MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Chancellor Osborne announces new shipbuilding strategy for the Royal Navy
Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced at Portsmouth Naval Base a new national shipbuilding strategy in advance of a decision later this year on orders for the brand new Type 26 Global Combat Ship. The Chancellor also announced that these multi-million pound ships will be based at the Navy bases in Portsmouth and Plymouth. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThat's great,
Feb 01st, 2015 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0but one ship every two years will not sustain the NAVY,
one a year will only just break even,
China and Russia have built multiple ships this year , alone,
we need more ships, not more promises.
?
Dreadful spelling, defence* & harbour*
Feb 02nd, 2015 - 07:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0This story appears to be about the Royal Navy, so please get the (correct) British spellings right.
What is the language coming too?
@1 Briton
Feb 02nd, 2015 - 07:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's not quantity, it's quality.
The Chinese are quite crap at ship building, and even their plans have been stolen from Russia.
And Russia! Well lets they have got some really good ships but no where in the league of the ships the UK is producing right now.
A few years ago in a joint NATO naval exercise the RN sent its type 45 destroyers to participate. They were chosen to play the 'enemy'.
Eventually the US Navy asked the type 45 Captain to turn off his stealth mode as they couldn't be seen. So if the USN, with all of their technology, aircraft and despite their size, couldn't spot the T45, I very much doubt that the Russians and Chinese could.
And all new ships being built will also have this stealth capability.
Historically the UK has never had a large military, the largest we EVER had (not counting the 2 World Wars) was during the cold war. And most of them just sat around Germany not doing much but going on exercise followed by going down to the pub.
Whilst I agree with your sentiments about the Armed Forces they will never return to the number we had in the cold war. Why not?
Well you can blame the British public who want bigger and better hospitals, medical treatments, schools, roads etc..., but don't want a huge tax increase to pay for it. The money has to come from somewhere, and the opinion of the UK increasing its military is really in the minority. So the government knows they can cut defence spending without too much grumbling from the public.
Imagine what would happen if the government said it was cutting the NHS by 20,000 workers! There'd be riots in the street.
So the government can't just do what it wants. It's there to do what the public wants it to do. That's democracy for you.
What a pity that the two new Carriers are not Nuclear powered.
Feb 02nd, 2015 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0#4
Feb 02nd, 2015 - 09:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0The thought of nuclear powered surface ships scares me. The consequences of one being hit in the propulsion reactor are frightening.
This is a cracker of a video of Osbourne.
Feb 02nd, 2015 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I particularly find the shirt collar outside the suit amusing.
What a joke the man is....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkKtXpADhh8
4 lsolde (#)
Feb 02nd, 2015 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nuclear has the benefit of no refueling for many (10 to 20) year.
The Astute class attack submarine for instance.
However the downside, as experienced by the Nimitz class is refueling the reactor takes a year to 18 months.
However a working carrier needs replacement weapons and fuel for the aircraft (they are not nuclear powered). So to also need to fuel the carrier is simply a matter of logistical planning.
A nuclear carrier may sound sexy, but is not the most flexible.
Interestingly the new Gerald R. Ford class, the replacement for the Nimitz carries 2 reactors and is overpowered (think DS9 Defiant), so when new power hungry technologies become available then can be easily incorporated.
3 No, don't agree - its quality and quantity.
Feb 02nd, 2015 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Briton is right to be concerned.
Tory Government keeps saying we are entering a generational struggle and then cuts troop numbers and equipment.
Two good comments here so far.
Feb 02nd, 2015 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@1. Do you know what building a ship every two years means? I'm sure that I don't. I recall a picture, that I can't find now, of the BAE Assembly building with one virtually complete Astute class submarine on one side of the building and two partially-complete on the other side. Construction of the Prince of Wales aircraft carrier began before HMS Queen Elizabeth was complete. Suppose each Type 26 Global Combat Ship takes 2 years, but one is completed every 6 months? And each one will probably take less construction time, even with improvements being included during the build. The 13 Type 26 are planned to begin construction in 2015 and start to enter service in 2021.
@3. Many good points. But I would add this. Remember the scream the argies set up when HMS Dauntless visited the Falkland Islands? ONE ship. Continuing the British practice of deploying a frigate or destroyer to the South Atlantic continuously since the cowardly, underhand argie attack, invasion and occupation in 1982. But the argies screamed that the UK was 'militarising' the South Atlantic. Like latam states don't have military forces. But their 'reasoning' became clear when Putrid Jelly opened his gob. Argie farces, he said, would invade again but for the British garrison.
