RN no longer rules the waves
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South Central UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tablet-eraser,
A Squadron Leader landing his aircraft on a flat-deck during 1917?
Lieutenant Edwin Dunning was the man on the day - post 1 April 1918, he may well have held Sqn Ldr rank.
lm
A Squadron Leader landing his aircraft on a flat-deck during 1917?
Lieutenant Edwin Dunning was the man on the day - post 1 April 1918, he may well have held Sqn Ldr rank.
lm
We have had a Prince of Wales before, albeit it wasn't a carrier; however, I do recall it was sunk by (Japanese) air power.
That was the last time the RN put major surface units into harms way without air defence, a leson of history ignored by thoese who decided to prematurely retire the Sea Harrier many years before its replacement is ready.
In Telic there wasn't any real impediment to the build up of forces, which mostly were transported by sea. Against an opponent with missile armed surface vessels, perhaps proper (sic) warships, submarines, aircraft, possibly mine or land based missil threats, being able to escort shipping (like these ones) will be vital. The reduction of frigate/detroyer numbers is a serious risk. As is the reduction in SSN numbers. An several other cuts.
Also: less FF/DD means less possible NGS. Less SSNs means less TLAM platforms, less SF type stuff, and less ISTAR.
I could go on (and on
) but......
See Maritime Contribution to Joint Operations.
That was the last time the RN put major surface units into harms way without air defence, a leson of history ignored by thoese who decided to prematurely retire the Sea Harrier many years before its replacement is ready.
In Telic there wasn't any real impediment to the build up of forces, which mostly were transported by sea. Against an opponent with missile armed surface vessels, perhaps proper (sic) warships, submarines, aircraft, possibly mine or land based missil threats, being able to escort shipping (like these ones) will be vital. The reduction of frigate/detroyer numbers is a serious risk. As is the reduction in SSN numbers. An several other cuts.
Also: less FF/DD means less possible NGS. Less SSNs means less TLAM platforms, less SF type stuff, and less ISTAR.
I could go on (and on
) but......See Maritime Contribution to Joint Operations.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hasn't the history of the royal navy always been joint operations with the army?
Most of our major sea battles seem to have been fought to either keep the supply lines to our army open or prevent an enemy force establishing itself ashore. Even that scrap with the Spanish Armadillo was all about preventing the Spanish fleet embarking their army for a channel crossing. Had the weather not interved, the ensuing fight would no doubt have ended up as another joint operation.
Most of our major sea battles seem to have been fought to either keep the supply lines to our army open or prevent an enemy force establishing itself ashore. Even that scrap with the Spanish Armadillo was all about preventing the Spanish fleet embarking their army for a channel crossing. Had the weather not interved, the ensuing fight would no doubt have ended up as another joint operation.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Norn Iron
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The raison d entre for the HRH POW and QE2 names is a clever bit of manoeuvring by our lords and masters. The political ramifications of "chopping" a carrier therby chopping Prince Charles as a cost saving measure would be met with a furore of protest from joe public (who incidentally seems to be a major stakeholder in deciding the future of the RN!!)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sad things is that the VMF has only 36,000 people in it. To put that in a more common complex, Old Trafford has a capacity of 67,000.... The RN wouldn't even fit into the North stand....Thats sad.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
36,000! That's terrible!
As a six year old, I was taken to the coronation review and was right impressed with the huge armada. Dad was out there somewhere in HMS Zephyr amongst the something like 500 ships lined up off Spithead. That fleet included the battleship HMS Vanguard and a whole squadron of aircraft carriers.
How sad.
As a six year old, I was taken to the coronation review and was right impressed with the huge armada. Dad was out there somewhere in HMS Zephyr amongst the something like 500 ships lined up off Spithead. That fleet included the battleship HMS Vanguard and a whole squadron of aircraft carriers.
How sad.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lowlevel UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh. Salvage and Prize Crews; those were the days. What price the ancient toast of "A bloody war or a sickly season" with 21 century conflicts and modern medicine? Just where are the job opportunities for young 'Jack'?
tablet eraser,
Invincible and Illustrious are not being retired “shamefully early in a massive cost cutting exercise!”
