Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Britain has no maritime patrol craft to watch over the North Sea/Atlantic coastlines

Out of curiosity, why do we need them?

That should have been aircraft for watching over valuable oil fields/oil rigs, Russian incursions, and of course, the fact that we're an island nation. An island nation needs a navy. Trident money would be better spent on Royal Navy and RAF.

Soldiers, and that includes generals, need to shut up and take orders, whether they like it or not. If they refuse to take orders they should be punished.
Soldiers should not concern themselves with politics, it is not their job. If they don't like the way things going they are free to leave. If they had wanted to express their political concerns, they should have gone into politics, not the army.

This Corbyn guy, like most Western socialists, has me pretty divided. On one hand, I consider myself a socialist and I like his economic ideas, but on the other hand, his social/cultural ideas are way too progressive. What the West needs is some good conservative socialists.
If only they'd let me vote...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Britain has no maritime patrol craft to watch over the North Sea/Atlantic coastlines

Out of curiosity, why do we need them?

That should have been aircraft for watching over valuable oil fields/oil rigs, Russian incursions, and of course, the fact that we're an island nation. An island nation needs a navy. Trident money would be better spent on Royal Navy and RAF.

I certainly agree we need a navy, you'll never have an argument from me there! But I think that 'patrol craft' are somewhat a relic of a bygone age to a large extent, coastguard aside. It hearkens back to the days when we were terrified of French/Spanish invasion, and had to keep a fleet scouring up and down the coast to intercept any raiders or invading armies.

These days, with aircraft, submarines, modern detection equipment, and the lack of a particularly maritime enemy, we don't really have a huge amount to worry about in that department.

I suppose the Russians could land a few battalions on the coast (they don't have enough landing craft in the North Sea to do much more than that), but any further reinforcements would be cut off by submarine interception very shortly afterwards. The subsequent lack of resupply and vulnerability to airstrike would let us polish them off in relatively short order.

Collectively in the North, the Russians can muster a blue water fleet consisting of a thirty year old Carrier, a pair of fifty year old battle-cruisers, four thirty five year old anti-ship Sovremennyy destroyers, five thirty five year old Udaloy anti-submarine destroyers, two Neustrashimyy Frigates (one is of questionable quality), a single Slava class Cruiser from the 1970's, and (more importantly) four newer Steregushchy anti-ship/sub corvettes.

Frankly, half of the older stuff is barely seaworthy, and the other half not equipped with up date detection, ASW weaponry or anti-air missiles. The new Corvettes are quite pretty, but a single Type 45 Destroyer displaces more tonnage than all four combined, and we have six of those. We also have thirteen 'Duke' class Frigates built over the last two decades which are reasonably well kitted out, and each displace more than double what those shiny Russian corvettes do.

So yeah, Russian invasion isn't happening anytime soon. Quite honestly, the only power currently capable of smashing our Navy is America. So I wouldn't worry about needing patrol craft too much.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Britain has no maritime patrol craft to watch over the North Sea/Atlantic coastlines

Out of curiosity, why do we need them?

That should have been aircraft for watching over valuable oil fields/oil rigs, Russian incursions, and of course, the fact that we're an island nation. An island nation needs a navy. Trident money would be better spent on Royal Navy and RAF.

I certainly agree we need a navy, you'll never have an argument from me there! But I think that 'patrol craft' are somewhat a relic of a bygone age to a large extent, coastguard aside. It hearkens back to the days when we were terrified of French/Spanish invasion, and had to keep a fleet scouring up and down the coast to intercept any raiders or invading armies.

These days, with aircraft, submarines, modern detection equipment, and the lack of a particularly maritime enemy, we don't really have a huge amount to worry about in that department.

I suppose the Russians could land a few battalions on the coast (they don't have enough landing craft in the North Sea to do much more than that), but any further reinforcements would be cut off by submarine interception very shortly afterwards. The subsequent lack of resupply and vulnerability to airstrike would let us polish them off in relatively short order.

Collectively in the North, the Russians can muster a blue water fleet consisting of a thirty year old Carrier, a pair of fifty year old battle-cruisers, four thirty five year old anti-ship Sovremennyy destroyers, five thirty five year old Udaloy anti-submarine destroyers, two Neustrashimyy Frigates (one is of questionable quality), a single Slava class Cruiser from the 1970's, and (more importantly) four newer Steregushchy anti-ship/sub corvettes.

Frankly, half of the older stuff is barely seaworthy, and the other half not equipped with up date detection, ASW weaponry or anti-air missiles. The new Corvettes are quite pretty, but a single Type 45 Destroyer displaces more tonnage than all four combined, and we have six of those. We also have thirteen 'Duke' class Frigates built over the last two decades which are reasonably well kitted out, and each displace more than double what those shiny Russian corvettes do.

So yeah, Russian invasion isn't happening anytime soon. Quite honestly, the only power currently capable of smashing our Navy is America. So I wouldn't worry about needing patrol craft too much.

