, I mean there is talk about having submarines! Some very fast missile equipped destroyers with aircover (but not Sopwith Camels)  would be  better than some subs surely?

 

And the UK Royal Navy thinks it has problems.

[chilli42]

I do wonder what all these small countries think they are protecting themselves from.  All of the spending is based on an assumption that China has military designs on North and SE Asia and the Russia has designs on Western Europe (I do think India has a valid reason to be nervous). Does anyone realistically believe that they could stop either of these countries?  The smaller countries really need to redefine the role of their armed forces then man and equip that mission accordingly.  That thinking does not sit well with military people and certainly not arms suppliers.

[soalbundy]

They will just have to stay at home then and wait for another Armada and hope we get another protestant wind to save us.

[Laughing Gravy]

3 hours ago, coma said:

Small Island. Small Navy.

Now if you are trying to be funny then I will 'take the bait' Either you have very little knowledge of military sea history or maybe, you are just ignorant of the facts. I will not tell you to do you research, as if you don't know, you should then know your statement is absolutely hilarious. Even now the UK is hardly the worse navy in the world, just a little under funded. Your comment is just bitter for what ever reason.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Laughing Gravy

[Laughing Gravy]

3 hours ago, coma said:

Always knowing that Uncle Sam would be their "Knight in Shining Armour". Come and save the day for them. Or at least provide them with huge amounts of weapons and logistics to get the job done.

Now with Trump coming into office. And his well documented stance on "Allies" paying their fair share,  if not look after yourselves. A lot of countries, including the British, are starting to realise that they may well get caught short someday and need to start investing and upgrading their own defense forces.

I think you need to be reminded that the US and the UK have always been allies. The UK has always been there for you besides the idiotic stance in Vietnam. Making your accusations is showing your ignorance. I am all for standing up and fighting for right. Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq is all the USA doing. The rest just followed. You mention Trump. Good. He has also said he is not going to get involved in affairs that don't belong to America. I think you should go back to school.

[coma]

24 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I think you need to be reminded that the US and the UK have always been allies. The UK has always been there for you besides the idiotic stance in Vietnam. Making your accusations is showing your ignorance. I am all for standing up and fighting for right. Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq is all the USA doing. The rest just followed. You mention Trump. Good. He has also said he is not going to get involved in affairs that don't belong to America. I think you should go back to school.

 

I think you need to lay off the drugs and alcohol before you post. So that you can firstly READ what has been posted and secondly reply appropriately in the correct context of what you are replying to. 

[coma]

37 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Now if you are trying to be funny then I will 'take the bait' Either you have very little knowledge of military sea history or maybe, you are just ignorant of the facts. I will not tell you to do you research, as if you don't know, you should then know your statement is absolutely hilarious. Even now the UK is hardly the worse navy in the world, just a little under funded. Your comment is just bitter for what ever reason.

 

You need to change your Username. Laughing Gravy ?  You are confused.

[bangon04]

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I think you need to be reminded that the US and the UK have always been allies. The UK has always been there for you besides the idiotic stance in Vietnam. Making your accusations is showing your ignorance. I am all for standing up and fighting for right. Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq is all the USA doing. The rest just followed. 

Yes the rest just follow, and the English lackeys are always at the front waving the good old stars and stripes...It is known as a "special relationship". Nobody remembers why....

Edited November 21, 2016 by bangon04

[Grouse]

6 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

I think you could probably be having the same argument about all UK armed forces.

 

Back in the early 90's I was taking part as a USAF officer with the RAF in Germany, and vividly having a rather animated discussion in the mess with a bunch of RAF officers loudly decrying the 'gutting' of he RAF. As a side note, those dudes could drink!

As if happens I was just reading an article in Defensetech, which makes even gloomier reading:

 

"As the article points out, the RAF had 33 fighter squadrons in 1990, 17 in 2003 and just 12 today. By April 2011, that number will shrink to eight squadrons with the retirement of the U.K.’s Harrier jump jets and the retirement of two Tornado fighter squadrons.

Still, the service is hoping to eventually fly about 100 F-35Cs from land bases and the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, according to the article.