They are being retired when replaced by the two new CVF vessels, there has only ever been two of them in service at any one time and Invincible is going into reserve for the last time because by the time it comes round to rotating them again the first CVF will be coming into service. She is over 25 years old now and will remain in reserve until 2010!
It was the Tories who cancelled the third air group and introduced the two in service policy in 1981 when they were hell bent on dismantling the RN under the Thatcher/Nott cuts.
I do agree on the names though, historical precedence there may well be but the two current names in my opinion stink!
Hermes would be fine, along with any from Courageous, Glorious, Furious or how about Eagle?
As to your rant about the “PC brigade” and reference to waging war on another country and making reference to history, just who the hell are “they”?
Invincible and Illustrious are not being retired “shamefully early in a massive cost cutting exercise!”
They are being retired when replaced by the two new CVF vessels, there has only ever been two of them in service at any one time and Invincible is going into reserve for the last time because by the time it comes round to rotating them again the first CVF will be coming into service. She is over 25 years old now and will remain in reserve until 2010!
It was the Tories who cancelled the third air group and introduced the two in service policy in 1981 when they were hell bent on dismantling the RN under the Thatcher/Nott cuts.
I do agree on the names though, historical precedence there may well be but the two current names in my opinion stink!
Hermes would be fine, along with any from Courageous, Glorious, Furious or how about Eagle?
As to your rant about the “PC brigade” and reference to waging war on another country and making reference to history, just who the hell are “they”?
It was the Tories who cancelled the third air group and introduced the two in service policy in 1981 when they were hell bent on dismantling the RN under the Thatcher/Nott cuts.
pr00ne - how does your
tie-in with the letter from Admiral Sir John Woodward in yesterday's Daily Telegraph 'Letters', :-
Are you saying that Invincible and Illustrious will somehow stay in service indefinitely?
Invincible and Illustrious are not being retired “shamefully early in a massive cost cutting exercise!”
Sir - Your article about the Jervis Bay (Arts, October 28) was not simply about the bravery of a single ship and a single man. It was about what I have called for many years the "Jervis Bay syndrome", which drove us all in the Royal Navy.
It is the force that made us put our main armament in the front of the ships, not the rear. It is the force that made us go forward when all our instincts were yelling to go back.
It is the force that makes our ships generally worth any two similar of our enemy's. And it is the force that gave rise to the British sailor's saying: "You shouldn't have joined if you can't take a joke."
This week's "joke" is the announcement of an indefinite delay in the ordering of the new aircraft carriers (and presumably their aircraft). When combined with the removal from service early in 2006 of this country's only operational all-weather interceptor, the Sea Harrier, deployment of a naval expeditionary force against any but the most basic opposition, with no aircraft of its own, becomes the worst kind of joke yet dreamed up by an incompetent government.
I personally could not ask the modern sailor to "go forward" in these circumstances, but no doubt the politicians of the day will do so - from plain ignorance or refusal to face the facts.
Admiral Sir John Woodward, Bosham, West Sussex
It is the force that made us put our main armament in the front of the ships, not the rear. It is the force that made us go forward when all our instincts were yelling to go back.
It is the force that makes our ships generally worth any two similar of our enemy's. And it is the force that gave rise to the British sailor's saying: "You shouldn't have joined if you can't take a joke."
This week's "joke" is the announcement of an indefinite delay in the ordering of the new aircraft carriers (and presumably their aircraft). When combined with the removal from service early in 2006 of this country's only operational all-weather interceptor, the Sea Harrier, deployment of a naval expeditionary force against any but the most basic opposition, with no aircraft of its own, becomes the worst kind of joke yet dreamed up by an incompetent government.
I personally could not ask the modern sailor to "go forward" in these circumstances, but no doubt the politicians of the day will do so - from plain ignorance or refusal to face the facts.
Admiral Sir John Woodward, Bosham, West Sussex
Lyneham Lad,
No, two of them will stay in service until replaced by CVF, there are only ever two in service. How do you work that out as indefinite?