Why the feth would Russia be interested in invading the UK in the first place? Way too much rain. Crimea is much nicer.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Britain has no maritime patrol craft to watch over the North Sea/Atlantic coastlines

Out of curiosity, why do we need them?

That should have been aircraft for watching over valuable oil fields/oil rigs, Russian incursions, and of course, the fact that we're an island nation. An island nation needs a navy. Trident money would be better spent on Royal Navy and RAF.

I certainly agree we need a navy, you'll never have an argument from me there! But I think that 'patrol craft' are somewhat a relic of a bygone age to a large extent, coastguard aside. It hearkens back to the days when we were terrified of French/Spanish invasion, and had to keep a fleet scouring up and down the coast to intercept any raiders or invading armies.

These days, with aircraft, submarines, modern detection equipment, and the lack of a particularly maritime enemy, we don't really have a huge amount to worry about in that department.

I suppose the Russians could land a few battalions on the coast (they don't have enough landing craft in the North Sea to do much more than that), but any further reinforcements would be cut off by submarine interception very shortly afterwards. The subsequent lack of resupply and vulnerability to airstrike would let us polish them off in relatively short order.

Do_I_Not_Like_That is right in thinking we need a coastal patrol force, is wrong in thinking that we dont have one and is also wrong in thinking we need to exchange Trident for one.

Take a good look at our non existant Naval patrol boats:

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipment/ships/patrol-and-mine-hunters/patrol-boats

This of course excludes vessels run by RNLI and Customs and Excise:


Damen class customs cutter.

http://rnli.org/aboutus/lifeboatsandstations/lifeboats/Pages/The-fleet.aspx

Admitedly the RNLI is a charity, but effectively the government outsourced coastal rescue to the organisation, is government funded and it is in effect the coastal emergency rescue service and pretty much always had been.

Though official rescue support from the RAF and RN is provided, mostly via helicopter.


As for Russian incursions this is mostly handled by the RAF. Russian naval vessels entering British waters do so in international shipping lanes and there isnt much one can do about that short of a blockade. Any major movements are shadowed by the surface fleet of several NATO countries.

Never trust any political party that has a "manifesto."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Why the feth would Russia be interested in invading the UK in the first place? Way too much rain. Crimea is much nicer.

Why is Russia interested in invading Crimea? Why is Russia interested in invading Donbas? Why is Russia interested in invading the Baltics? Why is Russia interested in invading Syria?

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Why the feth would Russia be interested in invading the UK in the first place? Way too much rain. Crimea is much nicer.

Why is Russia interested in invading Crimea? Why is Russia interested in invading Donbas? Why is Russia interested in invading the Baltics? Why is Russia interested in invading Syria?

Why don't we try not to completely derail the thread? There's already a Russian invasion thread, IIRC.

FWIW, I agree with Iron Captain. Nobody in their right mind would want to invade the UK these days. You'd have to deal with the weather and the people always talking (moaning) about it.

Never trust any political party that has a "manifesto."

Err... how much do you know about British politics?

 -Shrike- wrote:

Err... how much do you know about British politics?

Eh, touche. But my statement stands.

And Corbyn CERTAINLY seems more dedicated to international leftist ideology than to the concept of national pride, patriotism, or British identity. I judge him about 30% on his googleable political track record and 70% on his awful communist/jihadi beard.

Now if you'll pardon me, I have 15 Big Macs to eat in my SUV. #murica

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

Err... how much do you know about British politics?

Eh, touche. But my statement stands.

"I said something that was actually really stupid in context, but meh, it still stands because reasons"

The statement doesn't stand. Saying "something something manifesto" when every British party has a manifesto is ridiculous.

[/b]And Corbyn CERTAINLY seems more dedicated to international leftist ideology than to the concept of national pride, patriotism, or British identity. I judge him about 30% on his googleable political track record and 70% on his awful communist/jihadi beard.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

Err... how much do you know about British politics?

Eh, touche. But my statement stands.

No it doesn't, hence your own 'touche'...

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

And Corbyn CERTAINLY seems more dedicated to international leftist ideology than to the concept of national pride, patriotism, or British identity. I judge him about 30% on his googleable political track record and 70% on his awful communist/jihadi beard.

Now if you'll pardon me, I have 15 Big Macs to eat in my SUV. #murica

If he had a jihadi beard, wouldn't that mark him as a religious extremist and belonging to an ideology totally opposed, at a basic level, to communism? How can his beard exist in two opposing states of being?!?

Are you one of those quaint yanks who simultaneously accuses Obama of being a communist, fascist and islamist? The 'Fascislammunist'? 'History's Greatest Monster!'...

Perhaps stick to the burger consumption...

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

Err... how much do you know about British politics?

Eh, touche. But my statement stands.

Not really, I'm afraid. Every political party creates a manifesto before the election, like a non-binding set of pledges that they offer to enact if they get into power. Of course, I say non-binding, but the Liberal Deomcrats are an excellent example of what happens when you go back on your manifesto.

And Corbyn CERTAINLY seems more dedicated to international leftist ideology than to the concept of national pride, patriotism, or British identity.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. UKIP are a patriotic party who take pride in their national British identity.