From the sound of it, the newest cuts will leave the legendary RAF with the ability to do little more than defend Britain, the Falkland Islands and participate in the war in Afghanistan. In fact, the cuts worry “the hell” out of Britain’s fighter boss"

 

Now this is an article from 2010, but nothing I've read since suggests the trend as reversed

 

So if my drinking buddies back in 1992 thought it was bad, hopefully the cirrhosis of the liver has already taken it's toll!

 

http://www.defensetech.org/2010/12/14/raf-could-be-reduced-to-just-six-fighter-squadrons-by-2020/

 

 

And of course the F35s now cost 20% more due to the collapse of Sterling. We should build our own. Anyone remember the TSR2 ?

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, JAG said:

Now need to buy another aircraft carrier . 

We already have 2 (albeit without any aircraft). That's why, defence wise we can't afford bugger all else...

 

I believe the two new carriers are French built? I hope the contract is in pounds not Euro

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

2 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Now if you are trying to be funny then I will 'take the bait' Either you have very little knowledge of military sea history or maybe, you are just ignorant of the facts. I will not tell you to do you research, as if you don't know, you should then know your statement is absolutely hilarious. Even now the UK is hardly the worse navy in the world, just a little under funded. Your comment is just bitter for what ever reason.

 

You forget the War of 1812 when the UK and US were certainly not allies. One of the issues that caused the conflict was the tendency for British Warships to stop US ships and impress any person they thought was British.. The UK and US certainly remained mercantilist rivals throughout the 19th Century.

 

The height of British naval power was the WWI era. The abandonment of Suez by Eden, well the instruction by Eisenhower for Eden to abandon Suez was really an endpoint of any pretension that the Brits had relevance as a sea power.

 

We no longer believe in Divine Right of Kings nor in Imperialism. That was the era of British naval power. Modern Britain and Brits can only claim the history and possession of artifacts from those eras. You cannot claim to stand on anyone's shoulders. When the Iranians captured those British mariners recently, did those sailors shout out 'your are ignorant of the facts of British maritime history' in an effort to avoid capture and disgrace?

 

Britain is no longer relevant in military affairs. Helmund and Afghanistan turned a 2nd rate military into an irrelevant 3rd rate force. Only Britain's nuclear capability remains relevant. Naval power was lost long ago. Now you, like most of Europe relies on the Americans.

Edited November 21, 2016 by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng

[Grouse]

Surely we should be building all our own kit

 

Why did we abandon our Nimrod based surveillance aircraft to buy American "Rivit" at 1B USD each?

 

Why are we buying F35; not great?

 

Why are we getting aircraft carriers built in France

 

The UK is still number 1 in underwater physics and our latest submarines are the best

 

We still manufacture our own nuclear warheads

 

We still have great airframe and engine expertise.

 

We build the best sniper rifles in the world 

 

We build the best air to surface anti armour precision missiles

 

In conclusion, we should purchase British kit where possible

[bartender100]

Lord Nelson would turn in his crypt

[Kiwiken]

Just a point. The two Queen Elizabeth class Aircraft carriers are being built in the UK by UK Companies.there is some French input. The problem will be the lack of Escorts

Name:	Queen Elizabeth
Namesake:	Queen Elizabeth I[1]
Operator:	Royal Navy
Ordered:	20 May 2008
Builder:	BAE Systems Surface Ships Thales Group Babcock Marine
Cost:	£3.1bn[2] (~US$5bn)
Laid down:	7 July 2009[3]
Launched:	17 July 2014
Sponsored by:	Elizabeth II
Christened:	4 July 2014
Commissioned:	May 2017 (planned)[4]
In service:	2020 (planned)[5]
Homeport:	HMNB Portsmouth
Identification:	Pennant number: R08

[JAG]

8 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

I believe the two new carriers are French built? I hope the contract is in pounds not Euro

I think that you will find that the two new carriers are British built.

[Laughing Gravy]

10 hours ago, coma said:

 

You need to change your Username. Laughing Gravy ?  You are confused.

You should keep your username as you put me in that with your posts.

[coma]

18 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

You should keep your username as you put me in that with your posts.