Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 62
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it about time WEBF took a bit of sound advice... of which a lot has been given... and just wound his neck in. Having been involved in the carrier strike debate for some years, and having been a supporter - often against my own service's party line - I can safely say that:
1. I am heartily sick of all the bollox being talked, and,
2. More damage has been done to the RN cause by pseudo-intellectual, ill-informed rants - such as those produced by the aforesaid gentleman (I assume)
We are not going to achieve anything by interservice back stabbing... indeed, the sorry place in which we find ourselves now is due to some very poor behaviours on behalf of our elders and betters. We are also unlikely to reverse decisions or increase the defence budget by going round and round in circles led by WEBF.
Get over it.
1. I am heartily sick of all the bollox being talked, and,
2. More damage has been done to the RN cause by pseudo-intellectual, ill-informed rants - such as those produced by the aforesaid gentleman (I assume)
We are not going to achieve anything by interservice back stabbing... indeed, the sorry place in which we find ourselves now is due to some very poor behaviours on behalf of our elders and betters. We are also unlikely to reverse decisions or increase the defence budget by going round and round in circles led by WEBF.
Get over it.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fail to see what is so controversial regarding the lack of PR and the Royal Navy, I am in FULL agreement with that sentiment. This has always been the way of the Navy and I guess always will be. Am I criticising the Royal Air Force? Most certainly NOT, I am the first to look up at the sky and watch in awe as those brilliant men in their flying machines roar by. Three cheers for the RAF and I wish them ever success in their relationships with those that dictate our future. Air displays, lobbying, and any other means of getting our service into the limelight are all excellent ways to sell yourself to one and all including those that control the purse strings. My gripe is NOT with the RAF but more toward the out dated silent service mentality and hoping reputation speaks louder than the lobbying that is clearly what makes the clock tick.
What I do object to in the post submitted by WEBF is the immature urethra flexing that has no place on this forum. Those RAF harrier pilots that took part in the Falklands conflict showed the World how professional all our fast jet pilots were. To suggest, hint or imply one service was better than the other is an insult to all those that served. The grey funnel line proved to its bootneck guardians that it was more than a taxi service, the RAF showed it could do more than be an advert for hair gel… We went, we fought, we kicked butt and we did it as a team.
The Royal Navy is now in danger of becoming a Third world force and the ships we have, no matter how professional the crew can only be in one place at any specific time period. I was reading somewhere that we have just NINETEEN frigates\destroyers to carry out all the commitments HM government throws at us. An aircraft carrier without aircraft is as much use as a gun without bullets but what an expensive gun!!
I served during a period when we had four fixed wing real aircraft carriers, but I guess that was before North Sea oil was not worth as much as it is now
Where has all the money gone? 
What I do object to in the post submitted by WEBF is the immature urethra flexing that has no place on this forum. Those RAF harrier pilots that took part in the Falklands conflict showed the World how professional all our fast jet pilots were. To suggest, hint or imply one service was better than the other is an insult to all those that served. The grey funnel line proved to its bootneck guardians that it was more than a taxi service, the RAF showed it could do more than be an advert for hair gel… We went, we fought, we kicked butt and we did it as a team.
The Royal Navy is now in danger of becoming a Third world force and the ships we have, no matter how professional the crew can only be in one place at any specific time period. I was reading somewhere that we have just NINETEEN frigates\destroyers to carry out all the commitments HM government throws at us. An aircraft carrier without aircraft is as much use as a gun without bullets but what an expensive gun!!
I served during a period when we had four fixed wing real aircraft carriers, but I guess that was before North Sea oil was not worth as much as it is now
Where has all the money gone?
glojo,
"Third world force?
What planet do you live on?
Building 2 65,000 ton aircraft carriers. 6 world class 7,500 ton Air Defence Destroyers, 7 world class nuclear powered attack submarines armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles.
13 Type 23 Frigates, 4 Ballistic missile armed nuclear submarines, amphibious and helicopter assault ships, 14 world class mine warfare vessels, the Royal Marine Commandos and the RFA.
There is only one navy on the planet with a capability and a capacity that exceeds the above.
Third world force? Please...
"Third world force?
What planet do you live on?
Building 2 65,000 ton aircraft carriers. 6 world class 7,500 ton Air Defence Destroyers, 7 world class nuclear powered attack submarines armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles.
13 Type 23 Frigates, 4 Ballistic missile armed nuclear submarines, amphibious and helicopter assault ships, 14 world class mine warfare vessels, the Royal Marine Commandos and the RFA.
