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: Future Navy | |
Author: Nick (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 17:50:04 12/02/04 Thu In reply to: Nick (UK) 's message, "But....." on 16:28:23 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. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous 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 ] |