|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 12, 2023 16:55:25 GMT
Rosyth: Royal Navy admit HMS Prince of Wales warship has another fault
THE Royal Navy have been asked if HMS Prince of Wales is “an unlucky ship” and why it keeps breaking down after more faults were found in the £3 billion aircraft carrier.
It retreated to Rosyth last October to repair “significant damage” to the starboard propeller shaft and last week MPs on the Defence Select Committee were told there are “similar issues” with the port side shaft.
Committee chairman Tobias Ellwood MP suggested the warship had spent more time in dry dock than at sea before an exasperated Mark Francois MP said the UK cannot have a “carrier with a limp”.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 12, 2023 16:59:19 GMT
Added to this story and it makes grim reading.....
We've even got a shortage of bullets': Fears Britain's armed forces are too small to combat Russia as Nato chiefs ask Germany to stay in charge of 'rapid-reaction force'
Nato chiefs fear Britain's military forces are so overstretched that they are not fit to be on the front line of the defence against Russia, sources have claimed.
The UK is due to take over leadership of Nato's rapid-reaction force from Germany at the end of the year. But reports in the German media, backed up by Ministry of Defence sources in the UK, claim that Nato has asked Berlin to remain in charge for an extra year because Britain cannot spare the 5,000 personnel required.
An MoD source said: 'There are serious problems with ammunition shortages and other kit which is partly due to underspending – but also because of the amount of ammo and other ordnance we are supplying to Ukraine.
British army ‘no longer able to defend UK and its allies, US general warns’
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Feb 14, 2023 11:26:39 GMT
Added to this story and it makes grim reading.....
We've even got a shortage of bullets': Fears Britain's armed forces are too small to combat Russia as Nato chiefs ask Germany to stay in charge of 'rapid-reaction force'
Nato chiefs fear Britain's military forces are so overstretched that they are not fit to be on the front line of the defence against Russia, sources have claimed.
The UK is due to take over leadership of Nato's rapid-reaction force from Germany at the end of the year. But reports in the German media, backed up by Ministry of Defence sources in the UK, claim that Nato has asked Berlin to remain in charge for an extra year because Britain cannot spare the 5,000 personnel required.
An MoD source said: 'There are serious problems with ammunition shortages and other kit which is partly due to underspending – but also because of the amount of ammo and other ordnance we are supplying to Ukraine.
British army ‘no longer able to defend UK and its allies, US general warns’
To be fair Britain has never kept a large army in peacetime. We are a naval power. We have won most of our wars through naval blockade. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 14, 2023 17:16:07 GMT
Added to this story and it makes grim reading.....
We've even got a shortage of bullets': Fears Britain's armed forces are too small to combat Russia as Nato chiefs ask Germany to stay in charge of 'rapid-reaction force'
Nato chiefs fear Britain's military forces are so overstretched that they are not fit to be on the front line of the defence against Russia, sources have claimed.
The UK is due to take over leadership of Nato's rapid-reaction force from Germany at the end of the year. But reports in the German media, backed up by Ministry of Defence sources in the UK, claim that Nato has asked Berlin to remain in charge for an extra year because Britain cannot spare the 5,000 personnel required.
An MoD source said: 'There are serious problems with ammunition shortages and other kit which is partly due to underspending – but also because of the amount of ammo and other ordnance we are supplying to Ukraine.
British army ‘no longer able to defend UK and its allies, US general warns’
To be fair Britain has never kept a large army in peacetime. We are a naval power. We have won most of our wars through naval blockade. Well I suppose it rather depends what you mean by a large army. We've gone from c360,000 regular troops in the 1950's, to c180,000 in the 1970's to c70,000 today. And I believe some of them are actually fit enough to pass a basic fitness test, if they're not shouted at. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 14, 2023 17:28:05 GMT
Added to this story and it makes grim reading.....
We've even got a shortage of bullets': Fears Britain's armed forces are too small to combat Russia as Nato chiefs ask Germany to stay in charge of 'rapid-reaction force'
Nato chiefs fear Britain's military forces are so overstretched that they are not fit to be on the front line of the defence against Russia, sources have claimed.
The UK is due to take over leadership of Nato's rapid-reaction force from Germany at the end of the year. But reports in the German media, backed up by Ministry of Defence sources in the UK, claim that Nato has asked Berlin to remain in charge for an extra year because Britain cannot spare the 5,000 personnel required.
