Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Full Scale Ships => Topic started by: Colin Bishop on January 04, 2013, 07:50:51 pm
-
Ark Royal is due to be towed to Turkey for scrapping but the Navy are being cagey about just when. With Invincible, they slipped her away early one morning at very short notice, presumably in the hope that people wouldn't realise it was happening and I suspect the same tactic will be used for the Ark. I have heard a rumour that it might be some time this month.
Does anyone have any further information?
Colin
-
Just keep an eye out for strange tugs arriving or due to arrive.
LB
-
A criminal waste of a good ship IMO..... >>:-( >>:-( >>:-(
-
After "Call me Dave" made his little speech the other day saying "we" would defend the Islands .....maybe he thinks that the Ark could be brought back into service simply by saying ELet it be so" BY.
-
http://www.qhm.mod.uk/portsmouth/port/port-movements
Queens Harbour Master posts daily shipping movements in and out of Portsmouth Harbour on this site. The next days movements are usually posted by 1pm. You get used to the double dutch that is used after a while. What you are looking out for is movements, as previously mentioned, involving unusual and big tugs, plus any sign of Ark Royal moving from 3 Basin where she is now, into one of the big docks or locks, surrounded by a flurry of local tug movements into, and through those locks.
-
Ask the local press, they are sure to know. These moves are usually planned weeks in advance and those involved adviced, including the local MoD PR office.
-
Thanks Dave, it's my daughter who is particularly interested (long story) and she is a journalist so I have advised her to contact The News.
Colin
-
I have been lead to believe that the Fort George was due to leave Liverpool on Monday for the breakers. However, the tug which I understand was to do the job the CHRISTOS XXIII is currently heading up Channel and currently SW of the Channel Islands, the destination still being shown as Liverpool. However, there is little chance that she will be here by tomorrow should she maintain her present heading.
The though therefore occurs to me that she is heading for Portsmouth and a date with the Ark.
See: http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?oldmmsi=373163000&zoom=10&olddate=lastknown
LB
-
Thats interesting about the Fort George Colin, I know she was not the best of builds, but she seems to be going to the breakers early for a RFA.
-
Now confirmed that it is the Fort George that is going. She is due to depart Liverpool around midday on Tuesday.
The Fort George is going relativity early because of several reasons but mainly because 1) the heavy running costs mainly in terms of manning and fuel costs. 2) Because she is a single hull and is therefore barred from operating in certain areas. In fact all the current RFA tankers apart from Wave Knight and Wave Ruler will have to be disposed of by 2016 at the latest because of this ruling; they are being replaced by the new "Tide" class, now under construction in Korea.
Fort George has been at Liverpool for almost two years, and during that time has be steadily stripped of usable parts including the propellers, shafts etc.
LB
-
Now confirmed that it is the Fort George that is going. She is due to depart Liverpool around midday on Tuesday.
The Fort George is going relativity early because of several reasons but mainly because 1) the heavy running costs mainly in terms of manning and fuel costs. 2) Because she is a single hull and is therefore barred from operating in certain areas. In fact all the current RFA tankers apart from Wave Knight and Wave Ruler will have to be disposed of by 2016 at the latest because of this ruling; they are being replaced by the new "Tide" class, now under construction in Korea.
Fort George has been at Liverpool for almost two years, and during that time has be steadily stripped of usable parts including the propellers, shafts etc.
LB
Plus the fact that she is overcomplicated and a nightmare to live in. Need a satnav to find your way around it if the lights went out. BY.
-
I had it in my mind that for some reason fort George was a single hulled tanker while its sister
Fort Victoria was double hulled....is that right? {:-{ {:-{
-
Tug mentioned above is Christos 23. It appears that Christos 22 is currently sinking off Torbay having collided with her tow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-21007236 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-21007236)
Colin
-
Now confirmed that it is the Fort George that is going. She is due to depart Liverpool around midday on Tuesday.
The Fort George is going relativity early because of several reasons but mainly because 1) the heavy running costs mainly in terms of manning and fuel costs. 2) Because she is a single hull and is therefore barred from operating in certain areas. In fact all the current RFA tankers apart from Wave Knight and Wave Ruler will have to be disposed of by 2016 at the latest because of this ruling; they are being replaced by the new "Tide" class, now under construction in Korea.
