Good to see the Navy know how to move with times

[Peppermint]

It's reported that they;re looking at their "Brand Image" They've got Sachi's in to improve their look. This will include a re-design of the white ensign to bring it up to date and be more inclusive of the Marines.

I don't see why they don't go the whole hog and look for sponsorship. Portsmouth looks so dull with all that grey. "Darling! it's so last year" They could get it looking like an F1 paddock if they just applied a bit of stickyback plastic.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[mickshep]

And while they're at it they could do something with the uniforms! Perhaps a nice hooded sweat shirt with baggy jogging pants in a fetching shade of pink with a matching baseball cap for the officers, Something similar for the lower ranks but in a different shade. Oooooh Luvely.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[l'escargot]

Where is it reported? nm

*

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[robp]

Re: BBC R Solent this morning NM

~

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ianwright]

Good God No!!!!!!!!
I'll belive it when I see it,,,,,,, and even then I won't belive it.

IanW

<hr width=100% size=1>Vertue 203, Patience

 

[Talbot]

"Portsmouth looks so dull with all that grey" - what grey - the few ships this government allow the navy are rarely able to spend much time alongside, so those that are , are there for maintenance.
Navy days in the past would see the frigates and destroyers 3-4 deep, nowadays they probably would find it extremely difficult to achieve 1 deep without adding foreign visitors.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Behind the times

But my dear, Saatchi is so much yesterday's agency.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[Mirelle]

Time to encourage the others, once more

The RN don't need an image makeover; they need some management.

Fire 100 admirals immediately - there will still be plenty left. Does not matter which ones you fire, the object is not to get rid of incompetents but to encourage the others. The guiding principle should be that laid down by the Papal legate to the Albigensian crusade - "Neca eos omnes; Deus suos agnoscet" - "Kill them all; God will know his own!"

Fire the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors - every man jack of them - for gross incompetence, in the matter of the Fort Victoria class of RFA's, which took up so much money that Her Brittanic Majesty will be the only shipowner left operating single skin tankers after they have been made illegal.

Fire everyone involved with the construction, at a cost of Pds 800M, of the Upholder class of conventional submarines, which were never operated, but went straight into layup and were sold at a knockdown price to Canada.

Fire the entire procurement staff - none of them will starve - and ban everyone else from going to trade shows.

Double the salaries of all those remaining for every day spent at sea and halve them for every day spent in port or "under refit".

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Cornishman]

It appears that Sachi's first recommendatiuon is that the White Ensign which is seen on recruiting posters etc is too droopy and that it should be made to stand out more stiffly. Hmmm!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Talbot]

Re: Time to encourage the others, once more

whilst ignoring a large number of your comments which although they have a grain of truth, are aimed mainly at the wrong people, I feel I must comment on the last part of the thread which implies that the ships dont spend much time at sea. Nothing could be further from the truth. I recall one ship that had spent 287 days at sea in one year (and I do mean at sea). and this was not an isolated occurence for DD/FF. also Carriers by their very nature tend to spend an inordinate amount of time away from their base port. Furthermore, these numbers are not isolated cases and reflect an operating tempo that is MORE INTENSE THAN DURING WW2. Newer ships are being built that offer the ability to spend even more time at sea!!!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mirelle]

Re: Time to encourage the others, once more

Thank you for your reply. Tempted as I was to reply,

"287 days at sea. 78 days in port. Gosh! Ever seen a tanker?"

I think you were being more serious than that.

The argument in defence of the RN's ludicrous waste of public money is that we expect it to be 100% efficient, whereas a merchant ship is allowed to be 99.5% efficient (one and half days per year off hire may be acceptable) and the last 0.5% is disproportionately expensive.

However, if my comments were aimed at the wrong people, who are the right ones?

Do you really want us to take seriously an organisation which has indeed been guilty of each and every one of the blunders I listed - any one of which would have wrecked the careers of the entire management team in any merchant shipping enterprise, but which in the case of the RN have led merely to inflation proofed pensions and second careers courtesy of the incredibly efficient RN old boy network (if the talents deployed in making sure there are jobs for the boys had been deployed in running the Navy, what a Service we would have had!) and which then engages Saatchi and Saatchi (spending more of our money!) on an image building exercise!

This is without going on to the fundamental question - what is the Navy for?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

Re: ooooh

Could it be that your cynicism showing a little?




Although you're probably close to the mark

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jonnyhull]

Re: Time to encourage the others, once more

Don't know if many of the forumites are Gruniad readers but there was a piece in yesterday's paper about the state of the 50 merchant ships chartered to carry troops and equipment to the Gulf. Of the 50 ships they traced 1/3 had been detained and 47 had defects recorded by coastguards during recent inspections. Most were sailed under flags of convenience. The full story is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1051621,00.html.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Talbot]

Re: Time to encourage the others, once more

I dont intend to get into that argument which tends to be somewhat like "when did you stop beating your wife". If you are seriously interested in the answers then you should attend a presentation of what they are up to http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1934.html
if not , then best we agree to disagree!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[penfold]

Re: Time to encourage the others, once more

[rant]The RCNC is pretty well dead these days anyway; AFAIK there haven't been any new members since the mid 80s. The MOD decided to amalgamate everything that's being kept into the DESG and let the constructors wither on the vine, on account of them being a bunch of closed shop holier than thou edjits.

Not that it does any good, the MOD seem as congenitally incapable of managing the procurement process, or anything else, as ever they were.

The principal problem with Upholder stem from the fact that by the time the Sea Staff stopped faffing around with the Requirement, they wanted them to be as all-singing-all-dancing as the SSNs, so the costs ended up being the same as for a T-boat minus the nuclear gubbins. They are seriously capable subs, but daft expensive considering their primary role was to be a training aid for the ASW pukes. We'd have been better off giving the dutch the cash and buying a dozen Swordfish, although that wouldn't have sorted the manning crisis.
[/rant]

ahhh, that's better!

cheers,
david

<hr width=100% size=1>It's a mother beautiful bridge, and it's gonna be there!