There is no massive cost cutting involved in the carrier decision, the things are going to be around 65 thousand tons, that's over three times the displacement of the current CVS.................
As to Woodward and his ships with guns on the front, I thought they had as many on the back as well, apart from the Rodney and Nelson, so what on earth is the man on about?
No, two of them will stay in service until replaced by CVF, there are only ever two in service. How do you work that out as indefinite?
There is no massive cost cutting involved in the carrier decision, the things are going to be around 65 thousand tons, that's over three times the displacement of the current CVS.................
As to Woodward and his ships with guns on the front, I thought they had as many on the back as well, apart from the Rodney and Nelson, so what on earth is the man on about?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now then, then now, now then.......
Right!
Lets get a few things straight. Yes, eventually we will retire Ark and Lusty - Invincible decommisioned earlier this year. Why are we getting two new, very large carriers?
A. 3 parts of our commitment to JRRF:
1. Amphibious Group (Ocean, Bulwark, Albion etc)
2. Carrier Strike (CVF and JCA)
3. Can't remember the third (sorry).
B. Carrier strike doesn't just mean parking off somewhere and projecting power (having done the whole "Theatre Entry" thing - see I did read the FMOC). It also includes the JCA operating from ashore mit HNS.
C. Carrier Strike also includes massive LPH capability and operating an entire Spec Ops group from onboard - with a carrier where you can chuck a chinook in the hangar without taking the whirry pineapple things off - yes, it'll be that big.
Now for whichever grade 1 stimper said....
This obscene outlay of taxpayers money could be better spent on purchasing 3 more Nimrods, which are presently doing overland ops in support of the army in areas where the RN can't even get close - 'choosing' to stand-off - as they are considered valuable assets
He (or she if it is a Nimbat Queen) ought to check the going rate for the MRA4 - about a billion pounds a pop so far to the taxpayer. Value for money - don't talk arse. For that kind of cash you get both CVFs which have far more utility than 3 Nimrods. Yes the MR2 fleet are doing a fantastic job in suport of Ops in Iraq but lets not get too up ourselves. Its a 1950s airliner. With a camera. And more food for each sortie than most Iraqis get in a week.
And Jimlad speaks the truth about some of our light blue bretheren. But, if they had worked hard at school they could have joined the Navy (sorry cheap banter). Stop polishing your arse Jimlad and get strapped in.
Lets get a few things straight. Yes, eventually we will retire Ark and Lusty - Invincible decommisioned earlier this year. Why are we getting two new, very large carriers?
A. 3 parts of our commitment to JRRF:
1. Amphibious Group (Ocean, Bulwark, Albion etc)
2. Carrier Strike (CVF and JCA)
3. Can't remember the third (sorry).
B. Carrier strike doesn't just mean parking off somewhere and projecting power (having done the whole "Theatre Entry" thing - see I did read the FMOC). It also includes the JCA operating from ashore mit HNS.
C. Carrier Strike also includes massive LPH capability and operating an entire Spec Ops group from onboard - with a carrier where you can chuck a chinook in the hangar without taking the whirry pineapple things off - yes, it'll be that big.
Now for whichever grade 1 stimper said....
This obscene outlay of taxpayers money could be better spent on purchasing 3 more Nimrods, which are presently doing overland ops in support of the army in areas where the RN can't even get close - 'choosing' to stand-off - as they are considered valuable assets
He (or she if it is a Nimbat Queen) ought to check the going rate for the MRA4 - about a billion pounds a pop so far to the taxpayer. Value for money - don't talk arse. For that kind of cash you get both CVFs which have far more utility than 3 Nimrods. Yes the MR2 fleet are doing a fantastic job in suport of Ops in Iraq but lets not get too up ourselves. Its a 1950s airliner. With a camera. And more food for each sortie than most Iraqis get in a week.
And Jimlad speaks the truth about some of our light blue bretheren. But, if they had worked hard at school they could have joined the Navy (sorry cheap banter). Stop polishing your arse Jimlad and get strapped in.