Fort George has been at Liverpool for almost two years, and during that time has be steadily stripped of usable parts including the propellers, shafts etc.
LB
I was on her to photograph her the week before she left Plymouth for Liverpool. By the time I was on her all the fuel handling gear was off her. There was a story at the time was she was going with a sale of Ark Royal which never happened.
-
Just to clear up a common error......neither the "George" or the "Victoria" are tankers as such. They are what is known as "One Stop" ships. They can supply all the needs of the receiving ship at one go instead of having ships specialised for one commodity. I never thought to ask who designed them, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that it was the Corps of Naval Constructors. By far, the best ships for the purpose were designed by private outfits such as Swan-Hunter. BY.
-
well "Christos23" wont be doing much towing for a while! on my AIS system there were 4 other tugs near her,hoping to pump out the fuel and saving her.Her tow has now sunk,another wreck for ametuer divers to risk there lives and those of others on.Usually at great expense to the RNLI and Helicopter rescue crews.
-
Well chaps on the shipnostalga site there is a photo of Christoss 23 alongside Fort George connectted in and waiting to go, the photo is dated 15 Jan 2013.
-
on our local news last night christoss was being escorted to portland for repairs! so someone is wrong somewhere!
-
There are two Christos tugs, 23 and 22.
Colin
-
According to our news, it is Christos 22 that got into trouble so bye bye Fort George.
-
where is fort grange and the tug? I would like to look it up on AIS but neither of the ships names are recognised?
thanks,
Mick F
-
Fort Grange, now Rosalie is in Birkenhead for the start of a major refit, Fort George is in the Liverpool docks where she has been 'laid up' for the last couple of years.
I understood the Christos was barge towing on windfarm duties?
where is fort grange and the tug? I would like to look it up on AIS but neither of the ships names are recognised?
thanks,
Mick F
-
Fort George has now gone, her berth is empty, I have had a daily view of her from across the Mersey from New Brighton....
-
The Former RFA Fort George departed Liverpool at the end of a towing cable on Wednesday at just after 1300; she was being towed by the Christos XXIII to Aliaga in Turkey for scrapping. The journey is expected to take around three weeks. The Christos XXIII is not known for keeping his AIS active her latest posted position can be found here: http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?oldmmsi=373163000&zoom=10&olddate=lastknown (http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?oldmmsi=373163000&zoom=10&olddate=lastknown) Images of the event are here: http://www.seatheships.org.uk/gallery/showgallery.php/ppuser/195/username/liverbudgie (http://www.seatheships.org.uk/gallery/showgallery.php/ppuser/195/username/liverbudgie) Liverpool AIS also has a good set as well.
Her former berth is now taken by RFA Orangeleaf, at least I presume so but can't verify at present 'cos it's snowing heavily at present.
LB
-
I stand corrected - it's a few days since I was out that way.
I shall be onboard Rosalie at the weekend before she shifts round to CL. Last time I was onboard was 1996 in the Adriatic.
-
aagh thats why I couldnt find her,I had the wrong Fort! Thanks
-
The Former RFA Fort George departed Liverpool at the end of a towing cable on Wednesday at just after 1300; she was being towed by the Christos XXIII to Aliaga in Turkey for scrapping. The journey is expected to take around three weeks. The Christos XXIII is not known for keeping his AIS active her latest posted position can be found here: http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?oldmmsi=373163000&zoom=10&olddate=lastknown (http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?oldmmsi=373163000&zoom=10&olddate=lastknown) Images of the event are here: http://www.seatheships.org.uk/gallery/showgallery.php/ppuser/195/username/liverbudgie (http://www.seatheships.org.uk/gallery/showgallery.php/ppuser/195/username/liverbudgie) Liverpool AIS also has a good set as well.
Her former berth is now taken by RFA Orangeleaf, at least I presume so but can't verify at present 'cos it's snowing heavily at present.
LB
I think Orange Leaf must be in the East Float, Wasn't in Liverpool Yesterday as far as I could see...
-
I also hears she was heading over to Liverpool, inside story from RFA friends.
