FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
I googled "Space vampire" because I couldn't remember the name of the movie "Lifeforce" (which was based on the novel 'The Space Vampires')I worry about your leisure time when you know where to find one of those
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
I'm not going to bet the farm on it but it's looking broadly likely that we'd get an announcement post election this year about the direction to be taken.
A mix of UAV and manned seems likely.
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8579/16669400991_7fe2198f87_o.jpg
It's official, HMS Duncan has Her Harpoons fitted!
It's official, HMS Duncan has Her Harpoons fitted!
OSD on said Harpoons is?
Ranges.
2018 at the earliest with options to look out to 2020 or 2023 but it's all up in the air. Presumably it'll be mentioned in 2015 SDSR as it's a capability that might be lost in its timeframe.
I say keep it out until Type 26 starts coming into the fold and pick up LRASM.
Nonsense. The UK needs the US, not the other way around. The idea that the US nuclear program is reliant on UK funding is total nonsense and reflects a lack of touch with reality and the facts.The funding provided by the UK is trivial. The US defense budget is ten times the size of the UK. Unfortunately, the reality of the UK's slide in importance in the world really hasn't hit home. It no longer has the influence or importance to the US.
The UK has become more and more irrelevant to the United States. When the US Army's Chief of Staff goes public and fires a warning shot across the bow, it's about time to face reality.
Hmmmm....
BBC News - UK defence spending 'concerns' US Army chief Raymond Odierno
I think it's safe to say that the story in the link BACKS UP, the US needing the UK as a close ally.
The US CAN NOT stand alone. They need 'assistance' from the UK & looking back over the last 50 odd years, we've been there, with both moral support & technological innovation.
YES, at times it's a two-way street (& we need them), but that's what being key allies is all about. Combining forces & facing a common enemy, each individual with their own strengths (& weaknesses), the whole being stronger than the individual parts.
SA
"it's a useful relationship and not one that's going to be easily dissolved."
Key phrase. We're working together as partners - the US has given very generous assistance to the UK in many technical areas, we've reciprocated whenever possible and both countries have committed forces in common causes. Hence my belief that the concept of the US arbitrarily pulling the plug on an existing agreement with the UK to support a lease of Trident missiles isn't particularly likely.
Your style of engagement in this irks me somewhat however. ..
Just realised something, the RN currently has 3 Type 45's deployed abroad* (Dragon, Dauntless & Duncan) and the latter pair both being deployed in the Gulf.
Dauntless left in January and Duncan (with her newly fitted Harpoon missiles) left earlier this month.
Kind of odd, still, hopefully they're working with the US/French carriers in the region. The latter especially is the CJEF is going to be an actuality. That'll seriously be one powerful naval task group when the availability of CdG allows.
*itself kind of surprising considering it's coming out how much of a maintenance hog the WR-21 is turning out to be, MT-30's anyone?
Dauntless left in January and Duncan (with her newly fitted Harpoon missiles) left earlier this month.
Kind of odd, still, hopefully they're working with the US/French carriers in the region. The latter especially is the CJEF is going to be an actuality. That'll seriously be one powerful naval task group when the availability of CdG allows.
*itself kind of surprising considering it's coming out how much of a maintenance hog the WR-21 is turning out to be, MT-30's anyone?
The US CAN NOT stand alone. They need 'assistance' from the UK & looking back over the last 50 odd years, we've been there, with both moral support & technological innovation.
Nonsense, again. George Bush told Tony Blair that if it was too costly politically for him, the US would go it alone in Iraq based on a US DOD assessment that British Forces were not needed to invade Iraq successfully. That proved to be prescient and the subsequent performance of British Forces in Iraq also was illustrative of the state of the British Armed Forces, especially its leadership.
The British Armed Forces are only a shell of what they were then and can bring so much less to bear in a modern conflict.
You totally misunderstand the thrust of the remarks of the US Army Chief of Staff. He was only saying what anyone with a modicum of knowledge about military matters knows. The Cameron cuts to the British Army will strip the British Army of the capability of operating as in independent force (integrated under Allied Command) much as the British did under SHAEF in WW2. (The same is true for the RAF and Royal Navy.) The US laments this development, not because the British Armed Forces are absolutely vital but because it weakens Allied Forces. Nowhere did he say that the US can't fight any war without British participation. And if you do believe that the US can't fight and win without the UK then you are grossly ill informed.