There is only one navy on the planet with a capability and a capacity that exceeds the above.
Third world force? Please...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is only one navy on the planet with a capability and a capacity that exceeds the above.
Dreaming of jam tomorrow?
Frankly, the RN is whining because it couldn't get its' act together and the nasty man took the ball away. JHF was not an RN asset and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise; the RN was, and no doubt will continue to be, incapable of filling the seats of a FJ fleet, or of providing its share of competent groundcrew.
It is not going to get better
Kitbag,
Poppycock!
The Chinese navy has nowhere near that capability. As for the Russians, have you SEEN the state of their Navy?
Anyway, even if these nations did have a superior capability, which they do not, they are vastly larger countries than the UK and what is the issue with them having a larger and more capable fleet, if they did?
downsizer,
Why would you need them all at the same time?
Poppycock!
The Chinese navy has nowhere near that capability. As for the Russians, have you SEEN the state of their Navy?
Anyway, even if these nations did have a superior capability, which they do not, they are vastly larger countries than the UK and what is the issue with them having a larger and more capable fleet, if they did?
downsizer,
Why would you need them all at the same time?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proone, have a look at Table 4 of the report linked here presented by the ONI to Congress early last year.
I have no issue with any country prepared to equip itself in defence, after all there are plenty on here who say that is the first duty of any government, I was merely trying to correct your error, rather more politely than you in disagreeing with me.
The nations I mentioned do have a more capable fleet than the UK does today (and is likely to possess in the next 10 years), whatever you keep asserting
I have no issue with any country prepared to equip itself in defence, after all there are plenty on here who say that is the first duty of any government, I was merely trying to correct your error, rather more politely than you in disagreeing with me.
The nations I mentioned do have a more capable fleet than the UK does today (and is likely to possess in the next 10 years), whatever you keep asserting
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Afternoon Pr00ne,
You mention two aircraft carriers being built. We don't have them, we are currently not getting both of them, and perhaps neither of them. We don't have any aircraft to go on them, even if we do gets carrier - in eight years time or so.
Are the Type 45s fully working as yet? I thought there were still issues with PAAMS.Also the Type 45 is not particularly capable at defending itself from surface asset attacks; unless you believe a 4.5" gun, two 30mm canon and a bunch of GPMGs of any use.
As for the Sampson, that can only see twenty miles or so. That doesn't give awfully long to take out supersonic weapons. Sea Viper can't shoot down ballistic warheads either. Fire more than 48 thingies at a Type 45 and it is buggered. That is assuming a 100% hit rate for the Aster. Sea Viper/ Aster failed two of its four tests against sub sonic targets. It has never (as far as I am aware) been tested against supersonic targets. I am also aware that further missiles have been fired.
The Type 45 does have many positive assets, including good helicoptermebobs, and is a good product, just a flawed product. I love the integration of iPod charging technology for the crew. I wonder if the Ribs will be fitted with it in the future.
You mention two aircraft carriers being built. We don't have them, we are currently not getting both of them, and perhaps neither of them. We don't have any aircraft to go on them, even if we do gets carrier - in eight years time or so.
Are the Type 45s fully working as yet? I thought there were still issues with PAAMS.Also the Type 45 is not particularly capable at defending itself from surface asset attacks; unless you believe a 4.5" gun, two 30mm canon and a bunch of GPMGs of any use.
As for the Sampson, that can only see twenty miles or so. That doesn't give awfully long to take out supersonic weapons. Sea Viper can't shoot down ballistic warheads either. Fire more than 48 thingies at a Type 45 and it is buggered. That is assuming a 100% hit rate for the Aster. Sea Viper/ Aster failed two of its four tests against sub sonic targets. It has never (as far as I am aware) been tested against supersonic targets. I am also aware that further missiles have been fired.
The Type 45 does have many positive assets, including good helicoptermebobs, and is a good product, just a flawed product. I love the integration of iPod charging technology for the crew. I wonder if the Ribs will be fitted with it in the future.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Pr00ne,
Regarding the World I live on, all I can suggest is a different one from your very good self!
.
Regarding the World I live on, all I can suggest is a different one from your very good self!
By the end of 2009 China had launched six Jiangkai II class (Type 054A) guided missile frigates (FFGs), but as of pictures posted online this week China has actually launched 8 Type 054As, with a 9th at HuangPu shipyard in Guangzhou province looking like it could launch very soon. Given the tendency to build in numbers divisible by 5, that means a 10th Type 054A is likely to be launched by years end at Hudong Shipyard.