I think Orange Leaf must be in the East Float, Wasn't in Liverpool Yesterday as far as I could see...
-
Vessel finder shows her in Lairds.... http://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=7342005
-
Think thats an old report - 3rd jan
Vessel finder shows her in Lairds.... http://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=7342005 (http://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=7342005)
-
Hmm, should have checked the date, silly me.....
-
Orangeleaf was in Lairds earlier in the week if that helps?
-
Her AIS is off, so you need to use a MK1 eyeball.
Here she is transporting from the wet basin to Langton yesterday.
LB
-
L B there is a inconspicuous garden shed thin in the old berth area that a few chaps put things in ,interesting little lot ,but a lot of £ is wanted .....
-
Now confirmed that it is the Fort George that is going. She is due to depart Liverpool around midday on Tuesday.
The Fort George is going relativity early because of several reasons but mainly because 1) the heavy running costs mainly in terms of manning and fuel costs. 2) Because she is a single hull and is therefore barred from operating in certain areas. In fact all the current RFA tankers apart from Wave Knight and Wave Ruler will have to be disposed of by 2016 at the latest because of this ruling; they are being replaced by the new "Tide" class, now under construction in Korea.
Fort George has been at Liverpool for almost two years, and during that time has be steadily stripped of usable parts including the propellers, shafts etc.
LB
Funnily enough, I've recently had a letter (the old-fashioned sort) from a pal of mine who just happens to be a retired RFA Captain. He's very blunt about the withdrawal of "Fort George".
She apparently developed a "crack" that was spreading around her hull. Much consternation.
Sounds like a good reason to take her out of service to me. Could also explain why there were no buyers for her. BY.
-
Fort george arrived at Aligia this morning.
LB
-
To get this back on tread somewhat I have heard over the weekend that the Prince of Wales, the second of our superdupa carriers, is to have a name change and become the Ark Royal.
LB
-
LB
I had heard this rumour a few weeks, be nice if its true.
Also the fwd island has arrived in rosyth not sure when they plan on lifting it onto the vessel.
-
Good news if true. Going to sea on a Duchy Original would really take the biscuit...
-
There is a report in the Portsmouth News to the effect that Ark Royal will be towed away sometime next month.
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/hms-ark-royal-to-leave-portsmouth-for-scrapyard-1-4997364 (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/hms-ark-royal-to-leave-portsmouth-for-scrapyard-1-4997364)
Has anyone any more details?
Colin
-
This is a first,
I actually agree with Mike Critchley in the article!!
Bob
-
Good news if true. Going to sea on a Duchy Original would really take the biscuit...
I agree,and if it is anything like duchy originals it would be overpriced as well!
Change the name to "RAMILLIES" Its not fair that Revenge and Royal Sovereign have been used when Rammy has more claim to fame than either of those!
Mick F
-
Looks like the Ark will be departing Portsmouth at 11am on Monday 20th: http://forum.shipspotting.com/index.php?topic=11902.0 (http://forum.shipspotting.com/index.php?topic=11902.0)
Colin
-
http://www.qhm.mod.uk/portsmouth/port/port-movements?shipaction=show&date=2013-05-18&days=3
Queens Harbour Master has it down for a 1pm departure, coinciding with slack water at 1:18pm, but get there for 11am cos they may just sneak out early!!
-
Hi Bryan, I loaded her first consignment of Sea Darts to her in Plymouth Sound, I heard she had to be discharged 2 weeks latter for an emergency docking, apparently she was so badly hogged they thought she had broke her back. Turned out she had been lying empty so long that she had badly hogged and not broken her back !!
-
Hi Bryan, I loaded her first consignment of Sea Darts to her in Plymouth Sound, I heard she had to be discharged 2 weeks latter for an emergency docking, apparently she was so badly hogged they thought she had broke her back. Turned out she had been lying empty so long that she had badly hogged and not broken her back !!
For the landlubbers amongst us :embarrassed: can you explain what you mean by 'badly hogged'? :-))
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogging_and_sagging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogging_and_sagging)
Bob
-
Saw her yesterday at the dock. She had the long distance tug in front of her with the tow line all ready. She looked sad
John
-
It says the deal is worth some £2.9m...