An MoD source said: 'There are serious problems with ammunition shortages and other kit which is partly due to underspending – but also because of the amount of ammo and other ordnance we are supplying to Ukraine.
British army ‘no longer able to defend UK and its allies, US general warns’
To be fair Britain has never kept a large army in peacetime. We are a naval power. We have won most of our wars through naval blockade. What wars in the last 100 years have we won through naval blockade? I suppose you could make an argument that the naval blockade of the Falklands helped the guys on the ground to win it, but otherwise I can't can't think of any. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Feb 14, 2023 17:55:11 GMT
To be fair Britain has never kept a large army in peacetime. We are a naval power. We have won most of our wars through naval blockade. What wars in the last 100 years have we won through naval blockade? I suppose you could make an argument that the naval blockade of the Falklands helped the guys on the ground to win it, but otherwise I can't can't think of any. Both world wars. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 14, 2023 18:09:25 GMT
What wars in the last 100 years have we won through naval blockade? I suppose you could make an argument that the naval blockade of the Falklands helped the guys on the ground to win it, but otherwise I can't can't think of any. Both world wars. Not sure about that. German industrial production rose every year of the war until 1945 when Soviet advances into Romania cut off the supply of oil. For instance the production of Armoured vehicles went from 1800 in 1939 to a peak of 19,000 in 1944. There is scant evidence that the naval blockade had much effect at all. You could make a better argument that the bombing campaign from 1942 through 1944 on the Ploesti oil fields did more damage to the German economy. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Feb 14, 2023 18:24:58 GMT
Not sure about that. German industrial production rose every year of the war until 1945 when Soviet advances into Romania cut off the supply of oil. For instance the production of Armoured vehicles went from 1800 in 1939 to a peak of 19,000 in 1944. There is scant evidence that the naval blockade had much effect at all. You could make a better argument that the bombing campaign from 1942 through 1944 on the Ploesti oil fields did more damage to the German economy. ,order%20to%20sustain%20their%20war Wars are won and lost through logistics. German exports were severely diminished by the British blockade reducing their income and imports of the raw materials necessary to build tanks and planes were also severely affected. This is why the Germans built quality rather than quantity. The RN control of the channel stopped a German invasion of Britain and control of the Mediterranean meant that Rommel couldn't sufficiently reinforce his Afrika corps leading to total victory in North Africa. Logistics, logistics, logistics. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 14, 2023 18:34:46 GMT
Oh I get the theory - just not seeing much evidence that the Royal Navy blockade had much effect on German economic output. As well as tank production rising every year aircraft production also rose - if the blockade was working surely you would expect to see some impact on military production over the course of the war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Feb 14, 2023 18:48:44 GMT
Oh I get the theory - just not seeing much evidence that the Royal Navy blockade had much effect on German economic output. As well as tank production rising every year aircraft production also rose - if the blockade was working surely you would expect to see some impact on military production over the course of the war. It didn't rise anywhere near as fast as allied production. Without the blockade the Nazis might have been able to produce at the rate necessary to replace losses. It wasn't and it cost them the war. By the end of the war they didn't even have enough fuel to manoeuvre what few tanks they had left or fly sufficient sorties in the remaining aircraft. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 14, 2023 22:16:37 GMT
Oh I get the theory - just not seeing much evidence that the Royal Navy blockade had much effect on German economic output. As well as tank production rising every year aircraft production also rose - if the blockade was working surely you would expect to see some impact on military production over the course of the war. It didn't rise anywhere near as fast as allied production. Without the blockade the Nazis might have been able to produce at the rate necessary to replace losses. It wasn't and it cost them the war. By the end of the war they didn't even have enough fuel to manoeuvre what few tanks they had left or fly sufficient sorties in the remaining aircraft.
But I already covered that - the shortage of fuel was driven by the USAF bombing campaign and Russian ground forces overrunning the oil fields. Nothing to do with the Navy. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Feb 14, 2023 22:26:06 GMT
It didn't rise anywhere near as fast as allied production. Without the blockade the Nazis might have been able to produce at the rate necessary to replace losses. It wasn't and it cost them the war. By the end of the war they didn't even have enough fuel to manoeuvre what few tanks they had left or fly sufficient sorties in the remaining aircraft.