I judge him about 30% on his googleable political track record

Fair enough, I wouldn't expect you to know too much about British politics.

and 70% on his awful communist/jihadi beard.

Not so fair enough. Communist beards are very different to what Corbyn wears, and I'm not quite sure what a Jihadi beard is, or indeed why having a beard is such a reprehensible part of his character.

Now if you'll pardon me, I have 15 Big Macs to eat in my SUV. #murica

I'm not going to stop you. Judging you, on the other hand...

 -Shrike- wrote:
...and I'm not quite sure what a Jihadi beard is..

Usually one of those one without an attached moustache; also known as a "Malcolm Galazer" beard or Peadobeard depending on where you are, it's length and whose' wearing it.

Back to your normal programming.

 Goliath wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Because left wing demagogues are always about the will of the people. Yeah, right.

Yeah, his track record has shown him to really just foist his own views on other people, what with him reading his constituents' questions at the PMQs; that reeks of ignoring the will of the people.

As he wants to actually sell out our own citizens to another country, yeah I defend my statement.

Also you should learn the lessons of Labour. Remember "caring", "honest", "anti-sleaze" Tony Blair. The propaganda is coming full circle, Labour is praising Corbyn's "honesty" and want the press and public to buy the spin. Its the only selling point they have, and frankly it's not a genuine one either.

Corbyn was so 'honest' he remained quiet from 1997 to 2010 while New Labour went against all his 'principles'. I guess if it didn't matter then, why believe him now.

We can on the other hand take him at face value when he says he wants to sell out our people, re-nationalize and squander.

Also there is this story, exposed by insiders of his own party, amongst others :

http://juliagasper.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/jeremy-corbyn-turned-blind-eye-to.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3181783/Did-Jeremy-Corbyn-try-protect-fellow-Left-wingers-implicated-paedophile-scandal.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11758612/Jeremy-Corbyn-accused-of-inaction-over-paedophile-scandal.html

This is no better than Rotherham, where because the perpetrators were of a protected status nothing was done to protect minors from sexual abuse.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Because left wing demagogues are always about the will of the people. Yeah, right.

Yeah, his track record has shown him to really just foist his own views on other people, what with him reading his constituents' questions at the PMQs; that reeks of ignoring the will of the people.

Labour is praising Corbyn's "honesty" and want the press and public to buy the spin. Its the only selling point they have, and frankly it's not a genuine one either.

Erm, did you miss the part where almost the entirety of Labour band a fair chunk of the press were attempting to smear him? 'Labour' for the past month or two have wanted almost nothing to do with Corbyn.

Corbyn was so 'honest' he remained quiet from 1997 to 2010 while New Labour went against all his 'principles'. I guess if it didn't matter then, why believe him now.

You realise that he's consistently voted along the same lines, right? Even during that period, he was voting against the majority of Labour. It's okay to not like the guy's politic, but making stuff up about him is a bit cheap. (Voting record available here)

Also, would you be able to actually explain what you mean by 'sell out our people'? You keep on saying it as this big proof that he's completely evil and corrupt, but haven't actually explained what you mean; at this point it's little more than a buzzword.

Never trust a politician dead set on removing a nation's nuclear arsenal.


For example, nations that have given up their nuclear weapons: South Africa. Ukraine.


See what I'm sayin?

 Goliath wrote:
Erm, did you miss the part where almost the entirety of Labour band a fair chunk of the press were attempting to smear him? 'Labour' for the past month or two have wanted almost nothing to do with Corbyn.

I most certainly did not, however it is no surprise that Labour is that dishonest. Still its vain to write it off as a smear, the accusations are multi sourced.
Also the Rotherham sex abuses were no lie, this is very similar in many ways.

 Goliath wrote:

You realise that he's consistently voted along the same lines, right?

Corbyn shares that feature with a number of other Labour MPs and Conservative MPs alike. He would vote against, but do so quietly, he raised no voice of dissent that anyone would hear. Unlike serval other MPs of those both parties.

 Goliath wrote:

Also, would you be able to actually explain what you mean by 'sell out our people'? You keep on saying it as this big proof that he's completely evil and corrupt, but haven't actually explained what you mean; at this point it's little more than a buzzword.

I have actually explained. He wants to sell out Gibraltar and the Falklands in spite of the vast majority of the wishes of the lawful citizens residing there.
His reason for selling out the Falklands is wholly evil, they remind him of Thatcher's victory, they remind him that Labour lost the '83 election. he victory is an ill memory for him, so the rights of the people living there are of no consequence.
There is something seriously wrong when someone calls for unity this and equality that, while intending to sell out entire populations of their land and citizenship to forward left wing doggerel. Where is their 'equal rights'?

Also found this.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/462119/Jeremy-Corbyn-Falklands-war

'Jobless men' signing up for the armed services, and many did after the Argentine invasion, were still in basic training and took no part of the Falklands campaign, they were also no longer jobless.

The British defense establishment isn't excited about the prospect of a national leader who hates them but admires Hamas and Hezbollah?

Unsurprising.