The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

S

stuuu28

New Member
Review

If its aTory win then there will be another defense review and all bets are off,

Also you might want to consider what happens if people in Scotland dont vote Labour are they going to vote Tory or SNP?

You could have partially built CVF sitting in an Independant Scotland?

Would a Tory Westminster government use the CVF contract as a carrot or stick to try keep the Union together?

As they say "May you live in interesting times" :D
 
O

overlander

Member
Concerning to the capabilities of the royal navy what party will preserve a more strong navy, conservative or labour ??
 
W

windscorpion

New Member
Neither will because defence isn't much of an election issue for the GBP. The standard of media reporting doesn't help, there is a lot going on in the world at the moment which is going to affect our lives for decades to come but most people don't know about it, they might know what colour pants Beckham is wearing this week though.

Maybe the defence message needs to be tailored to the needs of the modern consumer, i came up with the following slogan a few weeks ago :

Save Tesco, rebuild the Royal Navy!

Now get those t-shirts printed now!
 
M

motiv

New Member
overlander said:
Concerning to the capabilities of the royal navy what party will preserve a more strong navy, conservative or labour ??
Click to expand...
As windscorpion says, "Neither".

What I will say is that military spending will pick up in the next two decades. With the worsening energy crisis nation states will need to 'protect' their own interests.

The UK is currently increasing all it's island waters to 320nm (ascension islands, Falklands etc). The same goes with all the old order of Europe. There is currently a large land grab (underwater) going on between the west and developing nations.

Oil or mineral wealth in these regions will need protecting at some point and a Navy will be needed.
 
O

overlander

Member
motiv said:
As windscorpion says, "Neither".

What I will say is that military spending will pick up in the next two decades. With the worsening energy crisis nation states will need to 'protect' their own interests.

The UK is currently increasing all it's island waters to 320nm (ascension islands, Falklands etc). The same goes with all the old order of Europe. There is currently a large land grab (underwater) going on between the west and developing nations.

Oil or mineral wealth in these regions will need protecting at some point and a Navy will be needed.
Click to expand...
I hope so, greetings from Hungary.
 
S

Super Nimrod

New Member
Windscorpion has a point that I think that the public are way behind on and that the politicians are oh so slowly catching onto. The future does look a whole lot bleaker than it did three years ago with a great many uncertainties; e.g energy, food & minerals security, Iran, the possible land grab at the melting north pole, possible Falklands Oil, two continuing major deployments, Zimbabwe, signs of unrest over genuine food and energy shortages in many third world countries etc and there are others before we even start to worry about the potential for a global financial meltdown or the resurgent russian navy .

To my mind it seems a damned fool time to be reducing the size of the navy any further, just as you are increasing the size of the terratorial waters and when there is a good chance that at least one of the above will start to effect us in a big way at some point. But hell, I guess I am preaching to the converted here so I will shut up.
 
O

overlander

Member
Super Nimrod said:
Windscorpion has a point that I think that the public are way behind on and that the politicians are oh so slowly catching onto. The future does look a whole lot bleaker than it did three years ago with a great many uncertainties; e.g energy, food & minerals security, Iran, the possible land grab at the melting north pole, possible Falklands Oil, two continuing major deployments, Zimbabwe, signs of unrest over genuine food and energy shortages in many third world countries etc and there are others before we even start to worry about the potential for a global financial meltdown or the resurgent russian navy .

To my mind it seems a damned fool time to be reducing the size of the navy any further, just as you are increasing the size of the terratorial waters and when there is a good chance that at least one of the above will start to effect us in a big way at some point. But hell, I guess I am preaching to the converted here so I will shut up.
Click to expand...
This is true but british politicians are not very much interested in defence, to compare in my country Spain the socialist government is building a well balanced navy with 1 carrier, 1 LHD that can operate as a second carrier, powerful frigates, etc
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
overlander said:
This is true but british politicians are not very much interested in defence, to compare in my country Spain the socialist government is building a well balanced navy with 1 carrier, 1 LHD that can operate as a second carrier, powerful frigates, etc
Click to expand...
And spending far less on the military, as a percentage of national product and government spending, than in the UK, so hardly a model for a nation whose politicians are more interested in defence than British politicians.

Nor is the current Spanish navy a product of the socialist government. Juan Carlos 1 & the F100s were ordered by the government of Jose Maria Aznar.
 
harryriedl

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
overlander said:
This is true but british politicians are not very much interested in defence, to compare in my country Spain the socialist government is building a well balanced navy with 1 carrier, 1 LHD that can operate as a second carrier, powerful frigates, etc
Click to expand...
in regards to countries where defense gains votes im struggling to think of more than 6 where defense wins votes USA [possibly], Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran and N Korea.
 
