Royal Navy :(
21-11-2016 12:41 PM - edited 21-11-2016 12:41 PM
well last week it was a lack of missiles , this week its a lack of ships WTF is our GOV doing to our forces
samsung 850evo 250gig , WD black 2 TB . Asus Phoebus sound ,
16 gig Avexir ram 2400 , water cooling Corsair H100i gtx ,
Corsair 750HXI Psu , Phanteks Enthoo pro case .
Re: Royal Navy :(
I joined the Navy, in 1960.... when we still had battle cruisers and a number of aircraft carriers... we used to have enough ships to form into "squadrons"... and to work those squadrons against each other in simulated ( but very realistic ) sea battles... we had 5 or 6 destroyers, or frigates, in a squadron,.... and I believe we had enough cruisers to form into three squadrons... the home fleet, was BIG.. and we had a Med Fleet, and also the Middle east, and the Far East fleet.
by 1972, due to consisent decomissioning of "old" (mainly ww2 ships). that were not replaced, or orders placed for new ships, to save money... together with the decomissioning of the overseas shore bases that supported the overseas fleets, it was obvious to me, that if I stayed in the navy, it would soon become a "coastal forces" navy... and so I decided that 12 years service was enough...
How true that is now... We used to have the best navy , in the world..( second only in size to the yanks )... who we respected, but were considered inferior to us ! ! )..
Those new destroyers, called the Daring Class,... originally the order was for 12 ships... but that was cut back after the first one had been built, and seen the costs rising...
same with the new frigate order... I think there were 12 on order... but I expect by the time the first one hits the water, it will, again, be pruned back to 6 or even less.
Whilst "traditional" sea battles are not likely to happen, we are an island nation, and depend on our sea trade routes to supply us with 90% of our goods... and submarines are still a major threat to those merchant ships that will provide the transport of those goods from far off lands... therefore, we need to have a decent sized surface warship capability, to present some sort of deterrent to the submarine attacks, and also to be able to track and destroy those subs, just as we did in the second world war.
Today, the size of the navy is, indeed, pathetic... and would be absolutely useless to defend our merchant fleet, against submarine warfare.
The new aircraft carriers ( 2 ) will be a useful addition, but we need the smaller ships, destroyers and frigates to do the donkey work.
Re: Royal Navy :(
I reckon the Navy should be funded to build and crew 50 humanitarian support ocean going vessels with the ability to provide medical facilities, standby power and fresh water at disaster locations. I don't suppose it would be too difficult to add a rail gun, gatling guns, some missiles and radar for "self-defense". These could be funded from our overseas aid budget. To keep costs down they should be built in the UK at a Navy "humanitarian training" facility.
Re: Royal Navy :(
Back in 2000 someone said to me we had 49 ships. I was shocked thinking that was low. Todays announcement that we only have 19 has really brought it home just how destructive the last few administrations have been with our protection.
This is a national disgrace. We're a laughing stock now.
It doesn't matter about these tiny little ships with one gun and six missiles being the most advanced in the world if all the computer can do is give you a few extra seconds notice that the enemy is going to completely sink you. Look at that russian lot that sailed through recently.. sure they're old.. but also armed to the teeth and we had one little boat follow them as a token message of "stay away" ?
At least once we at least had harriers that made up for the short supply of ships but that moron before Maybe sent those to the dog food tin makers.