Britain must adjust to the fact that the UK, under Cameron, has cut its Armed Forces to the point where it is no longer a major player standing side by side with the US, but as a very minor player whose support is nice to have but not essential. That's a harsh reality, but it is reality.
Wars are not won with moral support and the days of British technological innovation like radar and the jet engine are decades in the past.
Nonsense, again. George Bush told Tony Blair that if it was too costly politically for him, the US would go it alone in Iraq based on a US DOD assessment that British Forces were not needed to invade Iraq successfully. That proved to be prescient and the subsequent performance of British Forces in Iraq also was illustrative of the state of the British Armed Forces, especially its leadership.
The British Armed Forces are only a shell of what they were then and can bring so much less to bear in a modern conflict.
You totally misunderstand the thrust of the remarks of the US Army Chief of Staff. He was only saying what anyone with a modicum of knowledge about military matters knows. The Cameron cuts to the British Army will strip the British Army of the capability of operating as in independent force (integrated under Allied Command) much as the British did under SHAEF in WW2. (The same is true for the RAF and Royal Navy.) The US laments this development, not because the British Armed Forces are absolutely vital but because it weakens Allied Forces. Nowhere did he say that the US can't fight any war without British participation. And if you do believe that the US can't fight and win without the UK then you are grossly ill informed.
Britain must adjust to the fact that the UK, under Cameron, has cut its Armed Forces to the point where it is no longer a major player standing side by side with the US, but as a very minor player whose support is nice to have but not essential. That's a harsh reality, but it is reality.
Wars are not won with moral support and the days of British technological innovation like radar and the jet engine are decades in the past.
You are mistaken if you believe military spending cuts are solely the preserve of Cameron, it's been declining for decades. Cameron and Fox (then Hammond) had to deal with a department which was billions in the black with no plan to turn things around.
I thought it was the diesels that were being a pig ? I thought the 21's were just expensive to buy? I wouldn't be amazed or surprised to find them swapped out for MT30's at some point in the life of the ships however, as it'd give some commonality across the fleet.
Or in the red even, I reckon they would have loved being in the black and having all those extra billions to spend.
Can we please move back on topic and end this unproductive bickering here? This is a ROYAL NAVY thread, not a discussion on the pros and cons of strategic alliances.
When I first read about propulsion issues it was just that, 'propulsion issues'. I presumed it to be the WR-21 as I figured diesel sets compared to the first use of that GT in an IFEP setup would've been the more likely culprit.
Interesting comment in an article about Diamond coming out of refit, it's said that she has a new gas turbine (as well as Harpoon too).
HMS Diamond crew back on board after refit | Royal Navy
Or in the red even, I reckon they would have loved being in the black and having all those extra billions to spend.
Absolutely!
As much as I hate the cuts, the department was out of control and something needed to be done. If cuts continue, then we're going to have to face reality about exactly how they're going to continue and I don't think salami slicing can go on.
That means uncomfortable discussions about our place in the world and exactly what we want to be able to do.
RFA Tidespring is really belting along in Korea, rapid progress!
https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/580013714662932480/photo/1
Keel was laid in January this year i'll add . . . .
https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/580013714662932480/photo/1
Keel was laid in January this year i'll add . . . .
It really sheets home the argument that commercial "style" ships should not be attempted in UK (or Australia for that matter) when the worlds best and fastest shipbuilder can squirt them out at that speed and cost.
Its a different argument, obviously, for fighting ships.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Absolutely!! Hopefully Australia does what the UK did and not what Canada is doing (actually we haven't even started the "local Berlin build").
I think the UK got a cracker of a deal with these ships.
AFAIK the plan is these 4 will replace Gold Rover, Black Rover & Orangeleaf leaving 4 Tides, 2 Waves, Fort Victoria, Fort Rosalie and Fort Austin.
The last 3 (or two, potentially) are planned to be replaced by MARS SSS whenever that comes around, not until the 2020's I think.
Then there's Argus and Diligence, both reaching 30 years old with no replacement in sight until the 2020's.
AFAIK the plan is these 4 will replace Gold Rover, Black Rover & Orangeleaf leaving 4 Tides, 2 Waves, Fort Victoria, Fort Rosalie and Fort Austin.
The last 3 (or two, potentially) are planned to be replaced by MARS SSS whenever that comes around, not until the 2020's I think.
Then there's Argus and Diligence, both reaching 30 years old with no replacement in sight until the 2020's.