Doesn't take much to outdo the Royal Navy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 478
  • Start date Start date
Not so much the Royal Navy as the Polictico's in charge.

The RFA 50yds from the Chandlers had 50 bootniks tooled up & ready to do their stuff.

Nobody can do anything without refering back to 'Head Office' & that is where the problem lies .......
 
starfire said:
Not so much the Royal Navy as the Polictico's in charge.

The RFA 50yds from the Chandlers had 50 bootniks tooled up & ready to do their stuff.

Nobody can do anything without refering back to 'Head Office' & that is where the problem lies .......
Click to expand...

I agree it was scandalous and, further, it was scandalous that no-one in the decision loop was fired.

So can you 'name a name' responsible for that 'quality decision'?

:eek:
 
As for 'quality decisions', how about the fact there won't be any ELINT or MPA as Nimrod is canned, along with Harrier and Ark Royal ?

People have been lynched for less in the past, personally I'm all for tradition !
 
Seajet said:
As for 'quality decisions', how about the fact there won't be any ELINT or MPA as Nimrod is canned, along with Harrier and Ark Royal ?

People have been lynched for less in the past, personally I'm all for tradition !
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, the Tory dash for spending cuts instead of tax increases on the *ankers who caused the crisis has opened up several vulnarabilities in our forces. But, strange to say, there has been an eerie silence from the right wing press on all this, why is that ? And why do other "quality decisions" like reducing the number of bobbies on the beat meet a similar deathly hush ?

Boo2
 
Interesting to read a general in the Times today to the effect that Brown's cutting of the Harrier fleet to 32 made it too small to cover all the close support tasks in Afghanistan, so the Tornado fleet had to be retained instead. Another example of NuLab poisoning the wells?
 
Outsourcing?

Perhaps, instead of spending billions having our own Navy, we could simply hire the Seychellese whenever required?

We could employ them on a 'payment by results' basis, e.g. so many thousand pounds per pirate's head.
 
I haven't seen this Times article, but Brown didn't cut the 'fleet' to 32, that may be GR9's but there are a good total 80 + GR9 & 7 - the 7 in various guises nearly as capable as 9, may have the 'big' engine in 7A form depending on individual airframes to a degree.

It's desirable to keep to the same standard, which may be what he was on about ( the GR9 is better in hot conditions ).

Off to a party on the 10th to say farewell to the Harrier...criminal, and very much the tories idea - came as a big surprise generally.
 
Grumpybear said:
Interesting to read a general in the Times today to the effect that Brown's cutting of the Harrier fleet to 32 made it too small to cover all the close support tasks in Afghanistan, so the Tornado fleet had to be retained instead. Another example of NuLab poisoning the wells?
Click to expand...

Wonder when the Torys will ever start taking accountability and stop blaming the previous crowd!
 
They never will. I was on the Sea Harrier 1 & 2 & GR5,7 development team, one thing which always gets me is that Thatcher was all for selling HMS Invincible to Australia until the Falklands came along and saved her arse, suddenly she's a Harrier fan.

Slightly back to topic, I did suggest to chums still playing with Harriers a couple of days ago that as the jets will be spare, we fit out a few Container ships in the style of 'Atlantic Conveyor' carrying GR9's shielded by outer walls of containers.

Equipped with rocket pods ( sadly the modern UK Harrier has no gun/s, long story ) - it would be an unpleasant welcoming gesture for the Somali heroes waving AK-47's from skiffs...
 
That was a particularly shameful incident; it could be said such people wouldn't have been anywhere near let alone taking part if 'politically correct' wasn't trendy; right up to that point !

I am reliably informed there are certain bootnecks itching for the Iranians to try it again, but of course they won't now.

Stable doors & bolts...
 
Seajet said:
I am reliably informed there are certain bootnecks itching for the Iranians to try it again, but of course they won't now.
Click to expand...

You know why they wont? The navy is not stopping and searching anything in the disputed waters that could be Iranian. They're carefully avoiding Iranians

On the other hand, the Aussies arent according to a trash TV program |I was watching ( Discovery I think)
 
Is there some sort of strategic advantage in allowing the piracy to continue? The pirates are sensibly reinvesting in the business; if left to their own devices, Somalia is going to have one of the best equipped navies in the world, and certainly the most aggressive.

At first glance, it seems like folly to leave them alone, but perhaps there's more to it. Does it help limit trade to Iran, for example?
 
Don't see what disservice the RN did to the Chandlers. They're alive, well, still have their boat and have learnt a valuable lesson in traveling though dangerous areas. Maybe for their next adventure they might like to try hiking in the jungles of Columbia.


Also I still don't understand why most people here wanted a war, and a rib load of dead marines that tried to fight off a gunboat. Iranian or not, they still had a massive advantage or they'd never of tried the stunt in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Ubergeekian said:
I wonder if the Chandlers would have preferred a fire fight to kick off at that point?
Click to expand...

I think the Schechelle Coast Guard have actually revealed the glass jaw of these guys...

They are motivated by profit... they do not want to die...

We have yet to see any real instance of the pirates attempting to put up any fight at all... (Unless someone can point to a instance were this has happened..) In all the incidents that I am aware of, when faced with poor odds and organised military force.. they fold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top