Britain's Royal Navy 'woefully low' on warships

[soalbundy]

11 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

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

Yes,the Labour government trashed it because it was costing too much money after that our Aero-industry went down hill and we bought phantoms instead but if you cant afford it you cant afford it end of story but i feel we could have built a souped up version of the Harrier the basic technology is there all that was needed was up to date electronics and a longer range.

[useronthenet]

Little Britain has no relevance in the modern world, living off a memory of yesteryear. It's military capability is pretty futile, given it can't even protect it's borders from immigrants, let alone invaders.

[soalbundy]

1 minute ago, useronthenet said:

Little Britain has no relevance in the modern world, living off a memory of yesteryear. It's military capability is pretty futile, given it can't even protect it's borders from immigrants, let alone invaders.

The UK is still needed by the USA as an excuse, 'we aren't going in alone we have allies' the eternal lie of a special relationship is a useful one.

[ratcatcher]

18 hours ago, coma said:

Small Island. Small Navy.

Yes indeed. Once the most powerful in the world, now just glorious memories.

100 years ago Great Britain and the Royal Navy "Ruled the Waves" now Great Britain just waives the rules.

[elgordo38]

1 hour ago, soalbundy said:

Yes,the Labour government trashed it because it was costing too much money after that our Aero-industry went down hill and we bought phantoms instead but if you cant afford it you cant afford it end of story but i feel we could have built a souped up version of the Harrier the basic technology is there all that was needed was up to date electronics and a longer range.

The story of the Avro Arrow

He has U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower dictating policy to Diefenbaker on a fishing trip and goodbye to the most advanced fighter of its time. 

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, JAG said:

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

 

I stand corrected

 

For some reason I thought Thales won the contract. Good they're being built in Rosyth

 

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/united-kingdom/news/queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier-british-engineering-its-best

[OMGImInPattaya]

There is always the choice governments must make between "guns and butter." Thanks to pre-President Trump American defense policies, the Europeans, including the Brits, were able to choose butter (or more accurately hummus) over guns...now hopefully not so much.

 

On the other hand, I'm not really sure how much defense capability the UK really needs...just enough dynamite to sever the Chunnel in event of a refugee invasion and a few surface ships to do the same and a couple Trident subs to keep the Ruskies at bay.

[JAG]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

I stand corrected

 

For some reason I thought Thales won the contract. Good they're being built in Rosyth

 

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/united-kingdom/news/queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier-british-engineering-its-best

Thales does have some input- I believe that their office in Bath (my home town in the UK) is doing the work. Bath is well known as a francophone city, but is not France.

 

 

[JAG]

1 hour ago, ratcatcher said:

Yes indeed. Once the most powerful in the world, now just glorious memories.

100 years ago Great Britain and the Royal Navy "Ruled the Waves" now Great Britain just waives the rules.

And to add insult to injury I believe that the anti ship missiles on Mrs Windsor's remaining 19 large grey war canoes are past their sell by date and they will have to rely on their canons for the next few years!

[elgordo38]

7 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

There is always the choice governments must make between "guns and butter." Thanks to pre-President Trump American defense policies, the Europeans, including the Brits, were able to choose butter (or more accurately hummus) over guns...now hopefully not so much.

 

On the other hand, I'm not really sure how much defense capability the UK really needs...just enough dynamite to sever the Chunnel in event of a refugee invasion and a few surface ships to do the same and a couple Trident subs to keep the Ruskies at bay.

I just knew at some point you would come though and you did and I pressed the like button. Yes no doubt the world needs more war and less love. War will eliminate the excess population and less love will ensure that more war culling will not be needed in the future. Evil over good succeeds again. 

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, bark said:

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

Pointing out that zillions of $ are wasted by the folks in charge of the military is not saying that one is not grateful for the rough guys that stand ready to die on our behalf.

As one that was in the military, the bureaucracy need a good size 12 army boot where it hurts.

I could spend a good few hours pointing out all the stupidity that went on, that I saw, and obviously the rot extends a lot further than that. Unfortunately, it would take only a very short time to say what they did right.

The problem does not lie with the vast majority of the men in the military, but with the civilian masters in the government, none of which will ever go in harm's way.

[thaibeachlovers]

Has anyone actually said why the UK needs two aircraft carriers? Only of use against an enemy that has no anti ship missiles. Are they expecting Argentina to try and retake the Falklands?

Does Britain still believe it is a military power?

 

The sad thing is that Britain killed off it's intelligent people when they sent thousands of clever young men to lead the charge against machine guns in WW1. It's been a long slow spiral downwards since.

Perhaps it is karma for a society that was so atrocious that they destroyed Alan Turing, the man that probably saved Britain.

 

[JAG]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Pointing out that zillions of $ are wasted by the folks in charge of the military is not saying that one is not grateful for the rough guys that stand ready to die on our behalf.

As one that was in the military, the bureaucracy need a good size 12 army boot where it hurts.

I could spend a good few hours pointing out all the stupidity that went on, that I saw, and obviously the rot extends a lot further than that. Unfortunately, it would take only a very short time to say what they did right.

The problem does not lie with the vast majority of the men in the military, but with the civilian masters in the government, none of which will ever go in harm's way.