@4. I agree with you, Elaine. The QE class carriers are said to have a range of 12,000 miles (10,000 nautical miles). The American Nimitz class range is determined by duration (20-25 years) not distance. The Gerald R. Ford class carriers may do better. The choice of propulsion is down to the MoD because of 'costs'. Running out of fuel may be quite costly. Not in money, but in crew lives. The United States has TEN Nimitz class supercarriers. All nuclear-powered. Nimitz class carriers have participated in many conflicts and operations for over 40 years. Not one has ever had a nuclear problem. Still, for some, nuclear = magic! And you may have to refuel aircraft, but a carrier?
Interesting replies,
Feb 02nd, 2015 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 013 Type 26 are planned to begin construction in 2015 and start to enter service in 2021. We both know what the MOD and the ship builders are like,
if delivered on time and within budget, time will tell on this one,
It's not quantity, it's quality=
this is really a fallacy the main reason is that we are using billion pound ships to patrol pirate seas in which a couple of new patrol ships can do,
yes quality is good, but one quality ship cannot be in two places at one time, the royal navy operates a 1=3 ratio one on patrol, one the way in or out, and one being repaired , updated , training etc
the short of it chaps is that we do need more ships, without the government brainwashing abt no money,
yes I fully understand what you guys are saying, NHS , roads , railways , elderly care , Schools,
but as long as we/Britain are giving away in the realms of 12 billion to overseas aid, plus everything else the government promises, the 500 million per day [ I think] to our overlords in Europe, human right money , world bank we contribute to,
all im saying is this, as long as we British need this money, as long as we have food banks, then we must stop billions and billions going overseas,
then allows governments to tell us, we cant have this or that because we have no money.
the British military needs more investment.
just saying like,
3 LEPRecon
Feb 02nd, 2015 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“It's not quantity, it's quality”
Oh, I'm afraid that I'll have to go with “Briton” on this one.
YES, the T45 is the most advanced destroyer on the planet and YES, it can run rings round anything that anyone else could throw at us BUT, as one Captain put it:-
“Even a T45 can not be in 2 places at the same time”
If they are that good ( and they really, really are that good ) then let's have a few more of them.
The Navy needs one new frigate or destroyer every year.
Feb 02nd, 2015 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Replacing the Vanguard class ballistic missile submarines would be a complete waste of money. By the time they could be built, every tin pot dictator on the planet will have ABM defenses rendering SLBMs obsolescent if not obsolete.
10 Briton
Feb 03rd, 2015 - 02:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0“the short of it chaps is that ”
really, really? Did you mean to be so rude?
By posting here you are not just addressing other posters, (of whom are anonymous by gender etc.) but the world at large.
Do you think only men are able understand Defence Policy/Gov. spending?
It might surprise you to learn that another 50% of the population not only have a stake in such matters but also take an active interest in it.
Equally, (a big, important word for you to learn perhaps...), that some of them actually write some of these Policies.
PS: They get to vote too...
.
Ok, rant over.
:-)
@8, 10, 11 & 12
Feb 03rd, 2015 - 06:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wasn't disagreeing with Briton, but I was pointing out that having quality ships is better than having lots of under par ships.
I just want to point out to you all that criticising the current government won't change anything.
Firstly, they had to make cuts due to the dire economic predicament the last government left the country in. In order to balance the books something has to be cut, and in this case lots of things had to be cut. I didn't like it but it's better than the country becoming bankrupt.
Secondly, as I stated above it is the PEOPLE of the UK who actually dictate government policies. So if you are all so against defence cuts why don't you start a petition on the Downing Street website? After the petition gets a certain number of votes then it HAS to be discussed in Parliament.
So lets say the government, following your petition, reverses its decisions and decides to increase the military budget, where do they get the money because those ships, planes and tanks don't come cheap?
Do they:
1. Cut funding to the NHS
2. Cut funding to welfare benefits
3. Cut funding to Education
4. Cut funding to infrastructure projects (roads, bridges etc...)
5. Increase taxes
6. A combination of all above
It's easy to sit back and criticise the government on this, but the people of the UK don't want more taxes, and they want to have top class hospitals, schools etc...
And because the majority of the British public don't want to have to give these things up it is defence that will always suffer, because whilst the British public might admire the military they don't necessarily see how it is needed on a day to day basis in their lives. Any government that went against the wishes of the majority like that probably wouldn't be the government for very long, and the next government would just reverse all of the changes anyway.
It's a no win situation.
But as I said if you feel so strongly about it start a petition on the Downing Street website.
Or better still wait a few weeks and vote UKIP.
Feb 03rd, 2015 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's real democracy for you.
@7 zathras,
Feb 03rd, 2015 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0l was thinking of the refuelling problems if ever we were at war.