How much value in scrap can she have? because even I could of bought her and chopped her up and sold the lot..
So how much are the Turks making, taking into account a bit of slave labor of course (which is wrong).
Dan
-
I visited Portsmouth today to see the Ark's departure. My report and photos can be seen on the Model Boats Website http://www.modelboats.co.uk/ (http://www.modelboats.co.uk/)
Colin
-
As viewed from the bridge of the Bretagne on Sunday evening:
(http://i513.photobucket.com/albums/t339/carlmtflo/DSCF4243_zpsf5afb262.jpg) (http://s513.photobucket.com/user/carlmtflo/media/DSCF4243_zpsf5afb262.jpg.html)
Carl
-
just looked it up on AIS,showing the tug but nothing indicating what she is towing.Sadly she will be too far offshore when she gets to this area (Cornwall)
-
Well she has gone!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22600299
-
I know, as said above, I watched her!
Colin
-
It's all very sad. I was on Sun London when she towed HMS Scylla from Portsmouth to Plymouth. Going aboard to rig the emergency towline was awful. She was totally gutted and full of pigeons and droppings. Full of ghosts and memories. But they all have to go in the end. The newer ones don't seem to last as long as the older ones. Scylla will carry on as a diving reef for a long time to come which is better than being made into razor blades.
Jerry.
-
<*< Don't you think it would have been better to wait till you have built the new carrier before scrapping Ark Royal I bet they could have squeezed a few more years out of her,Ray <*< <*< <*<
-
Hadn't she just had a big refit before the announcement they were retiring her?
-
Hadn't she just had a big refit before the announcement they were retiring her?
Yes, £12m less than 18 months before. A lot of the gear had to be ripped out again for spares etc. in other ships but I imagine that the special go faster antifouling paint must have been a total waste....
Colin
-
Jerry C says...."It's all very sad" ............. I agree...I was at work the day in 1985 when our decommissioned HMAS Melbourne [Majestic class carrier] was towed out of Sydney heads bound for scrapping in China
Ill-fated or jinxed were just two names associated with her after 156 naval ratings [in total] died when on two occasions Melbourne and another war ship collided just off the coast of Jervis Bay
Many more dockyard workers later suffered from asbestos related conditions as just below the wooden flight deck.....the steam arrester gear was lagged with open blue asbestos >>:-(
NB....the colour shown is the term for a type of asbestos material in it's natural condition....Derek
-
wooden flight deck
Wooden flight deck?! The light fleet carriers used the flight deck as a strength deck and it was made of steel.
Colin
-
Yes :embarrassed: ...a construction TYPO Colin.....Melbourne's arrester deck was ablative coated steel.......the catapult deck rails sections were smooth painted steel........
I had never worked on Melbourne & made one trip only to board the vessel after her de-commissioning....when she was tied up at 'Rotten Row'......at that time the full length & width of her steam catapult deck rails were covered in GREEN stained timbers approx. 6"wide x 3/4"thick ???? .......Derek
-
Arks departure coincided with my day off, so no need for skiving off work this time. The prelude was provided by a Type 45.
-
I have never seen crowds gathered like this for a vessel being towed away for scrapping, homecomings yes, but this...I'm glad I left the car at home..
-
Back at The Point, you could see Ark Royal being eased off of the jetty, while her tug for the final voyage preceded here out the harbour.
She looked stern heavy. I believe this is prefered for ocean tows.
-
Moving back to Quebec House, we waited for the final departure of another piece of Royal Navy history..
-
Looking every bit a Ghost Ship, and with one long blast on the horn of the lead tug, she passed us and Round Tower for the last time..
-
The mass of people who turned out for her departure all seemed to follow Ark on her journey along the Hot Walls on this grey day.
-
And with that, she was gone.
-
Two generations have never seen a real carrier.
The Ark and Eagle went off with a lot less wailing and gnashing of
teeth and they were Aircraft Carriers
I am proud to say I have served on three real carriers
Ned
-
I think most of the public interest was generated by the local press, TV, radio and newspapers seemed to be 'creating' a newsworthy event. I remember Hermes departing at about 7:30am for a new life in India,with no 'hoo ha' whatsoever. And I believe her contribution to recent history warranted more of a send off than she got.
