PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Heading mall-wards?
View Single Post
Old 18th Jun 2007, 09:41
  #32 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MARS
Posts: 1,041
Apparently the unfortunate Rear Admiral, trying to keep in step with Andrew's shuffling was:

Rear Admiral Chris Parry, whose Wessex from HMS ANTRIM disabled the Argentine submarine ARA SANTA FE with two depth charges at the start of the Falklands conflict. Too badly damaged to submerge, SANTA FE ended up beaching in Grytviken harbour after further attacks with torpedo, machine gun, and missiles by helos from HMS PLYMOUTH (Wasp), HMS BRILLIANT (Lynx) and HMS ENDURANCE (two Wasps).

Interesting to see that John Nott was also on the VIP stand....disgrace, if he had got his way, we would never have got the falklands back

The Nott review confirmed the decision to proceed with the purchase of the Trident system from the USA to replace Polaris as the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent.[70] The Territorial Army and the other reserve forces were to be merged and rebuilt to meet the requirement for home defence,[71] which was also to be reinforced by a new fighter aircraft (eventually the Eurofighter programme).[72] The British Army of the Rhine was to be held at the level of 55,000 but to be re-equipped.[73] The main cuts under the Nott review were to fall on the Navy which, although it took on the Trident submarines, was to lose around one fifth of their 60 destroyers and frigates. Despite the supposed abandonment of the carrier programme, three so-called 'through deck cruisers' had been built, designated as the Invincible Class. One of these three carriers and the two amphibious ships Fearless and Intrepid were also to be cut.[74] Out-of-area, or expeditionary, warfare capacity was therefore to be further significantly reduced. With Trident, greater reliance was once again to be placed on the strategic nuclear deterrent as the counter to the Soviet threat (together with an increased submarine fleet),[75] and the overall force structure emphasised the UK's increasing expectation of acting only as part of NATO for overseas expeditionary operations

All very short sighted looking at the comments regarding no expeditionary operations....Iraq, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan....what's next.
Widger is offline