There were many situations in WWII, when the smaller ships had to turn back because of lack of fuel.
The Yamamoto went to sea once before being sunk, with half full tanks.
The Luftwaffe was incapable of mounting much of a defence or of training in 1945 because of lack of fuel.
You say that Nuclear power only needs to be topped up from 10 to 20 years.
l have no idea, but surely that is preferable to running out of fueloil or diesel in an awkward moment. Also don't need tankers either.
l know Nuclear is dangerous, but it will have to do until the Pleiadens(or who ever)give us their secrets of propulsion, ha ha OJ=(only joking).
@9 Conqueror,
As much as l like Elaine's posts(& sometimes yours amuse me), l am NOT Elaine. Easy mistake l suppose. lol!
@10 Briton,
Yes my fine fellow, ilsen is right. lts “chaps” & “chapesses”. lol! once again, OJ.
Doesnt work like the the costs of a nuclear ship are immense plus needs a completly diffrent sort of reactor to a sub the french have had no end of trouble with their carrier
Feb 03rd, 2015 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oops, l meant Yamoto, the huge Japanese Battleship, not Yamamoto.
Feb 03rd, 2015 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whereas I would like to see a larger navy and ever increasing spending on defence, I think we as a country need to be a bit more realistic about our place in the world.
Feb 03rd, 2015 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We currently spend 12 billion on overseas aid which is ring fenced, some of the recipients are richer countries than our own. We have also ring fenced an NHS which is now an international health service providing free health care to anyone who can pay for a plane ticket to get here, yet over the next 18 months many of our own police forces will go bankrupt.
We pay child support to children in eastern europe who have never set foot in the UK, on top of 55 million a day to the EU basket case where we have a huge trade deficit in what they buy from us.
We have for years spent billions in pointless wars in the middle east and have only succeeded in making things worse and killing hundreds of our soldiers.
Our national debt, when liabilities and pensions are factored in is 4.8 Trillion pounds. 78 thousands pounds per person.
So yes I would like to see us have a much larger navy and armed services as a whole, but we as country need to decide what our future priorities are and start looking after our own first.
What is needed is for the government to assess the threat to the UK and prepare our armed forces for this by supplying the proper equipment and manpower.
Feb 03rd, 2015 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In our history we seem always to be ready to fight the old wars but not the current situations. We are in more danger from terrorism than direct conflict with another country. More of our efforts should be concentrated in this field.
13@
Feb 03rd, 2015 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok you win.
Chaps, ladies, men women female’s males Trans gender,
Oh and cross dressers, , people , humans , home sapiens,
But as one wishes that political correct names be used,
Would that not predefine and thus insult all religions and nationalities,
By Christ 13 ilsen
If we went your way we would be here all night just getting the titles correct,
When I say chaps that’s exactly what I mean its justa word,
But if one is going to be political correct, then god help us.
Rant over.
.
@19 Britworker,
Feb 03rd, 2015 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@20 Clyde15,
Couldn't agree more with both of you.
lt seems that the UK has become a benevolent society for non-British folk.
And the recipients do not love us or, most times are even grateful.
We definitely have to stop getting our young men killed in foreign wars.
Wars that seldom benefit us in anyway.
Britons love Australia and Canada, but which countries doesn't the UK like?
Feb 03rd, 2015 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A map of the countries the UK favours the most across the world - and the top 10 countries Britons don't apparently like
Apparently Argentina was not mentioned once.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/11387747/Britons-love-Australia-and-Canada-but-which-countries-doesnt-the-UK-like.html
.
@23 Briton
Feb 04th, 2015 - 01:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0interesting link. Cheers!
:-)
Here is another link, totally off topic, but my current pet peeve as directly affects my extended family, and is also a succunct report.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/11385294/Venezuelas-socialist-paradise-turns-into-a-nightmare-medical-shortages-claim-lives-as-oil-price-collapses.html
I just want the world to know about this shit.
Thanks for reading!
24@
Feb 04th, 2015 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0you have my full support,
things and conditions like this should never happen
I feel the first responsibility of any government is to the safety and welfare of its people,
in this day and age, no one should suffer like this,
it just goes to show what a sad world we live in,
@25
Feb 04th, 2015 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you.
---
“I feel the first responsibility of any government is to the safety and welfare of its people,”
Agreed, yet this seems to be the last thing on the minds of the corrupt admin of Vnzla. No, they just wat an ignorant, dependent and cowed population that won't interfer with the 'Glorious Revolution'.
Well, that is what the ideologists want, the other half are too busy lining their pockets whilst proclaiming the 'party-line'.
Sick stuff.
Whilst the UK has its problems... well, nuff said.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!