I suspect that all countries are probably the same, but we British seem to have a particular ability to make a right mess of procurement matters at all levels. When the then new rifle was introduced in the 1990's it was rapidly christened the " Civil Serveant" - because it didn't work and couldn't be fired. Likewise in the late 80s someone decided it would be cheaper to have our combat uniforms made in Morocco  (I believe). The trouser zips all broke after a few days. The troops, modesty protected by safety pins, believed that the contractors had failed to appreciate they were all hung like stallions. Wiser councils realised that it was due to the shoddy materials of the "attractively priced" product. 

[soalbundy]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Has anyone actually said why the UK needs two aircraft carriers? Only of use against an enemy that has no anti ship missiles. Are they expecting Argentina to try and retake the Falklands?

Does Britain still believe it is a military power?

 

The sad thing is that Britain killed off it's intelligent people when they sent thousands of clever young men to lead the charge against machine guns in WW1. It's been a long slow spiral downwards since.

Perhaps it is karma for a society that was so atrocious that they destroyed Alan Turing, the man that probably saved Britain.

 

It's a Rolls Royce thing, it has been said, before RR became BMW, that if you wanted a Rolls Royce you had to buy two, one for the garage while it was being repaired and one for use until it broke down.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, elgordo38 said:

I just knew at some point you would come though and you did and I pressed the like button. Yes no doubt the world needs more war and less love. War will eliminate the excess population and less love will ensure that more war culling will not be needed in the future. Evil over good succeeds again. 

It would be great if there was indeed no war and we all got along. Unfortunately we only left the cave a very short while ago ( in evolutionary terms ) and war is in our genes.

Just imagine all the great stuff they could do if there was no military to waste money and fuel on.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, JAG said:

I suspect that all countries are probably the same, but we British seem to have a particular ability to make a right mess of procurement matters at all levels. When the then new rifle was introduced in the 1990's it was rapidly christened the " Civil Serveant" - because it didn't work and couldn't be fired. Likewise in the late 80s someone decided it would be cheaper to have our combat uniforms made in Morocco  (I believe). The trouser zips all broke after a few days. The troops, modesty protected by safety pins, believed that the contractors had failed to appreciate they were all hung like stallions. Wiser councils realised that it was due to the shoddy materials of the "attractively priced" product. 

I once held one of those new rifles at an army open day. Previously I had believed the point of having a smaller weapon was to save weight, but it was as heavy as an SLR!

Glad I never had to hold one of those while on parade. At least with the SLR we could ground it while at ease.

[JAG]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Has anyone actually said why the UK needs two aircraft carriers? Only of use against an enemy that has no anti ship missiles. Are they expecting Argentina to try and retake the Falklands?

Does Britain still believe it is a military power?

 

The sad thing is that Britain killed off it's intelligent people when they sent thousands of clever young men to lead the charge against machine guns in WW1. It's been a long slow spiral downwards since.

Perhaps it is karma for a society that was so atrocious that they destroyed Alan Turing, the man that probably saved Britain.

 

The top matelots argued that they needed them to "project maritime power", the politicians bought it because it was an effective job creation scheme in some politically sensitive constituencies . The top matelots were prepared to sacrifice a lot of the surface fleet to get the carriers

 

Unfortunately we are left with two carriers, and uncertainty about when and how many aircraft  we can afford for them. Projecting maritime power has rather gone quiet. And the then government party lost the constituencies anyway!

 

Still they will look nice parked up at Portsmouth .  I doubt we will be able to afford to use them.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 minutes ago, JAG said:

The top matelots argued that they needed them to "project maritime power", the politicians bought it because it was an effective job creation scheme in some politically sensitive constituencies . The top matelots were prepared to sacrifice a lot of the surface fleet to get the carriers

 

Unfortunately we are left with two carriers, and uncertainty about when and how many aircraft  we can afford for them. Projecting maritime power has rather gone quiet. And the then government party lost the constituencies anyway!

 

Still they will look nice parked up at Portsmouth .  I doubt we will be able to afford to use them.

They can ask for advice on what to do with aircraft carriers that have no aircraft from another country we all know .

[bark]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Pointing out that zillions of $ are wasted by the folks in charge of the military is not saying that one is not grateful for the rough guys that stand ready to die on our behalf.

As one that was in the military, the bureaucracy need a good size 12 army boot where it hurts.

I could spend a good few hours pointing out all the stupidity that went on, that I saw, and obviously the rot extends a lot further than that. Unfortunately, it would take only a very short time to say what they did right.

The problem does not lie with the vast majority of the men in the military, but with the civilian masters in the government, none of which will ever go in harm's way.

If you were in the military you should be saying "we " and not "they"  . Because you were part of the problem or solution.

Cannot call the kettle Black, if you also drank from the cup.

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They can ask for advice on what to do with aircraft carriers that have no aircraft from another country we all know .

 

The Royal Navy puff piece states that they can carry all types of helicopter currently in service! Well, that's great! We're saved!

 

IMHO, they will both be sunk almost immediately if we end up at war with Russia.....

 

Anybody know why there will not be some kind of Sea Typhoon? I assume these are full length carriers with catapults? ( and spud guns )!

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, bark said:

If you were in the military you should be saying "we " and not "they"  . Because you were part of the problem or solution.

Cannot call the kettle Black, if you also drank from the cup.