|
|
|
|
Richard Beedall predicted this some time ago on his navy website Navy Matters, a fear of many who cherish the navy is realised
today, Adam Ingram MP confirms that 21 of the navies 44 remaining ships will be put into extended readiness state. This is effectively decommissioning them. Ships in this state would take at least 18 months to be made ready for sea again. In many cases their parts would be cannibalised to keep remaining ships running. 21 of 44... thats 48% of the fleet out of action. and suggestions that they plan to close Portsmouth Naval base as well
has this government truely gone totally and absolutely off its rocker? are they insane? Not for nothing is the navy the most important branch of the armed forces. The marines one of the most respected fighting forces in the world. But the marines cannot operate without their amphibious warships and no one should be stupid enough to send in these carriers and assauklt ships without escorts to protect them from attack by land air and sea. though i'm beginning to think our government really is that stupid.
If we run the navy down it will take over a decade to bring it back up to strength again. Under Fisher, the navy may have managed to build a Dreadnaught in 11 months, but these days, a warship takes a couple of years to build and test, crew training and experience takes even longer to build.
We are an island nation, 80% or more of our trade comes via the sea, 90% of the worlds people live within striking distance of the ocean, and every conflict of this century has in some way involved the Navy. Can our government not learn from the Falklands? Can it not learn from its own mistakes in the most recent Iraq campaign and Afganistan?
i read this article from the Times Online, and i tell you truely, i weep.
Half of Royal Navy’s ships in mothballs as defence cuts bite
Michael Smith
HALF of the Royal Navy is to be “mothballed” as it bears the brunt of cuts imposed after a series of expensive procurement projects and the hidden costs of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Six destroyers and frigates and two other vessels are expected to be put into reduced readiness, known as mothballing, to achieve urgent savings of more than £250m. It can take up to 18 months to bring mothballed ships back into service.
The armed forces have been told to save more than £250m this year, and £1 billion by April 2008, amid a “rebalancing” of the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) spending plans, defence sources disclosed.
The MoD will also cancel the last two of the eight Type-45 destroyers the navy was supposed to get. The navy was promised the government would provide these in exchange for cutting 15 major ships in 2004, sources said.
Julian Lewis, the Tories’ defence spokesman, said the fresh cuts were “absolutely devastating stuff” and that cutting the number of Type-45 destroyers would be “catastrophic”.
“You can’t have a navy without ships. This government is absolutely hellbent on the destruction of the Royal Navy,” said Lewis.
Admiral Sir Alan West, the then first sea lord, has said he only accepted the cuts in return for the “jam tomorrow” of the eight Type-45 destroyers and two large new aircraft carriers he was promised.
Adam Ingram, minister of state for the armed forces, admitted this month that 13 of the Royal Navy’s 44 main vessels were already in mothballs to save cash.
A total of 13 were at sea, and a further 18 in port and ready to go to sea at any time. But the decision to mothball another eight ships will mean that 21 of the 44 are not available. Ingram refused to say which ships were out of action, admitting that this would “enable deductions to be made that could be prejudicial to national security”.
Measures to save money that are already under way include a review of the Royal Navy’s three main remaining bases at Plymouth, Faslane and Portsmouth.
At the height of its power in the 19th century, the Royal Navy was as large as the seven next biggest navies combined. Even as the US and German navies grew at the start of the 20th century, it remained twice as large as its nearest rival.
But the 2004 cuts reduced it to its smallest since before Trafalgar in 1805, and there are suggestions it now needs only two major bases.
The decision last month to renew the Trident nuclear deterrent, based at Faslane, saved the Scottish base and made Portsmouth the favourite for closure.
Mike Hancock, the Liberal Democrat MP for Portsmouth South, said the cuts were “as potentially damaging as the (then defence secretary, Sir John) Nott cuts of the early 1980s, which preceded the Falklands conflict. Closing the Portsmouth dockyard, the most important of the bases, would be an historic mistake. This government keeps cutting back on equipment without cutting back on commitments. It is putting more on crews and undermining the navy.”
The problems with the defence budget are largely caused by cost overruns in procurement projects such as the RAF’s Eurofighter Typhoon, the Bowman communications system, and the Navy’s Astute submarine and Type-45 destroyer programmes. The Eurofighter Typhoon programme costs about £1 billion a year, which will rise in the next financial year to £1.3 billion. The other major programme costs are: the Type-45 destroyer £600m, Bowman £545m and Astute £415m.
The cost overruns on procurement are exacerbated by the Treasury’s refusal to refund the costs of training for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and up to 40% of the cost of actual operations. The Treasury claims to meet the full cost.
The MoD said it was not prepared to provide details of internal government budget discussions but it did not expect to see an overspend in this financial year and no budget had been set for next year.
Here me every man jack of you. Use your voice, use your democratic power, and should you posess it, use your vote and at every opportunity oppose this government and everything they stand for. at the soonest opportunity, vote them out. vote them out before they destroy further what remains of our once great nation.
[Updated on: Sun, 31 December 2006 00:13]
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Death of a Navy
By: tBP on Sun, 31 December 2006 00:12 |
|
|
Hmmm ...
By: cossie on Sun, 31 December 2006 05:07 |
|
|
Re: Hmmm ...
By: tBP on Sun, 31 December 2006 10:26 |
|
|
Since you mentioned it
By: JFR on Sun, 31 December 2006 13:06 |
|
|
Re: Since you mentioned it
By: timmy on Sun, 31 December 2006 16:33 |
|
|
Re: Since you mentioned it
By: tBP on Sun, 31 December 2006 17:10 |
|
|
Re: Since you mentioned it
By: NW on Sun, 31 December 2006 17:56 |
|
|
Now that I've sobered up again ...
By: cossie on Tue, 02 January 2007 03:41 |
|
|
Re: Now that I've sobered up again ...
By: tBP on Tue, 02 January 2007 10:54 |
|
|
Re: Now that I've sobered up again ...
By: timmy on Tue, 02 January 2007 11:45 |
|
|
Re: Now that I've sobered up again ...
By: JFR on Tue, 02 January 2007 11:49 |
|
|
I invoke that traditional British response ....
By: cossie on Wed, 03 January 2007 05:15 |
|
|
Re: I invoke that traditional British response ....
By: timmy on Wed, 03 January 2007 09:13 |
Goto Forum:
[  ] |
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
