Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Apparently, the RN are standing down their permanent patrol of the South Atlantic! | |
Author: Dave (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 23:00:52 12/01/04 Wed In reply to: Roberdin 's message, "Argentina should have waited twenty more years, Blair would have sold the Falklanders out in an instant." on 22:55:29 12/01/04 Wed But what do you expect when Hoon will only equip them with a few fisheries protection vessels and a rowing boat? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: But..... | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:28:23 12/02/04 Thu Don't the Falklands have their own protection vessel - with which they actually shoot at people, rather than just turning the other cheek like the RN in Gib. Presumably we could defend the islands with the tornadoes at Mount Pleasant if the Argies decided to creep up on us with a large invasion force again? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: hmm | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:53:00 12/02/04 Thu Remember that it was the reduction in defence forces, RN presence, and the resulting message, that provoked the first invasion. After the Falklands war, planned defence cuts were cancelled. Over the course of time, these defence cuts have more than transpired of course. I’m not aware of the capability of their permanent on-shore defences and patrol vessels. I would hope that the Tornado force would also be serviceable, with their engines fitted, should such a situation arise. In fact the original 1982 task force was about the size of our entire RN fleet today. Of course, the MOD peddles the usual BS about current and future ships being eminently more capable and sophisticated than their predecessors. However, for all their sophistication, an RN destroyer still cannot master the art of being in two places at once, and one type-45 on the seabed will decimate a much higher proportion of our fighting force than before. So, in military terms, their logic is half-baked. Hoon thinks our naval forces will be more effective with 8 destroyers than 12. Any defence posture is still beholden to the ultimate asset – political will. Do you really see Tony Blair sending off the entire fleet to keep the Falklands British, and defend our sovereignty, when he is hell-bent on denying it for the mainland? Britannia rules the waves! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: A fair analysis. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:19:42 12/02/04 Thu How fortunate, then, that the Argentine now owes us so much money that we could stop an expeditionary force just by calling in the debt. Golly, does that mean that we are now reduced to American-style imperialism? If so, perhaps we could try the same thing with Spain... as Cicero so wisely said, the sinews of war are limitless finances. Still, even if we could, that would be no reason to remove the Gibraltar defence batteries which point out of the Rock towards the Dons, and make the firepower of the RAF look like a troupe of Boy Scouts with pop-guns. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:40:46 12/02/04 Thu Yes, keep the batteries, and the apes may come in handy too? However, I doubt General Galtieri would have retreated at the first sign of the bank manager! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Future Navy | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:50:04 12/02/04 Thu I think the reality is that Argentina is currently too democratic and indebted to contemplate another invasion. They also lack the hardware, allegedly. It isn't only the UK that has cut back its military capability over the last two decades. I must confess I feel that the UK has maintained too large a surface fleet in relation to its defence budget. Not to say that I wouldn't like to see a big fleet, but I'm sceptical there aren't more cost effective ways to patrol the Atlantic, Med, Gulf and Caribbean than dozens of little firgates with pop-guns (no offence to the frigates). Given the lack of any serious naval threats other than the US and France, wouldn't the money be better spent on retaining our hunter-killer subs and developing a real amphibious landing and fixed wing aircraft carrying capability, while focusing R&D on minimalising these ships' need for armed surface support? I merely speculate. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Good Point | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:59:40 12/02/04 Thu You do have a point. There is indeed a growing consensus in the defence world that traditional naval power with traditional sea-battles, are a thing of the past, given that the destroyer’s role nowadays is merely a combination of air-defence and a mobile missile platform. However, these are generally the same people who say that heavy armour is a thing of the past also. Contemporary theory dictates that all future wars will involve air-power and highly mobile, light ground forces, and that the main battle tank is an anachronism. I believe this to be folly, as light forces are only effective against light opposition. Even the conflict in Iraq vindicated the main battle tank. I believe that naval assets are the key to power projection, rather than self-defence, and I think this still holds true. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Maybe you are right but... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:01:51 12/02/04 Thu Like I have said before, a strong Navy is an insurance policy. Hindsight is a dangerous thing indeed. I would agree that since the implosion of the USSR a lot of our ships have been over-potent for their used role. I feel, though, that Britain's close ties (far from being merely historical and romantic) with the Commonwealth dictate that we must keep up sufficient forces to mount a serious expedition to a trouble spot anywhere on the globe (say, to counter an invasion of Australia - Oz sent an army to the other side of the world in our hour of need!). A few years ago a large mainly Royal Navy task force HMS Albion HMS Invincible HMS Iron Duke HMS Manchester HMS Sir Galahad HMS Sir Tristram HMS Sir Percival HMS Fort George HMS Fort Rosalie Commando Helicopter Force Headquarters 845 squadron Naval Air Station (NAS) (Sea-King) 846 squadron NAS (Sea-King) 847 squadron NAS (Lynx- and Gazelle) 849 Bravo Fleet Special Boat Service Task Group Headquarters 17 Port & Maritime Det RLC Brambleleaf Oakleaf Naval Home Guard AREA 1592: 4 Cutters was simulating an invasion along the coast of Norway. A small diesel/electric Norwegian submarine, whose commander knew the coast very well, "sank" amongst others: Invincible (the aircraft carrier), Albion (the landing command ship) and Iron Duke and Manchester (the only serious escort vessels present). For this reason, it is worth keeping a good number of capable escorts available. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ship titles in CANZUK Navies | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:22:32 12/02/04 Thu Presently they are: Britain - Royal Navy - HMS Canada - Royal Canadian Navy - HMCS Australia - Royal Australian Navy - HMAS New Zealand - Royal New Zealand Navy - HMNZS [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Royal Canadian Navy? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:24:57 12/02/04 Thu Jim, is there still such a thing? I thought that since the collapsing of the command structure, it had simply become Canadian Forces - Navy, or something similar? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Canadian Navy | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:28:32 12/02/04 Thu In 1968, the Canadian Forces were merged - the RCN became the Canadian Armed Forces Maritime Command. They were all put in ridiculous green uniforms (I know I wore one - what an embarrassment). When Brian Mulroney's Conservatives came to power in 1984, he restored navy blue uniforms and brought back the title RCN within the unifed command structure. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: In that case | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:32:16 12/02/04 Thu A letter is in order... There is no mention of the Royal prefix on the website Canadian Navy [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I have spoken to my MP (a Liberal) about that and will follow up | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:46:45 12/02/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Quite right - these things are important | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:35:32 12/02/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |