Rant Why is there no English Sea?
- Thread starter cHodAX
- Start date
Dukat
Resident Freddy
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 5,396
Its all ours, we just let the other lot borrow it occassionally!
We rule the waves after all, old boy
English ownership doesn't need to be stated by silly names, we just park our shiny boats in the middle and shout "Mine!" and that's enough for everyone else to scatter to the four corners!
We rule the waves after all, old boy
English ownership doesn't need to be stated by silly names, we just park our shiny boats in the middle and shout "Mine!" and that's enough for everyone else to scatter to the four corners!
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 11,537
But the Indian's have a sea.
That used to be ours too
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 11,537
I sense the only way you're going to solve this problem is by running a bath and planting a flag, Cho
and then shitting in it for authenticity
Lamp
Gold Star Holder!!
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2005
- Messages
- 23,161
we used to rule the waves
I reckon the Swiss navy could take our boys now. Cut backs in the defence budget, equipment shortages, etc. OT: Take the army: Look at Afghanistan. The parents are having to buy them some pieces of kit its got so bad out there.
I reckon the Swiss navy could take our boys now. Cut backs in the defence budget, equipment shortages, etc. OT: Take the army: Look at Afghanistan. The parents are having to buy them some pieces of kit its got so bad out there.
old.Tohtori
FH is my second home
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2004
- Messages
- 45,210
Harrr ye landlubbers, there be no owning of the seas. Whatever the cruel mistress of seas does na reap with her waves is an every man fer themselves!
ford prefect
Can't get enough of FH
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2006
- Messages
- 1,386
The Boy Scouts with a dingy and an ethusiastic leader could give our navy a good run for its money these days.
cHodAX
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Messages
- 19,742
- Thread starter
- #22
Our Navy is in terrible shape, fantastic servicemen and women but our fleet is massively understrength now and it will only worsen with loads of escort ships being retired and replaced with a megre six Type 45 destroyers. That will leave our new carriers woefully underprotected. If you check some military forums out you will find alot of reasons to worry about the future of our navy, it is slowly being bled to death. Our Navy is now running at between 1/3 and 1/2 the strength it was when the Falklands conflict started.
Ch3tan
I aer teh win!!
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 27,318
Thing is though Cho, it's not like anyone else is stepping in with better Naval forces, the US is always going to be ahead, China will be there as a counterbalance as Russia were.
We don't have to worry about having the biggest bestest, we just need to keep a Navy that can deal with potential threats.
Does it matter what we had in the Falklands? The Argies navy is soo backdated that we could have won with our ww1 vessels.
We don't have to worry about having the biggest bestest, we just need to keep a Navy that can deal with potential threats.
Does it matter what we had in the Falklands? The Argies navy is soo backdated that we could have won with our ww1 vessels.
ford prefect
Can't get enough of FH
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2006
- Messages
- 1,386
Let’s see, it has three air craft carriers, seventeen frigates, six, nearly seven destroyers, some ballistic subs and some fleet support subs and a handful of nuclear subs and they have been struggling to man all these vessels for over a decade now.
The current batches of nuclear subs under construction are over seven years behind schedule and it is a similar story with the air craft carriers and destroyers. In fact the MOD closed a load of places in the 90's which are now needed to replace these ships and most of the specialised skills were lost. Frankly the whole thing is a bit of a joke. It is typical bureaucratic crap where pockets are being lined and nothing gets done.
The current batches of nuclear subs under construction are over seven years behind schedule and it is a similar story with the air craft carriers and destroyers. In fact the MOD closed a load of places in the 90's which are now needed to replace these ships and most of the specialised skills were lost. Frankly the whole thing is a bit of a joke. It is typical bureaucratic crap where pockets are being lined and nothing gets done.
cHodAX
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Messages
- 19,742
- Thread starter
- #25
Russia is refurbing many of it's old boats from what I am reading, France has a very progressive ship building programme underway. The Japanese have probably the best defensive navy in the world although lack of carriers means they cannot project power overseas during a conflict without the assistance of ally carriers. In patrol boats alone China is an important player and with large investment into new ships and upgrades they could become a real naval threat to the region in the next couple of decades. My point is that we are no longer #2 or even close anymore, well except in personel where we are still #1 in my unqualified opinion.
