The shrinking Royal Navy

[laurenceb]

The royal in question was driving sea kings. Someone said at the time that the missile had a supposed max altitude of about 30 feet but that he had seen them flying a lot higher than that 

[jcredfer]

2 minutes ago, laurenceb said:

The royal in question was driving sea kings. Someone said at the time that the missile had a supposed max altitude of about 30 feet but that he had seen them flying a lot higher than that 

 

Aah yes, Sea Kings, thank you.  As to the supposed max altitude Argi Missiles were meant to fly at, said Royal would be be far better qualified to make informed comment than most of the rest of us.  I hesitate to imagine how close to his altimeter indication those missiles went.  He would, certainly have been informed about being higher than 30 ft.  A further backup to his comment would be the missiles that preferred his Royal 'copter at higher altitudes than the vessel they were launched at.  I doubt Argi missiles were so loyal to their cause as to be politically modified.   

 

Regards

 

Julian

[2750Papyrus]

19 hours ago, Ohmisterporter said:

An interesting article from The Drive/The Warzone about anti-ship missile decoys used aboard Royal Navy and US Navy ships.

 

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26899/us-navy-destroyers-and-royal-navy-ships-use-these-big-blow-up-anti-ship-missile-decoys

 

Interesting, though not quite 100% accurate.

[jamie92208]

I've just looked at the French news reporting of the incident off La Rochelle.   The Royal navy doesn't get a mention.

 

Jamie

 

 

[jcredfer]

4 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

I've just looked at the French news reporting of the incident off La Rochelle.   The Royal navy doesn't get a mention.

 

Jamie

 

 

 

Only to be expected, the French have always claimed that the English have waged wars against them and used the excuse to fling all sorts of other insults.  They are, however, not at all good at reading their History books.  As far as I'm aware, a French Prince, accompanied by many French Barons landed in England in 1066 and gave King Harold one in the eye.

 

After this event the FRENCH{!} Prince and his FRENCH{!} Barons argued and waged war on THEIR Continental relatives, with their descendants continueing to do so for hundreds of years.  The English didn't wage war on the French at all, but they did get paid to attend the fueds as foot soldiers - and very good at it they were, too!

 

Regards

 

Julian

 

PS. Napoleon started the wars around the Continent before getting a Wellington up his backside.  We definitely didn't start that one.

[Bon Accord]

On 14/03/2019 at 20:45, jcredfer said:

 

Aah yes, Sea Kings, thank you.  As to the supposed max altitude Argi Missiles were meant to fly at, said Royal would be be far better qualified to make informed comment than most of the rest of us.  I hesitate to imagine how close to his altimeter indication those missiles went.  He would, certainly have been informed about being higher than 30 ft.  A further backup to his comment would be the missiles that preferred his Royal 'copter at higher altitudes than the vessel they were launched at.  I doubt Argi missiles were so loyal to their cause as to be politically modified.   

 

Regards

 

Julian

 

His father and his older brother had a real measure of admiration in the RN as despite their status - of which they were acutely self aware - they did their bit and won the respect of their men. Andrew however was never shy of reminding those who were forgetful just who he was.

[rockershovel]

On 10/03/2019 at 14:43, The White Rabbit said:

A target? If the submersion has caused too many problems for it to be cost-effective to repair/replace all the bits damaged or with question mark over them, there's a limited number of options. Computer modelling can only go so far, there's nothing like finding out how tough a ship you've built really is by seeing how hard it is to sink. 

 

I would rather assume that the principal purpose of salvaging a warship was to retrieve whatever technology was on board, so that it was not available to whoever else chose to retrieve it for study? Or simply visit the wreck.. that, plus the pollution aspects of a fully-bunkered vessel deteriorating in its own time. 

[rockershovel]

10 hours ago, jcredfer said:

 

Only to be expected, the French have always claimed that the English have waged wars against them and used the excuse to fling all sorts of other insults.  They are, however, not at all good at reading their History books.  As far as I'm aware, a French Prince, accompanied by many French Barons landed in England in 1066 and gave King Harold one in the eye.