But I already covered that - the shortage of fuel was driven by the USAF bombing campaign and Russian ground forces overrunning the oil fields. Nothing to do with the Navy. The RN stopped it being transported. Romell couldn't get what he needed in North Africa. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2023 23:17:13 GMT
NATO according to many Republians in the United States, including Donald Trump is not very relevant to the U.S, and so there is a real danger of the alliance not holding together in future, if the Americans go down back down the route of "America First", if someone like Trump gets elected again, NATO could be in trouble.
We seriously need a European Defence pact, and Germany and other European nations are, at last, getting serious about defence spending and the threats that face all of us in Europe.
The world is changing, this is no longer the Cold War of the 1960s or 70s, new threats have arisen, and whilst Russia still poses a real threat, nations like the USA and Canada are also focused on the Pacific, and the rise of both Chinese and North Korea as threats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 14, 2023 23:52:41 GMT
NATO according to many Republians in the United States, including Donald Trump is not very relevant to the U.S, and so there is a real danger of the alliance not holding together in future, if the Americans go down back down the route of "America First", if someone like Trump gets elected again, NATO could be in trouble. We seriously need a European Defence pact, and Germany and other European nations are, at last, getting serious about defence spending and the threats that face all of us in Europe. The world is changing, this is no longer the Cold War of the 1960s or 70s, new threats have arisen, and whilst Russia still poses a real threat, nations like the USA and Canada are also focused on the Pacific, and the rise of both Chinese and North Korea as threats. NATO is extremely important, the NATO alliance keeps megalomaniacs like Putin in check. The only reason NATO may become less relevant to the US is because 'Europe' doesn't take defence seriously, particularly since 1989. Ever since the end of WW2 Europe has relied on the US to protect Europe from Soviet/Russian aggression. When the USSR collapsed idiot politicians in western Europe immediately started talking about the 'peace dividend' and set about slashing defence budgets, and boy did they. Well now our chickens are comming home to roost, the US can see little point in supporting European countries who don't want to support themselves, who can blame them. The British army was without doubt the best army in Europe which is why the EU wanted a European army, I'm pleased to say Brexit cocked that plan up. If Germany had put as much into it's armed forces as it has in supporting the EU and immigrants it would have the best armed forces in Europe. Sadly Merkel was an incompetent left wing pacifist. China is becoming a threat simply because the west is sitting back and allowing it to happen. The coal based Chinese economy continues to grow and attract more and more western companies as western economies struggle to cope with net zero. And anyone who thinks North Korea is a threat should not be taken seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 16, 2023 9:22:28 GMT
Rosyth: Royal Navy admit HMS Prince of Wales warship has another fault
THE Royal Navy have been asked if HMS Prince of Wales is “an unlucky ship” and why it keeps breaking down after more faults were found in the £3 billion aircraft carrier.
It retreated to Rosyth last October to repair “significant damage” to the starboard propeller shaft and last week MPs on the Defence Select Committee were told there are “similar issues” with the port side shaft.
Committee chairman Tobias Ellwood MP suggested the warship had spent more time in dry dock than at sea before an exasperated Mark Francois MP said the UK cannot have a “carrier with a limp”.
it'll be fine...Thales'll superglue the bearings together and charge us a few gazzillion quid for the glue....then it'll float off into the blue yonder becoming the career progression path for many many worthwhile admirals of the fleet who themselves will spend their entire military careers in the pursuit of lobbying parliament to spend even more money for yet more amazingly technical, stupendously expensive and strategically useless aircraft bloody carriers.... Shame it can't be insured as the best chance of getting our bloody money back would be have some junior seaman steer the bloody boat onto a very big rock and then present insurers with the claim form.... You mean like happenned with Endurance (the shipwreck i mean not the claim) I remember taking tbe tourist ride around portsmouth dock and seeing all the hulks rusting quietly in tbe sun and there was this big red and white one and i thought bloody hell wasn't that being made a fuss of only the year before last. Mind you the saddest sight was to see the ships i’d helped put together or keep going now sat in that waterside scrapyard. And the sight from above of the aircraft carrier with its propellors on the flight deck. That caused a definite lump in the throat. |
|