Of course as a nation on 60 million or so we do not need to be the biggest or the best, that said though our navy was a very important reason as to why we didn't lose WW2. Back then it was huge compared to today, yes the threat levels are much lower now but I do think our fleet has shrunk to a worryingly small size and is being stretched too thinly. If a serious war kicked off in the next decade our new carriers would not have the protection that a carrier group should offer.
Dukat
Resident Freddy
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 5,396
This is how I see it:
I think its wrong that everyone looks at numbers and equipment as the beginning, middle and end of this kind of topic.
A term which most anyone who has been in the armed forces will have heard to exhaustion is "Fit for Purpose".
Our armed forces are always aimed at being "Fit for Purpose" - that is, able to do what is asked of them.
In the current state of things, an armed forces which are well equipped to fight a full scale conventional war would be a gigantic waste of time, money and effort for all involved.
The main reason we don't have 90 million combat trained badgers lined up on salisbury plain is because aside from looking nice on paper when we get compared to other countries (like in this thread), they wouldn't actually do anything.
Our Armed Forces is there to protect our Country, its subjects and our interests abroad. Right now 90 million combat trained badgers wouldn't make much of a difference in Afghan, as the Russians proved pretty thoroughly. So we don't have them.
What we do have are an Armed Forces which are capable of fighting the enemy, but also - and just as importantly, imo - are capable of doing so without turning the local population completely against us and turning the country into another vietnam.
In other words - we're "Fit for Purpose".
Apply all of these words to the Royal Navy ^^ and imo you'll find the main reason things are as they are.
Yes, if a full scale war kicked off without any kind of warning - unlikely? impossible? - then we'd be behind on the naval front, but we'd have the infrastructure, the allies, the know how (not to mention the nuclear deterrant) to catch up well enough that it would mitigate the late start.
EDIT: Very hard to discuss stuff like this because very little of the information we would actually need to form a decent view just isn't accessible or isn't widely known, or is pure speculation. I'd say that at the very best we'll have educated/guesstimated opinions which will vary depending on who or where we've all been getting out information from.
I think its wrong that everyone looks at numbers and equipment as the beginning, middle and end of this kind of topic.
A term which most anyone who has been in the armed forces will have heard to exhaustion is "Fit for Purpose".
Our armed forces are always aimed at being "Fit for Purpose" - that is, able to do what is asked of them.
In the current state of things, an armed forces which are well equipped to fight a full scale conventional war would be a gigantic waste of time, money and effort for all involved.
The main reason we don't have 90 million combat trained badgers lined up on salisbury plain is because aside from looking nice on paper when we get compared to other countries (like in this thread), they wouldn't actually do anything.
Our Armed Forces is there to protect our Country, its subjects and our interests abroad. Right now 90 million combat trained badgers wouldn't make much of a difference in Afghan, as the Russians proved pretty thoroughly. So we don't have them.
What we do have are an Armed Forces which are capable of fighting the enemy, but also - and just as importantly, imo - are capable of doing so without turning the local population completely against us and turning the country into another vietnam.
In other words - we're "Fit for Purpose".
Apply all of these words to the Royal Navy ^^ and imo you'll find the main reason things are as they are.
Yes, if a full scale war kicked off without any kind of warning - unlikely? impossible? - then we'd be behind on the naval front, but we'd have the infrastructure, the allies, the know how (not to mention the nuclear deterrant) to catch up well enough that it would mitigate the late start.
EDIT: Very hard to discuss stuff like this because very little of the information we would actually need to form a decent view just isn't accessible or isn't widely known, or is pure speculation. I'd say that at the very best we'll have educated/guesstimated opinions which will vary depending on who or where we've all been getting out information from.
Dukat
Resident Freddy
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 5,396
Don't forget the English Mustard old chap!
Lakih
Resident Freddy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,637
This had me Lolling... almost 7 destroyers? What only missing the hull?
Why do you need a navy? Who would you think will attack you by sea that your allies cant help you with... spend the money on better things imo.
As Dukat said... "fit for purpose"
cHodAX
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2004
- Messages
- 19,742
- Thread starter
- #30
This had me Lolling... almost 7 destroyers? What only missing the hull?
Why do you need a navy? Who would you think will attack you by sea that your allies cant help you with... spend the money on better things imo.
As Dukat said... "fit for purpose"
I think you both missed the point, our carrier groups lack the firepower to properly protect the carriers. That isn't fit for purpose, it is understrength.