-
I think the difference with Ark Royal is that an awful lot of people are deeply unhappy with the way that the Navy, and indeed the armed forces in general, have been subject to deep cuts for largely political reasons which have not been fully thought through and which may be greatly regretted in the future. The decommissioning of Ark Royal which was a fully functioning and very useful major naval unit came to symbolize that concern. And of course, just a few months later she would have been extremely handy during the Libya situation and would probably have avoided the need to fly RAF aircraft from Italian bases which cost rather more than was admitted and which was jeopardised by the Italians wanting to curtail the flights before the operation was over. Relying on your 'allies' to make available facilities when you feel you need them is a stupid policy, they invariably have their own interests which may not accord with yours.
I saw a quote yesterday extolling the virtues of the Type 45 Darings saying that we have no less than six of them. The writer was clearly unaware that the original requirement was for 12 to replace the ships already taken out of commission.
In general, the present Government and Opposition are 'know nothings' when it comes to defence although Philip Hammond is showing some signs of awareness of the potential dangers. By all means cut down on inefficiencies and waste in the MOD but don't confuse that with the Government's very basic obligations for the Defence of the Realm. History demonstrates only too clearly that crises can come seemingly out of nowhere, Libya was just a minor example. Adequate defence capability is a form of national insurance, not an optional activity depending on whatever happens to be the flavour of the month.
Colin
-
Don't worry, if Labour get back in at the next bunfight they'll go on a big spending spree and we'll have ten flat tops, fifty seven destroyers and cruisers and twenty submarines. :-))
Regards Ian.
-
The last lot cut more in the R N than this lot, through slow down on slow on spending delaying major projects and scrapping. Bases were more important than ships because of votes, the 22's being scrapped a few years ago would have been rebuilt in the old Royal Dockyard system, but with conversion to Naval Bases and the whole sale sacking of the trades and putting out to tender refits and repairs, the skilled trades do not exist in this country to refurbish vessels anymore. I remember the old Leander's being completely gutted at Chatham including the boilers going ashore to the boiler factory, then being rebuilt to new condition.
-
I think that Colin Bishop has hit the nail in the appropriate position!. We currently have a government which is prepared to spend mega billions to replace our nuclear subs and their attendant Trident missiles. They wave this about as the way to protect our national sovereignty.
Realistically, it is pretty difficult to see who they are protecting us against. Not the traditional enemies of China or Russia .Anyone else issueing a threat would be more appropriately dealt with by use of cruise missiles or conventional air attacks. Given that we cannot fire the damn missiles without the express permission of the USA who I believe hold the activate keys and given that it is hard to see which our the current batch of politicians has the b..ls to do it!
A conventionally armed Navy/Fleet Air Arm and a adequate Air Force would surely be the way to protect these shores. Also give credit to those on the ground in Afganistan currently ,whose lives appear to me to be being spent for not much in the way of tangible results in a country that shows no great joy at what we are doing supposedly on their behalf.
-
Sorry Spearfish but the authority to fire British Nukes rests with the PM and not the colonial cousins
I know it is a large article but down near the bottom are the details for firing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_Kingdom)
Geoff
-
Trident is not as expensive as people believe when costed over its operational period. While at the moment it is difficult to conceive of a situation where the threat of nuclear retaliation might be necessary, that doesn't mean that 20 years down the line such a situation could not arise. You only need a slight knowledge of history to see how the international situation can deteriorate in a relatively short time. WW1 was supposed to be the 'war to end wars' but it turned out to simply be the prelude to something much worse. There are all sorts of situations that could potentially arise which might drastically tip the political balance from the natural to the man made. If the UK were to unilaterally get rid of its nuclear weapons, nations such as Iran and North Korea wouldn't say 'what an excellent idea, we shall follow suit'. They would regard us as weak and accelerate their own nuclear weapons programmes correspondingly. They could then do what they liked without fear of retaliation. Unfortunately, a nuclear deterrent is the ultimate insurance policy and while there is a likelihood of politically unstable states such as Pakistan, North Korea and Iran posing a threat to world peace then it would be stupid to dispense with it. At the moment Russia and China are relatively stable but in both countries there are forces which could result in control of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of people with less civilised agendas in the foreseeable future. Also, bear in mind the recent reports of Russia flexing its military muscle by incursions into UK and Norwegian airspace - not a very friendly gesture.