 

After this event the FRENCH{!} Prince and his FRENCH{!} Barons argued and waged war on THEIR Continental relatives, with their descendants continueing to do so for hundreds of years.  The English didn't wage war on the French at all, but they did get paid to attend the fueds as foot soldiers - and very good at it they were, too!

 

Regards

 

Julian

 

PS. Napoleon started the wars around the Continent before getting a Wellington up his backside.  We definitely didn't start that one.

 

I’d always understood that William and his compatriots were not regarded by the French of the time as French, the clue being in the name - Nor(th)man. 

 

That said, they certainly seem to have been a robust bunch given to DOING things, judging by their expansion around that time - they didn’t only come here. 

 

[rockershovel]

On 03/03/2019 at 16:14, Poggy1165 said:

The problem is (as I see it) many members of the Establishment still see us a First-Class power, able to project power anywhere. At the same time, they are not willing to pay for the cost of such pretensions. So what you get is inadequately-funded posturing.

 

I really can't say much more without becoming very political, but my view is that we need to be more realistic about what we as a country can do within the resources we are willing to allot. I certainly would not regard waving the flag in the Far East and provoking the Chinese as a very realistic policy.

 

I’d certainly support the view that any and all Cabinet Ministers, PMs and MPs aspiring to any of the innumerable Junior Minister posts we seem to find necessary in these piping times, be required to resign their seats and spend not less than five years on active duty in HM Forces followed by not less than five years in the planning department if a major organisation before being eligible for reelection and possible appointment. 

 

They would learn various things they could usefully know for their future careers, act as an enforced diversion from political careerism (of which I heartily disapprove on general principles), and with any luck a significant number of them would never return to politics at all, thereby reducing the overall number of such posts and improving the standard of those remaining...

 

 

[Bon Accord]

6 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

I’d certainly support the view that any and all Cabinet Ministers, PMs and MPs aspiring to any of the innumerable Junior Minister posts we seem to find necessary in these piping times, be required to resign their seats and spend not less than five years on active duty in HM Forces followed by not less than five years in the planning department if a major organisation before being eligible for reelection and possible appointment. 

 

They would learn various things they could usefully know for their future careers, act as an enforced diversion from political careerism (of which I heartily disapprove on general principles), and with any luck a significant number of them would never return to politics at all, thereby reducing the overall number of such posts and improving the standard of those remaining...

 

 

 

That would only bring it's own problems. A better solution would probably be to put a minimum age limit of say 35 and have spent at least 10 years outside of political employment, either directly or indirectly.

Parliament desperately needs a disparate balance of experience, qualification and social status rather than ensuring everyone has been brainwashed similarly.

[rockershovel]

4 hours ago, Bon Accord said:

 

That would only bring it's own problems. A better solution would probably be to put a minimum age limit of say 35 and have spent at least 10 years outside of political employment, either directly or indirectly.

Parliament desperately needs a disparate balance of experience, qualification and social status rather than ensuring everyone has been brainwashed similarly.

 

I think we are on the same page.. it would also be necessary to debar the Executive from any role in the selection of candidates for election.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2019 by rockershovel

[jcredfer]

11 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

I’d always understood that William and his compatriots were not regarded by the French of the time as French, the clue being in the name - Nor(th)man. 

 

That said, they certainly seem to have been a robust bunch given to DOING things, judging by their expansion around that time - they didn’t only come here. 

 

 

I have read 2 very informative books recently, by incredibly well versed Historians.  Both were rockin' reads, full of wondefully researched detail and the reasons behind the politics of the time.  William, himself was still Duke of Normandy and remained so until his death, hence the beginning of the Norman Empire.  The family infighting was absolutely dreadful and continued long after his demise.  It was still going on by the time of Edward I, who was also Duke of Aquitaine, which caused another conflict when the French King tried to strip it from him [King Philip ??} and took an army to retrieve it, successfully.  Interesting detail included Edward going to meet with Philip, where protocol caused a number of interesting documents to be written, at the time, on protocol, surrounding a French King meeting with an English King - who was also one of the French King's Dukes. {That would be difficult enough in many of today's circumstances, let alone back then where precidence was all and enough to get you chopped up!}...    ...and so much more!!