China appears to be producing a steady state of 2 Type 054As per year that will continue for the next 2 annual Pentagon reports. There may also be a new destroyer class under construction at JiangNan shipyard, but pictures are hard to come by lately. Given the significant upgrades to JiangNan shipyard during the Eleventh five year plan, it could be these ships are coming out at the end of the 5 year cycle delayed primarily due to the upgrades at the shipyard
China appears to be producing a steady state of 2 Type 054As per year that will continue for the next 2 annual Pentagon reports. There may also be a new destroyer class under construction at JiangNan shipyard, but pictures are hard to come by lately. Given the significant upgrades to JiangNan shipyard during the Eleventh five year plan, it could be these ships are coming out at the end of the 5 year cycle delayed primarily due to the upgrades at the shipyard
.
pr00ne,
In respect of the RN you stated, "There is only one navy on the planet with a capability and a capacity that exceeds the above...."
While to a certain extent it is comparing apples and pears, I am afraid I would have to say that your statement is incorrect. Obviously the capability and capacity of the USN exceeds that of the RN, but what about the rest of the world?
Looking at current forces:
RN
36,000
2 x LPH
2 x LPD
6 x DD
13 x FF
7 x SSN
4 x SSBN
Well, ownership of SSBNs is a fairly select club, but lets look at other nations:
Japan
46,000
4 x LPD
8 x DD
29 x DD/FF
16 x SSK
India
58,000
1 x CVS
1 x LPD
8 x DD
12 x FF
24 Corvettes
29 Patrol vessels
15 SSK
France
44,000
1 x CVN
3 x LPH
1 x LPD
4 x DD
19 x FF
6 x SSN
4 x SSBN
Russia
140,000
1 x CV
6 x CG/CGN
15 x DD
4 x FF
17 x SSN
13 x SSK
5 x SSGN
10 x SSBN
China
250,000
1 x CV??
3 x LPD
25 x DD
47 x FF
63 Subs, including 6 SSN and 4 SSBN
I would say at least a couple of those nations have a capability and capacity that exceeds that of the RN. As I said to start with, we are discussing apple and pears in a way. We can also throw serviceablity, availability, quality of training, etc, into the mix in any debate. Yes, the RN is due to launch 2 carriers in the years to come, which will provide a massive increase in capability. When they will arrive, how many will see service, and what will fly off them is still to be confirmed, as will whether any other RN hulls have to be given up as a trade off. However, by 2020 other nations will also have new hulls in the water, and some of them have ambitious plans and pockets to match...
It's not a wi*#y waving competition. Nor do I think that we should have the second biggest navy in the world. All I'm trying to do is point out that your comment is at the very least highly debatable, and more likely simply incorrect...
In respect of the RN you stated, "There is only one navy on the planet with a capability and a capacity that exceeds the above...."
While to a certain extent it is comparing apples and pears, I am afraid I would have to say that your statement is incorrect. Obviously the capability and capacity of the USN exceeds that of the RN, but what about the rest of the world?
Looking at current forces:
RN
36,000
2 x LPH
2 x LPD
6 x DD
13 x FF
7 x SSN
4 x SSBN
Well, ownership of SSBNs is a fairly select club, but lets look at other nations:
Japan
46,000
4 x LPD
8 x DD
29 x DD/FF
16 x SSK
India
58,000
1 x CVS
1 x LPD
8 x DD
12 x FF
24 Corvettes
29 Patrol vessels
15 SSK
France
44,000
1 x CVN
3 x LPH
1 x LPD
4 x DD
19 x FF
6 x SSN
4 x SSBN
Russia
140,000
1 x CV
6 x CG/CGN
15 x DD
4 x FF
17 x SSN
13 x SSK
5 x SSGN
10 x SSBN
China
250,000
1 x CV??
3 x LPD
25 x DD
47 x FF
63 Subs, including 6 SSN and 4 SSBN
I would say at least a couple of those nations have a capability and capacity that exceeds that of the RN. As I said to start with, we are discussing apple and pears in a way. We can also throw serviceablity, availability, quality of training, etc, into the mix in any debate. Yes, the RN is due to launch 2 carriers in the years to come, which will provide a massive increase in capability. When they will arrive, how many will see service, and what will fly off them is still to be confirmed, as will whether any other RN hulls have to be given up as a trade off. However, by 2020 other nations will also have new hulls in the water, and some of them have ambitious plans and pockets to match...
It's not a wi*#y waving competition. Nor do I think that we should have the second biggest navy in the world. All I'm trying to do is point out that your comment is at the very least highly debatable, and more likely simply incorrect...