I understand that the Trident subs can be armed with a range of options which can be deployed depending on the circumstances. The missiles aren't all city busters.
As far as conventional forces are concerned then you do need your own assets which cannot be compromised by reliance on other 'friendly' countries. The USA does not have a good record of coming to the immediate support of its allies in time of war, it puts its own interests first, 'Special Relationship' or not. It only gave lukewarm political support during the Falklands War and would have been quite happy if we had ceded the islands to Argentina. It probably still feels that way. It wasn't very enthusiastic about getting involved in Libya either.
A common criticism of almost all warship designs is that they are initially built too small so that operational life is compromised by an inability to upgrade ships with new equipment and weaponry. The Darings and the new carriers are intended to avoid this and to get the maximum possible lifespan out of the ships as do the Americans with their big carriers. Once built, the QE class can be adapted during their lifespan to meet the needs of the day. A big deck with a big hangar underneath is capable of all sorts of roles which is why HMS Ocean has been favoured over HMS Illustrious for future service. Ocean is not built to full warship standards but she offers far more space than does Illustrious with her very cramped hangar.
Crystal ball gazing for defence purposes has always been difficult but I think you need a combination of effective conventional assets for tactical purposes backed up by a strategic deterrent as well.
Colin
-
I do fully agree with Colin.
But I have several additions:
If we lose nuclear capability there is a general consensus that we would lose our chair at the UN Security Council.
A large political cross to bear by the party that enables it.
Ian,
It was the last Govt that ensured that the carriers would be built with such heavy cancellation clauses.
Seems a pretty good idea now when the present Government would have scrapped them too so leaving us without any means of air cover to our naval forces.
As to MoD Contracts, those that expect "Within Price" contracts are not living in the real world.
I can offer for tender a radar set.
This set will be more powerful and clearer than anything presently known.
The technology does not exist for this equipment yet.
Now give me a firm price on this radar set.
This is about the contract for the Type 45 Air Defence Radar.
One of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, ,with atmospheric "bend" to allow far greater range than a straight beam.
It just wasn't available at the time but it is now.
Bob
-
I have to agree with you Bob- changes in technology are one of the main reasons contract costs spiral
ever upwards - another reason is the government/Mod changing the specifications. Perfect example on
the carriers, we will have catapults, no we will have a VTOL, and nothing ever seems to cost less than
£100m these days. Don't forget if you want to change or enhance a radar system it isn't just the array
on the mast but the wiring and each radar usually has it's own office where the guts of the system are
fitted. An insignificant looking change to the casual observer can have serious/expensive consequences
within the ship and the MOD budget.
Geoff
-
Having spent most of my working life in Design Offices for MoD Contractors I can fully appreciate how complex each system is and how long it takes to design and bring it up to spec. Thousands of drawings, many stages of prototypes, then every so often the MoD Authority moved to goalposts as technology and expectations develop. Early thermal imaging, radar and submarine weapon control systems.
It was all Cost Plus in those days, so any change in contract spec meant a renegotiation of terms. Later they tried COTS (commercial off the shelf) but the required level of MoD documentation demanded realised few cost savings.
Thank goodness for the advent of CAD. At least significant changes could be made on virtual assemblies, which could also be stress and thermal tested on screen. Often the first actual units made were of the production model. After CAD the design process should have been speeded up considerably, but the MoD still kept moving the goalposts when we were two thirds of the way through. Interesting and demanding work. I enjoyed it
-
Basic problem that escalates costs is the British inability to get the show on the road in the allocated timescale due to "Mods" to an as designed item. Too many design requirements are formulated by desk drivers without consultation of those that operate the systems and don't forget, at quotation stage, profits are built into the costing's. These are not cancelled in the event of a "Design mod" but added to.
Defence hardware/software needs? We don't have an empire to protect/enforce anymore so you cut your cloth etc. At the end of the day, where does the money come from?