 

I'm pretty glad to be alive, not then!!

 

Regards

 

Julian

[The White Rabbit]

On 16/03/2019 at 06:39, rockershovel said:

 

I would rather assume that the principal purpose of salvaging a warship was to retrieve whatever technology was on board, so that it was not available to whoever else chose to retrieve it for study? Or simply visit the wreck.. that, plus the pollution aspects of a fully-bunkered vessel deteriorating in its own time. 

 

(Sigh...) Yes, those two purposes had occurred to me, as had the possibility a sunken hull might cause navigation problems in the area. However, having to recover it means you have a hull which isn't going to be good for much, so the apparently young boys' option of sinking it again (though in a place and at a time of your choosing, with a big bang or two, without any pollutants on board) might be the best option of a poor hand. 

[The White Rabbit]

On 16/03/2019 at 18:40, jcredfer said:

 

I have read 2 very informative books recently, by incredibly well versed Historians.  Both were rockin' reads, full of wondefully researched detail and the reasons behind the politics of the time.  William, himself was still Duke of Normandy and remained so until his death, hence the beginning of the Norman Empire.  The family infighting was absolutely dreadful and continued long after his demise.  It was still going on by the time of Edward I, who was also Duke of Aquitaine, which caused another conflict when the French King tried to strip it from him [King Philip ??} and took an army to retrieve it, successfully.  Interesting detail included Edward going to meet with Philip, where protocol caused a number of interesting documents to be written, at the time, on protocol, surrounding a French King meeting with an English King - who was also one of the French King's Dukes. {That would be difficult enough in many of today's circumstances, let alone back then where precidence was all and enough to get you chopped up!}...    ...and so much more!!

 

I'm pretty glad to be alive, not then!!

 

Likewise. The story of Duke William's early years is very gruesome and at least partially explains his psychotic behaviour later in life. Even by Dark Age/early medieval standards, the power struggles were particularly vicious and barbaric. 

[jcredfer]

56 minutes ago, The White Rabbit said:

 

Likewise. The story of Duke William's early years is very gruesome and at least partially explains his psychotic behaviour later in life. Even by Dark Age/early medieval standards, the power struggles were particularly vicious and barbaric. 

 

Oh yes totally so, his claim to Normandy was executed with ruthless bloodletting and not just from his direction.  Interestingly, once he had the Crown, he started {I do mean started!!} the process of negotiations with the rest of Barons who came here with him.   He also thought that Salisbury {Old Sarum today} was such a good central place to rule from, that he turned the fortified {earthworks} settlement into a full blown Castle and the church joined in with a massive Cathedral.  It was a central seat for Kings for C100 years to come.  Both have long since been raided for the Stonework of their walls, but the foundations are still there.  Given when they were built, they were very impressive structures.  Great achievements, at an amazing price in blood.  I have to have great respect for his ability to obtain the information he needed to keep others in order and deal with their intended actions.  The book on him is over 300 pages and each page grips the attention, amazing times, rather an understatement!

 

Still glad to be born, not then!

 

Regards Julian

[62613]

On 16/03/2019 at 17:56, rockershovel said:

 

I think we are on the same page.. it would also be necessary to debar the Executive from any role in the selection of candidates for election.

