Given the reduction in the Royal Navy fleet under the Labour party since they came to power, why am I not surprised? Great Britain is now at a point where military analysists have indicated that if we ever had to fight another war like the Falklands war, we simply couldn't do it as we no longer have the fleet or resources at our command, and still Gordon Brown is happy to appoint a part-time Minister of Defence who also moonlights as Scottish Secretary at the same time the country is fighting two protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Honestly, it's like watching a really bad episode of Yes Prime Minister. It would be funny if it wasn't true!
Last week we had Des Browne protesting on the Today programme against the broadside from the ex-chiefs of staff on defence funding stating that he knew better than the ex-military leaders because he'd been to Iraq and Afaghanistan. Sorry, but that's a bit much coming from someone who has never fought on the front line, has never come under fire and has never sat in the trenches. He is not fit to make comment and his comments are odious in the extreme given the sacrifice that British forces have made under instruction of this Labour Government.
Let's deal with the figures though;
Under current Government plans by 2028 we will be left with
Minesweepers 0 (zero) - down from 16
Auxilliary Fleet Ships 14 - down from 31
Frigates 9 - down from 17
Aircraft Carriers 2 - down from 3
Landing Ships 6 - down from 8
Submarines 11 - down from 13
Patrol Ships 0 (zero) - down from 9
The only gain will be two destroyers on top of current levels which is farcical. It's funny to see the Labourite apologist eatmyshorts churning out the same old line that we live in a 21st Century and we don't need the amount of conventional ships any longer due to technological advances. Sorry, but who decided that? It certainly wasn't the Navy, or the Admirals, or the Chiefs of Staff. Tell you who decided that - the Labour ogilarchy who are more content to dream up fantasy, game-style wars than face up to actual reality that we need an active and functional Navy now to safeguard British interests and to respond to threats to our national security now more than at any time in the country's history apart from the Second World War.
2007-12-03 09:04:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by slıɐuǝoʇ 6
·
10⤊
1⤋
No..
The Royal Navy presently has;
1 Admiral of the Fleet (the Queen in Peacetime)
1 First Sea Lord + 5 former First Sea Lords who remain on the active list.
3 Admirals
6 Vice Admirals
25 Rear Admirals
Meaning there are a total of 40 Admirals on the Active list (the Queen obviously is not on the active list!!)
The Royal Navy however has 92 commissioned ships plus a further 23 ships in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (total 115 ships in the Naval Service)
Hence there are a total of 75 more ships than there are Admirals.
Hope this helps
2007-12-04 00:46:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Wren M 3
·
5⤊
0⤋
Whatever cuts government has to contemplate in time of recession, it MUST keep the Royal Navy's shipbuilding programme intact, including the two new aircraft cariers, as this guarantees the future of what little shipbuilding capacity we have left in Britain. The stupid decision of a previous Labour gov't to cancel new carriers in the 1960's meant that there ws a long period in the 1970's where Britain had no aircraft carriers at all, and had only just got the first of a new generation into service in 1982. Without them, we would not have kicked the Argies off the Falklands. And Britain has slumped to fifth largest Navy in the world, I'm afraid. the Russians exceed us, of course (only to be expected). After that, gut instinct and British pride says we should be third-largest. But we're not. Shamefully, we have a smaller navy than our old WW2 enemy, Japan. (How did we let this happen!) And recently, the French, of all nations, exceeded us in naval strength. This sort of sticks in the throat and is quite worrying, given which European country we've spent longest at war with and whom we find, with good reason, hard to trust. By the way, the Common Market is SOCIALIST??? ... you learn soemthing new every day. I thought it was just a cunning way for the French to rip everybody else off by, among other things, insisting we conform to idiotic rules which they themselves have no intention of obeying
2016-05-28 01:00:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is true and has been for some years. I seem to remember that was reported originally around 2000 or so.
You can thank the flipping Labour Government for that one. People in the know have been saying that defence spending is inadequate for a very long time. The parlous state of what was once the world's finest Navy is not only inexcusable but has been entirely predictable since Labour came to power.
It is largely caused by the fact that Gordon Brown, by his own admission, has no interest or knowledge of Defence. Nor, it seems, does the SofS Defence, Des Browne, who is now part time. These people have almost zero understanding or interest in what the purpose of the armed forces is. They are obsessed with money and have little experience of the real world.
Someone should go to prison - HMG is failing in its duty to protect the people of the UK.
2007-12-03 17:20:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by Answer Me! 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Not quite, but we're slowly getting there. The Brits are building two new aircraft carriers as I write - not sure when these will be launched - probably next year I expect. That will bring the strength up a bit.
I much prefer the answer given by the Prime Minster of Denmark, who when he was told by Bush that his nation was not pulling it's weight in the Gulf, replied, "we'll send out our second boat as soon as it's fixed".
2007-12-03 18:32:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dragoner 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
There are now probably more virgins in a brothel than the navy has ships......
2007-12-05 16:17:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ha!!! Good question!!! Proably... Crazy British Military!!!
2007-12-03 10:17:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Irishman Wyeth 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
probably, like reserve admirals if the old ones are killed.
dunno really.
probably is though.
2007-12-03 08:40:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by hhaydn1 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Probably always HAS been true, since an admiral is an admiral for life, even after he has retired.
The nature of the armed forces has changed because of technology, but the UK now has the 2nd largest military budget in the world.
2007-12-03 08:39:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by Phil McCracken 5
·
2⤊
6⤋
Bit worrying if that's true - feel sorry for the chap who gets command of the dinghy!
2007-12-03 08:40:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by fudge 3
·
0⤊
1⤋