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm new to this thread and must admit have only got through the first couple of pages so far. WEBF you are spot on when you talk about poor PR. You can see from my own thread where I am trying to write a book about AEW&C and put some historical accurate and RAF promoting gen into my book, I have been virtually ignored by the RAF Media people, it seems that they just don't want to know and are still enveloped in their Cold War - can't tell anyone anything because of the OSA, even historical stuff that has no bearing on today's Ops.
Have ago at trying to find out any data or stories of 1453 Vanguard Flt of 1953 which flew Neptune AEW Mk1 aircraft, developing AEW for the RAF and you hit a brick wall and that was 59 years ago !
Cheers
Ian
Have ago at trying to find out any data or stories of 1453 Vanguard Flt of 1953 which flew Neptune AEW Mk1 aircraft, developing AEW for the RAF and you hit a brick wall and that was 59 years ago !
Cheers
Ian
I L J 208,
While I am loathe to defend a system I know to normally be at fault, I would offer the following observations:
Who exactly do you mean by "RAF PR"? The PR machine at an airbase, e.g Waddington?
Would information from 1953 still be stored at airbase/Command level, or would it all be in historical records?
Don't underestimate how much fell between the cracks when HQSTC was replaced by HQ Air, and the amount of specialist staff in Groups was reduced across the board.
In recent years a move has been made away from storing via traditional media methods into digital storage. This has also created its own issues with being able to retrieve more elderly data!
Everyone in the RAF are very busy as the numbers reduce still further! FOI requests from the latest MP trying to prove a point take up a massive amount of time and effort, and are given a high priority.
Have you considered getting the information you require via FOI? There is a legal requirement to respond in a fairly short time scale, which may be of benefit in your case.
Having said all that, good luck with your project!
While I am loathe to defend a system I know to normally be at fault, I would offer the following observations:
Who exactly do you mean by "RAF PR"? The PR machine at an airbase, e.g Waddington?
Would information from 1953 still be stored at airbase/Command level, or would it all be in historical records?
Don't underestimate how much fell between the cracks when HQSTC was replaced by HQ Air, and the amount of specialist staff in Groups was reduced across the board.
In recent years a move has been made away from storing via traditional media methods into digital storage. This has also created its own issues with being able to retrieve more elderly data!
Everyone in the RAF are very busy as the numbers reduce still further! FOI requests from the latest MP trying to prove a point take up a massive amount of time and effort, and are given a high priority.
Have you considered getting the information you require via FOI? There is a legal requirement to respond in a fairly short time scale, which may be of benefit in your case.
Having said all that, good luck with your project!
The site seems to have become infested with ship spotters!
So, some of the world's largest nations have a tonnage and headcount that exceeds the RN, when the size of these nations and associated tasks are taken into account I still see no one other than the US who has a capability that exceeds the RN.
After all, I posted on this thread in reply to someone who claimed that the RN was is, or is about to become "third world" which is clearly palpable nonsense.
As to the rather strange claim about RAF PR and the Neptune AEW flight, surely the fact that very little historical data is around on this particular unit is because it was a very small unit and only existed for a very short period of time?
So, some of the world's largest nations have a tonnage and headcount that exceeds the RN, when the size of these nations and associated tasks are taken into account I still see no one other than the US who has a capability that exceeds the RN.
After all, I posted on this thread in reply to someone who claimed that the RN was is, or is about to become "third world" which is clearly palpable nonsense.
As to the rather strange claim about RAF PR and the Neptune AEW flight, surely the fact that very little historical data is around on this particular unit is because it was a very small unit and only existed for a very short period of time?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, I've just got it. pr00ne is really Jeremy Clarkson. No, really. Read the last bit of his post again and imagine it's JC speaking. It's Him!!! And it works on all his other posts too!!!!
Like the show!
Biggus,
I agree fully. Actually HQ STC went though a phase of deliberately weeding out any unnecessary archived material on the basis that anything kept could end up as meterial in a FOI response.
Like the show!Biggus,
I agree fully. Actually HQ STC went though a phase of deliberately weeding out any unnecessary archived material on the basis that anything kept could end up as meterial in a FOI response.
Thread Starter
I do not believe that I have made many predictions of what will happen, merely I have said things could happen.
One thing that I did predict, was the military support (see MOD news story) needed for this year's Olympics. Will MOD be getting extra funding, or will other areas of defence be raided?
One thing that I did predict, was the military support (see MOD news story) needed for this year's Olympics. Will MOD be getting extra funding, or will other areas of defence be raided?