 

 

I think that, in the Labour Party at least, the days of the executive parachuting the candidate of their choice into "Safe" seats is over. Certainly, the three MPs in the local borough were selected by the local CLPs; I would imagine, at that time (2010-2014), by a vote of the management committee. These days, in most CLPs, it would be a vote of all members who could bother to attend the selection meeting. Candidates from outside the constituency are still able to put themselves forward, but it's unlikely that they would be imposed.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2019 by 62613

[Two_sugars]

49 minutes ago, 62613 said:

I think that, in the Labour Party at least, the days of the executive parachuting the candidate of their choice into "Safe" seats is over. Certainly, the three MPs in the local borough were selected by the local CLPs; I would imagine, at that time (2010-2014), by a vote of the management committee. These days, in most CLPs, it would be a vote of all members who could bother to attend the selection meeting. Candidates from outside the constituency are still able to put themselves forward, but it's unlikely that they would be imposed.

 

 

 And there we have the problem.

 

John

[Joseph_Pestell]

16 minutes ago, Two_sugars said:

 And there we have the problem.

 

John

 

Before the 2005 General Election, I attended a selection meeting in Peterborough. No shortage of CLP members at that meeting and it was held in quite a large hall.

[62613]

44 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Before the 2005 General Election, I attended a selection meeting in Peterborough. No shortage of CLP members at that meeting and it was held in quite a large hall.

In ours, in about 2005, we had a candidate imposed ahead of the one who the CLP chose. Our last AGM had about 90 turn up, excluding the executive committee

 

[Ohmisterporter]

Recently HMS Queen Elizabeth returned to Rosyth for routine maintenance dry docking and can be seen along with sister ship HMS Prince of Wales. Save the Royal Navy has this story.

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/hms-queen-elizabeth-returns-to-her-birth-place-for-planned-dry-docking/

 

In case you missed it, within the article is the link to the debate about arming the carriers with missiles.

 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/should-hms-queen-elizabeth-be-fitted-with-her-own-missile-defences/

Edited April 12, 2019 by Ohmisterporter
Edit for spelling.

[Legend]

So for £25 million each + stocks of missiles we are risking £3billion pounds of hardware and 1600 souls on board.

 

RN ships are pitifully under armed.

[jcredfer]

8 hours ago, Legend said:

So for £25 million each + stocks of missiles we are risking £3billion pounds of hardware and 1600 souls on board.

 

RN ships are pitifully under armed.

 

And................      those the Navy would then be unable to defend, without the vessel and Complement. 

 

If they can't organise leaving a "Club" and make arrangements for their relationship, moving onwards - how can anyone expect them to understand how to do something more complex like providing Defence for our country.

 

Regards

 

Julian

[Legend]

5 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

 

And................      those the Navy would then be unable to defend, without the vessel and Complement. 

 

If they can't organise leaving a "Club" and make arrangements for their relationship, moving onwards - how can anyone expect them to understand how to do something more complex like providing Defence for our country.

 

Regards

 

Julian

 

Sadly , I agree completely Julian 

[jcredfer]

If both situations been give to a Junior Offr and SNCO team of any of the UK Services, they would have come up with a workable plan.  Everyone on both sides of the European area would have had a plan to work to, and [more importantly] businesses and other organisations would be aware of how to work within the new rules.

 

Before the Common market we negotiated a relationship with European countries;  When we joined the Common Market, we negotiated our relationship, with them;  once in the EU, we continued to negotiate our relationship  with the rest of Europe, we need to negotiate a relationship with the EU [as a start/leave position] with the European countries.  Once we have left the EU, we will continue to negotiate our relationship with them.

 

A poor plan would allow all concerned to make plans according to the new regulations.  The plans may not be perfect, but, "with a plan" everyone would be aware of the direction they should be working too.  Without a plan.......    chaos...........    apparently something our MPs can actually achieve.

 

Regards

 

Julian

 

 

 

 

[62613]

9 hours ago, jcredfer said:

 

A poor plan would allow all concerned to make plans according to the new regulations.  The plans may not be perfect, but, "with a plan" everyone would be aware of the direction they should be working too.  Without a plan.......    chaos...........    apparently something our MPs can actually achieve.

 

Regards

 

Julian

 

 

 

 

Would it be fair to point out that most MPs had no idea what they would be voting on until two or three weeks before the "deal" was put to Parliament?