Regards Ian
-
Defence hardware/software needs? We don't have an empire to protect/enforce anymore so you cut your cloth etc. At the end of the day, where does the money come from?
Well, I believe that 60% of our food and most imported goods still arrive by sea.... As you will have been reminded this week, it was the Battle of the Atlantic that was the most crucial conflict in WW2 (and pretty much the same in WW1 as well). Trade protection is still necessary, empire or not.
-
Defence hardware/software needs? We don't have an empire to protect/enforce anymore so you cut your cloth etc. At the end of the day, where does the money come from?
Regards Ian
[/quotWell, I believe that 60% of our food and most imported goods still arrive by sea.... As you will have been reminded this week, it was the Battle of the Atlantic that was the most crucial conflict in WW2 (and pretty much the same in WW1 as well). Trade protection is still necessary, empire or not.e]
well said colin,,,,,, i think the words are LEAST WE FORGET
-
Not advocating "We forget", but we have this ranting and wailing every time a boat is scrapped. Basic economics are a reality. Not only has the USSR and America had to realise that Defence has to be paid for and is not funded by a forest of money trees, should we follow the examples of Greece and Spain? Even stockpiling "Just in case" costs.
Let us not also forget, Britain is only a "World power" cos we have a big bomb.
Regards Ian.
-
Let us not also forget, Britain is only a "World power" cos we have a big bomb.
Or it might be something to do with us being the World's 6th largest economy....
Not sure what you mean by 'ranting & wailing every time a boat is scrapped'. Which other vessels did you have in mind? Ark Royal was an unusual case in that a lot of money had just been spent on her and the ship was still clearly needed as Libya proved with expensive RAF redeployments of relatively unsuitable aircraft to Italy.
Unfortunately a lot of Government thinking relating to 'savings' is half baked and poorly thought through as evidenced by the insistence on reducing tax and customs staff to 'save money' and then wondering why non payers were not being chased up. If you have a tax inspector bringing in more than he costs then the last thing you should be doing is making him redundant! Same thing with border security, get rid of a significant proportion of the staff and then wonder why the airports grind to a halt with immigration queues and lots of undesirables slip through the net. Allow GPs to opt out of out of hours cover and then wonder why patients turn up at A&E instead.
Before taking these sorts of decisions you need to look at all the consequences, not just those at the end of your nose and then, as is happening all too often, complain that 'we never meant that to happen'. It's called the 'Law of Unintended Consequences'. The problem we have is that the people making the decisions simply do not know enough to make them competently and won't listen to those with experience who sound the warnings.
Colin
-
Time for a tree-hugging hippy-socialist to chime in. :-))
As this country's economy is reliant on international (and mainly sea-borne) trade, I would argue that an effective fleet is important to counter potential threats.
I would also argue that 100 billion spent on a nuclear system which is immoral, indiscriminate, potentially illegal, unusable (in any practical foreseeable event) and which raises the spectre of continuing nuclear proliferation among other non-nuclear states, is not the best way to spend that cash.
The £1500 from every tax payer, over the life of Trident, would be much better spent elsewhere: hospitals, education, employment and research in high-tech industries that would serve us well for the next few decades of the 21st century.
Andy
-
So all the peace loving democratic nuclear armed states should scrap their deterrents and leave states like Iran (Sworn to wipe Israel off the map), North Korea (swearing to wipe anybody within range off the map) and Pakistan (unstable state full of jihadists) to develop theirs?
Yes, we all would like to see the abolition of nuclear weapons but the genie is out of the bottle and you have to take the world as it is, not what you would personally like it to be, full of fluffy bunnies.
The reality is that the world is a dangerous place and the weakest will go to the wall as they always have. Complaining that the country that has just dropped a few megatons on yours to satisfy some distorted religious belief has acted illegally just isn't going to cut it!
Colin
-
I have read some of the recent posts with interest, to USA, China, Russia we are a flea bite, even the Yanks are very worried about China's recent meteoric rise in military power and the USA is the worlds biggest debtor, who if they default on their debt payments in 3 months will put into place a world depression which will make the present insignificant. The N bomb was of no use and did not prevent the last Falklands war and talk of world trade in shipping means little as we have no merchant navy which can be controlled by this country and foreign powers will decide if their ships can trade to our ports if there is a war. All the time tax payers want social services etc. there is little money to pay for the luxury of Defence requirements, plus a fleet will not stop religious fanatics from decapitating our soldiers on our streets.
