Navy Lark or Navy Farce
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,061
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Navy Lark or Navy Farce
Well they finally have admittted it..
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...ter/ar-AAEEOgH
Why not just stick armed troops onboard for the passage through the risky areas?.
Navy doesn't have enough ships to protect tankers from Iran, admits minister
Why not just stick armed troops onboard for the passage through the risky areas?.
I'm just ashamed for the country. And it's our fault for allowing the dolts we employ in Parliament to do as they please from when they arrive.
God help us when that blond headed buffoon takes over the reins. "P*ss up" and "brewery" comes to mind.
Back to a bit of gunboat diplomacy I say.........even if we have to row !!
God help us when that blond headed buffoon takes over the reins. "P*ss up" and "brewery" comes to mind.
Back to a bit of gunboat diplomacy I say.........even if we have to row !!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,061
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
It gets worse
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/new...y-help-3121776
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/new...y-help-3121776
Royal Navy can't rely on US help to protect British tankers from Iran
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said it is UK's responsibility
Well it is isn't it? All decisions have consequences - and the bill comes in sooner or later
Cut the defence budget to spend money on popular causes, spend what little you have on 2 big vanity ships, have half what you do have in dock
then start a fight with someone who has total local superiority.................
Really sad - this is another "Suez" moment showing just how overblown all the political and SO talk about "worldwide reach " etc etc is
Cut the defence budget to spend money on popular causes, spend what little you have on 2 big vanity ships, have half what you do have in dock
then start a fight with someone who has total local superiority.................
Really sad - this is another "Suez" moment showing just how overblown all the political and SO talk about "worldwide reach " etc etc is
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,061
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
We've might have sent a nuclear attack sub to help maintain a defensive posture.
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/new...attack-3120113
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/new...attack-3120113
Yes, a classical mismatch of ambitions versus assets.
I rather like the old-fashioned approach exemplified by the following quotation:
What is the Army For?
On 8th December 1888 Mr Edward Stanhope, Secretary Of State for War, minuted Adjutant-General Viscount Wolseley with what became known as the Stanhope memorandum. This was in reply to the very reasonable question “what is the army for?” In summary, and in order of priority, it was to:
1. Support the civil power in Great Britain
2. Garrison India
3. Garrison all fortresses and coaling stations at war footing
4. Be able to mobilise three Army Corps for home defence
5. Be able to send abroad two complete Corps (but this was said to be “improbable”).
The underlying assumptions were that the Royal Navy would rule the waves and that the balance of power in Europe would ensure that no grand alliance could be formed to threaten the United Kingdom. It was also assumed that Great Britain would not wish to intervene militarily in European matters. This was despite various treaties, notably that of 1839, whereby the European powers guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium and part of Luxembourg.
If the above were to be accepted, Parliament needed to vote to create the force, and maintain the force. If Parliament disagreed, the 5 headings would have to be trimmed. Such clarity of thought appears to be beyond our current Parliament and military leadership.
I rather like the old-fashioned approach exemplified by the following quotation:
What is the Army For?
On 8th December 1888 Mr Edward Stanhope, Secretary Of State for War, minuted Adjutant-General Viscount Wolseley with what became known as the Stanhope memorandum. This was in reply to the very reasonable question “what is the army for?” In summary, and in order of priority, it was to:
1. Support the civil power in Great Britain
2. Garrison India
3. Garrison all fortresses and coaling stations at war footing
4. Be able to mobilise three Army Corps for home defence
5. Be able to send abroad two complete Corps (but this was said to be “improbable”).
The underlying assumptions were that the Royal Navy would rule the waves and that the balance of power in Europe would ensure that no grand alliance could be formed to threaten the United Kingdom. It was also assumed that Great Britain would not wish to intervene militarily in European matters. This was despite various treaties, notably that of 1839, whereby the European powers guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium and part of Luxembourg.
If the above were to be accepted, Parliament needed to vote to create the force, and maintain the force. If Parliament disagreed, the 5 headings would have to be trimmed. Such clarity of thought appears to be beyond our current Parliament and military leadership.
Well it is isn't it? All decisions have consequences - and the bill comes in sooner or later
Cut the defence budget to spend money on popular causes, spend what little you have on 2 big vanity ships, have half what you do have in dock
then start a fight with someone who has total local superiority.................
Really sad - this is another "Suez" moment showing just how overblown all the political and SO talk about "worldwide reach " etc etc is
Cut the defence budget to spend money on popular causes, spend what little you have on 2 big vanity ships, have half what you do have in dock
then start a fight with someone who has total local superiority.................
Really sad - this is another "Suez" moment showing just how overblown all the political and SO talk about "worldwide reach " etc etc is
What someone should do is produce an up to date costing of the Second World War, frame it and hang it on the wall at Beancounter HQ.
Then every time someone says “Let’s cut defence spending”, they should be made to go and stand in front of it!
