Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

heartbreaking
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1381		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  Carnac [ June 19th, 2011, 7:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: heartbreaking
Portsmouth Bill wrote:
Quite an emotional subject, and nobody likes to see a once proud warship in the knackers yard; but, this happens to 99.9% of ships. The only argument is whether keeping the Invincible (and the Ak Royal) in service would be viable and economic. The alternative (in the Libyan war) of staging RAF warplanes from Southern Italy has proven both extremely expensive and limiting in operational terms, compared to keeping just one of the Invicibles in service with remaining Harriers off the Libyan coast.

In many ways this is symptomatic of the malaise affecting the U.K. armed forces: over extended in multiple combat zones, short of equipment and manpower, facing further cuts and redundancies, and with low morale. Why the U.K. is expending scant resources in Libya is a question we should consider. The USA is underwriting the NATO operation by providing non combat support, but there are neighbours of Libya, particularly Egypt who are keeping well out of the civil war. Apart from France and Italy, I'm not aware of other NATO countries committing in the same way as the U.K.
Canada has some jets over there, but not a lot.
Author:  erik_t [ June 19th, 2011, 8:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: heartbreaking
Portsmouth Bill wrote:
Quite an emotional subject, and nobody likes to see a once proud warship in the knackers yard; but, this happens to 99.9% of ships. The only argument is whether keeping the Invincible (and the Ak Royal) in service would be viable and economic. The alternative (in the Libyan war) of staging RAF warplanes from Southern Italy has proven both extremely expensive and limiting in operational terms, compared to keeping just one of the Invicibles in service with remaining Harriers off the Libyan coast.
This rational and thoughtful post is insufficiently vitriolic and frothing and has no place here.

Nearly all warships go to breakers at the end of their lives, even those that gave proud service for many years. There frankly isn't enough dock space in the world to make a museum ship out of every worthy candidate, and if we were to do so, the lack of visitors to any given ship would put them in a state quite more pathetic than proud and shiny razor blades. This is how the world works.
Author:  jabba [ June 19th, 2011, 10:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: heartbreaking
Although I agree with those with the point of being realistic, the 'sad' or 'shocking' side of this story is not only that one of our historic ships is being chopped up, but that for the next ten years there will be no fixed-wing fleet air arm flying from carriers. Experience passed on from aircrews and other key carrier roles will be to some extent lost. Sea Harrier squadrons will be wrapped up and we will have a very limited overseas defence capability. Part of another shambolic defence review.

Just look at Argentina's posturing over the Falkland Islands recently: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13803111. Would this sort of thing really be happening if our military - navy in particular - wasn't a shadow of it's former self?
Author:  jabba [ June 19th, 2011, 10:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: heartbreaking
Portsmouth Bill wrote:
Quite an emotional subject, and nobody likes to see a once proud warship in the knackers yard; but, this happens to 99.9% of ships. The only argument is whether keeping the Invincible (and the Ak Royal) in service would be viable and economic. The alternative (in the Libyan war) of staging RAF warplanes from Southern Italy has proven both extremely expensive and limiting in operational terms, compared to keeping just one of the Invicibles in service with remaining Harriers off the Libyan coast.
Also, How about we stay out of other countries such as Libya, and use the money saved on the defence of our own country?
Author:  klagldsf [ June 20th, 2011, 12:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: heartbreaking
erik_t wrote:
Portsmouth Bill wrote:
Quite an emotional subject, and nobody likes to see a once proud warship in the knackers yard; but, this happens to 99.9% of ships. The only argument is whether keeping the Invincible (and the Ak Royal) in service would be viable and economic. The alternative (in the Libyan war) of staging RAF warplanes from Southern Italy has proven both extremely expensive and limiting in operational terms, compared to keeping just one of the Invicibles in service with remaining Harriers off the Libyan coast.
This rational and thoughtful post is insufficiently vitriolic and frothing and has no place here.

Nearly all warships go to breakers at the end of their lives, even those that gave proud service for many years. There frankly isn't enough dock space in the world to make a museum ship out of every worthy candidate, and if we were to do so, the lack of visitors to any given ship would put them in a state quite more pathetic than proud and shiny razor blades. This is how the world works.
Plus, people forget that the history of the RN is literally over half a millennia old, and ships come and go. They scrapped Warspite, after all, and it's honestly somewhat of a wonder they kept Belfast at all.

The way I look at it, the RN doesn't see a pressing need to preserve warships because they live on more than well enough in tradition.
Author:  Thiel [ June 20th, 2011, 1:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: heartbreaking
In my experience this is a point that is hard to get across with many people, especially Americans. They forget just how unusual their position really is. The USN has been around for app 200 years and for about half that time it was a very small one. At the same time they have one of the worlds largest countries to spread museum ships around.
Compare this to somewhere like Denmark. We've had a standing navy for 501 years and until fairly recently it was even a comparatively big one. (In 1807 it was one of the largest in the world) Yet we only have 5 million people to support it, and fairly limited space to put museum ships.
If we had preserved the same percentage of ships as the the US, we'd have literally hundreds of them. The Situation is even worse for the RN since they're a whole lot larger.

You get the same sort of thing when talking about how much history you should learn in school. All the Americans I know knows a whole lot more about US history than I do about Danish and the reason is quite simple. There's a whole lot more history to teach, but the same time to teach it in.
Author:  Portsmouth Bill [ June 20th, 2011, 7:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: heartbreaking
Quote:
Canada has some jets over there, but not a lot.
Darn it; sorry again, so, blanket apology for every nation currently involved in the Libyan war :oops:
Quote:
This rational and thoughtful post is insufficiently vitriolic and frothing and has no place here.
:lol: But yes, we all hate to see what once a shiny war machine being chopped up, or rusting away. On the A1 motorway north of where I live is the hulk of a Lightning inteceptor, sitting in scrap yard with graffitti painted over it; and I find this sad; but then I'm probbaly anthropamormhasing (if that's how its spelt!) an inanimate object. My ex father in law retired from the army as a colonel in the Intelligence Corp, and ended up working in his local supermarket stocking shelves; and he once said to me: "the only thing old in this country they don't preserve is people". And the only reason the Belfast and other old warships were saved is because they were in the right place at the right time to attract financial support. The Warspite should have been saved and placed alongside the Victory as a superb example of a dreadnought, but at least the old girl didn't go without a struggle.
Author:  Dreadnaught [ June 28th, 2011, 5:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: heartbreaking
The once mighty Royal Navy down to a mere helo carrier and 19 frigates. Hows the sub force? About 15 subs? Oh but that's still just way too large. You need to cut more.
Author:  Maple-leaf-Warrior [ July 1st, 2011, 7:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: heartbreaking
Would you rather spend billions on large (or more correctly, regular sized) defence forces or face economic collapse? I would be thrilled in Canada could raise 2 or 3 more Brigades, launch 10 new warships (including a Carrier) and buy up more than a handful of CF-35's to defend the vast north, but It's just not a viable option in these times. When times are tough, most governments regardless to political stripe, will look at the Army with all its technology and say"do more with less" and 9 out of 10 times that is what happens. The Defence cuts are not unique to one country. It sucks, but for the next 10-20 years I don't see increased defence budgets anywhere in the West.
Author:  Dreadnaught [ July 2nd, 2011, 3:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: heartbreaking
Well I guess we'll be finding out real soon where the real problem is when nations no longer have defense budgets to cut.
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/