Last edited:
O

overlander

Member
swerve said:
And spending far less on the military, as a percentage of national product and government spending, than in the UK, so hardly a model for a nation whose politicians are more interested in defence than British politicians.

Nor is the current Spanish navy a product of the socialist government. Juan Carlos 1 & the F100s were ordered by the government of Jose Maria Aznar.
Click to expand...
This is true they were ordered by the previous government, in my modest opinion the Royal Navy strenght is in the minimum numbers of hulls if they reduce even more these numbers it would be dangerous to keep the sea lanes open in an uncertain world as present but unfortunately i think they will do and concerning to the 2 future carriers it would be not strange to see only 1 carrier operational and the other in refit/reserve as a defence economy.
 
FluffyThoughts

FluffyThoughts

Member
Sorry,

First post, and I understand that I have to formally introduce myself first, but.... http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif

Can we lay to rest the myth that the public don't care about defence expenditure. According to the latest MORI polls it is higher on the publics agenda then the NHS! http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/07/02/are-these-the-mori-numbers-that-will-decide-it/ http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Anyhows QE and PoW contracts are now signed. 5,600 Scottish jobs, together with a few hundred English ones http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7486683.stm are secure. Let's hope the SCSC programme kicks in soon. [Arn't the Omanis getting OPVs on a sixth-month roll-out?] http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/a6.gif

Ok, so my emoticons don't work....
 
Last edited:
S

swerve

Super Moderator
The contracts for building of the CVFs have now been signed, in a ceremony aboard Ark Royal.

Announcement

There's a link to an updated video at the bottom.

[Edit] Two of us with the same news in the same minute! :) But at least we linked to different reports
 
W

windscorpion

New Member
FluffyThoughts said:
Can we lay to rest the myth that the public don't care about defence expenditure. According to the latest MORI polls it is higher on the publics agenda then the NHS!
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by defence expenditure. Most people will welcome improved accommodation / health care et cetera for troops quite rightly but then if you mentioned Trident missiles, aircraft carriers, jet fighters they might be less welcoming. I've seen many comments about the cost of the carriers and people saying the money should be spent on troops equipment in Afghanistan/Iraq. True they need better kit too but we have to consider the strategic situation in 5-10-20 years and beyond. That is where the message needs to be got across to people.
 
N

niteshkjain

New Member
Finally Britain has taken the decision to go ahead with its two new carriers which will operate JSFs during the middle of the next decade.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rcraft-carriers-to-be-built-in-uk-859248.html

Two giant aircraft carriers to be built in UK

Thursday, 3 July 2008

Contracts to build two new giant aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy were expected to be signed today.

HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will be the biggest and most powerful surface warships ever made in the UK.

Their construction and assembly at shipyards in Portsmouth, Barrow-in-Furness, Govan and Rosyth will create or sustain 10,000 jobs across the UK, the Ministry of Defence said.

The 65,000-ton carriers, which will carry a crew of about 1,500 and up to 40 aircraft, will enter service in 2014 and 2016.

The contracts for the project, which is worth a total of £4 billion, were signed in a ceremony today on board the Navy's flagship, HMS Ark Royal, in Portsmouth.

The ships will be built by a group of companies known as the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, with much of the work carried out by BVT Surface Fleet, a newly-formed consortium of BAE Systems and VT Group.

Defence Secretary Des Browne hailed today's project milestone as a "historic day for everyone in defence".

He said: "The two aircraft carriers will provide our forces with the world-class capabilities they will need over the coming decades.

"They will support peace-keeping and conflict prevention, as well as our strategic operational priorities.

"Today's contract signing seals the future for thousands of jobs, and ensures that we will have a Royal Navy fit for the 21st century."

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band added: "These ships, with their embarked aircraft, will provide the UK with a potent and powerful aircraft carrier force that will deliver air power in support of the full range of future operations at sea, in the air and on land."

Alan Johnston, chief executive of BVT Surface Fleet, said: "This is an important announcement for BVT and for the UK maritime industry at large, guaranteeing work for years to come across the country.

"We are looking forward to delivering these very important ships to the fleet in the next decade and intend to begin construction work later this year."

The MoD said building the carriers would create or sustain 1,200 jobs in Portsmouth, more than 3,000 jobs on the Clyde, 1,600 jobs in Rosyth, 400 jobs in Barrow-in-Furness, 145 jobs in Frimley in Surrey and 250 jobs in Bristol and Crawley.
 
harryriedl

harryriedl

Active Member
Verified Defense Pro
KiwiRob said:
Since when could people vote in China and North Korea?
Click to expand...
thats sorta my point is that defense is only really important if your in a country run by dictator or is an authoritarian country. or have major threats beyond your borders most countries would have defense low on the list of interests over Heath ,Schools,Economy ect

Excellent news about the carriers
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top