-
<*< If big companies and rich people paid the taxes they should there would be money enough for defence and social needs,Ray <*< <*< <*<
-
plus a fleet will not stop religious fanatics from decapitating our soldiers on our streets.
I didn't suggest that it would!
Nobody would have expected the Falkland's conflict to go nuclear although a nuclear powered sub did pretty much single handedly drive the Argentinian navy back to port and made it impossible for them to reinforce the islands.
As far as keeping sea lanes open is concerned, you only need to look at the joint efforts to keep the Straits of Hormuz open during the Gulf wars and the subsequent constant patrolling to ward off the very real current threats from Iran to close them. That is where your carriers and other conventional forces come in useful.
I agree that the world financial situation is in a bad way but the state capitalist system in China doesn't want to lose the benefits of their recent growth. If countries depend on their trade with each other then they are much less likely to go to war - that was the original intention behind setting up what is now the EU. America is certainly a huge debtor but their exploitation of shale gas has led to a halving of domestic prices and less dependence on the Middle east for their energy supplies and that is likely to have some unpredictable consequences too. Of course the Yellowstone supervolcano could erupt at any time as well.....
Colin
-
So all the peace loving democratic nuclear armed states should scrap their deterrents ... ?
I wrote about the situation here, Colin.
I live in a small country which continues to bask in its delusions of grandeur based on an old (and very dead) world-spanning Empire. A country that today attempts to punch above its weight and influence on the world stage.
You may have noticed it, the UK is broke. Here's a graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_GDP.png) of the UK's National Debt.
Two world wars wrecked our economy in the last century.
Paying for the weapons (we'd hope to never use) for another world war is not the way forward. Incidentally - and you talked of future unknown threats - the recent dip in National Debt is due to oil and gas revenue. Fuels that have now gone. If we were to prioritise a list of future threats to this country (if not to technological western civilisation in general) I would suggest a good hard look at the risks associated with Peak Oil, and how we could mitigate the impact of those diminishing resources over the next ten/twenty years. That would be a much better spend for the 100 billion than some WMDs.
Andy
-
I agree that the world financial situation is in a bad way but the state capitalist system in China doesn't want to lose the benefits of their recent growth. Colin
100 billion spent on a nuclear system which is immoral, indiscriminate, potentially illegal, unusable (in any practical foreseeable event) and which raises the spectre of continuing nuclear proliferation among other non-nuclear states, is not the best way to spend that cash.
The £1500 from every tax payer, over the life of Trident, would be much better spent elsewhere: hospitals, education, employment and research in high-tech industries that would serve us well for the next few decades of the 21st century.
Andy
Started off as a good thread about the scrapping of Ark but isn't this thread now getting far too deep into the realms of political debate which I thought was taboo on here?
Just a thought.........
-
Started off as a good thread about the scrapping of Ark but isn't this thread now getting far too deep into the realms of political debate which I thought was taboo on here?
Just a thought.........
Good point Mike, gone a bit too far really - everyone has different views but you can see how it happened!
Colin
-
Sorry Mike. Good point. I'll zip up now.
Incidentally, whilst driving delivery vans for my local Sainsbury's, I've been wowed by this when near Rosyth:
(http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/02/83/08/2830829_adc12449.jpg)
It's huge!
Andy
-
Not sure which is more impressive, the crane or the lack of an Aircraft Carrier under it!
-
It is the stealth technology that makes them so expensive to build!
-
Should be OK as an aircraft carrier.
They can hang below and be carried up and down the yard
Ned
-
It is the stealth technology that makes them so expensive to build!
Judging by Andys photo below, whatever the 'stealth' technology cost it certainly works {-)
-
Perhaps the carrier is a Queen Mary
Bedford Motors made them
Long long ago
Anyone else remember them?
Ned
-
Theres been a u-turn. Did the same off portugal aswell.
(http://s9.postimg.org/t2pjls8yz/Ark.jpg) (http://postimg.org/image/t2pjls8yz/)