Add Comment

Who names these ships? DIAMOND? WHAT HAPPENED TO HMS YER GOING TAE HELL IF YA MESS? OR HMS AVENGER? NOW IT'S ALL HMS FLUFFY BUNNIES............. ..

Wonder if we'll get our mitts on these new fancy weapons of death/defence in the dissolution of the union agreement?

[bold][italic]"THE UK PUBLIC DESERVES A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE ABOUT THE TYPE-45 DESTROYER PROGRAMME BEING REPORTED!!"[/italic][/bold] While it's unarguably good news that this new, highly competent class of Destroyer, the Type-45, has been approved for construction for the Royal Navy, it ought to be noted that barely 1/3 of the 'minimum' (12) required for the UK to retain its naval capabilities compared to other industrialized nations & for establishing functional naval squadrons & to facilitate the running of a cohesive fleet- are to be built. This wasn't the case barely a decade ago... 12 of these potentially 'world beating' vessels were, in the late 1990's, agreed by Labour to be built. Without consultation or support from the MoD and without any explanation, in 2006 Labour decreed that instead of 12 only 4 Type-45's 'may' be built for the RN*. * Apparently, 6 Type-45's are to be built, with 2 of these being sold to Saudi Arabia. Of more importance for reporting- and heavily stressed- is that of the few Type-45 Destroyer’s that ‘may’ be built for the Royal Navy, THEY'LL BE STRIPED DOWN VERSIONS, IE: missing a significant amount of their most vital- designer specified- weapons & systems: IE: no sonar (read: no anti-submarine capabilities); no on-ship torpedo-launch abilities; no up-to-date "Close In Weapons Systems" (CIWS's) required for defending against anti-ship cruise missiles, fast-attack suicide boats & low-aircraft, etc. [bold]Instead, 25-year-old technology CIWS's are being installed.[/bold] http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type45.h tm There is no reason why the UK can not lead the world in terms of the capabilities and technologies of its armed forces' ships and equipment, as well as the skills & professionalism of its service personnel. If the UK is putting its newest, best & most bragged about warships to sea 1/2 equipped (Type-45 Destroyers), will this not make the UK a laughing stalk among major-power nations, as well as damaging potential trade relationships with countries looking to buy defense goods? Won’t this be counterproductive to the UK’s international profile in terms of its technological and manufacturing capacities? If newly produced ships- and even planned new ones, such as the recently approved-for-buildin g 2 'big deck' aircraft carriers- or MVD’s (Type-22 & Type-23 Frigate replacements) are being commissioned without vital hardware and equipment that their designers intended for them to be out fitted with-> what sort of message does this send to those the UK wants to trade with, or countries that the UK may have to be militarily adverse to, down the road???? If funding limitations[italic] are really a factor-[/italic] [bold]& not politics[/bold] - then the UK govt ought to cancel its recently announced plans to spend £4 billion on 2 new 'big deck' aircraft carriers, and inquire if the USA would lend/lease 2 or 3 of their recently commissioned &/or nearing commissioning medium sized aircraft carriers (L-HD's) along with their aircraft, armaments, etc: These ships: - weigh-in at about double the tonnage of the RN’s 2.5 decade-old, past-service-life Invincible Class carriers; - deploy the same types of fixed-wing aircraft as RN carriers, but have 2X the aircraft carrying & sortie capacity; - have far more versatile capabilities; & - are out fitted with very recent technology radars & anti-missile/anti-su bmarine warfare systems. LHD's would be far more appropriate for deployment by the UK to the Persian Gulf next year (along with 3 or 4 simultaneously lend/leased up-to-date US Navy Destroyers for anti-air cover) instead of (as is planned) the highly vulnerable-to-21st-c entury-anti-ship-wea pons HMS Illustrious & her assigned anti-air 'cover': a Type-42 Destroyer & Type-23 Frigate. Money saved by lend/lease of the above US ships to the RN could be put towards the expedited construction of ALL of the 12 Type-45 Destroyers promised by Labour in the late 1990’s. Similarly, the RN’s not-fit-for-service in-the-21st-century Type-22 & older model Type-23 Frigates could be replaced cost-effectively & expeditiously by "anti-submarine" & "land attack/expeditionary -support" variants of the Type-45 being quickly designed & built ... Roderick V. Louis, near Vancouver, BC, Canada, ceo@patientempowerme ntsociety.com

[italic][bold]"'HOW' DEFENSE FUNDING IS APPLIED, NEEDS EVALUATING"[/bold][/italic] While it's unarguable that the UK's armed forces' funding must be properly increased, current defense projects ought to be evaluated as to whether monies provided are being put towards the best way(s) to achieve respective projects' identified objectives. The recent Labour go-ahead for over £4 billion to be spent on the design/build of 2 "big deck" aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy provides a good example. Having these vital-to-force-proje ction ships co-built with France- a country without expertise in this field- rather than with a country which has decades of unequaled leadership in aircraft carrier technologies- the USA- is plainly illogical, ill-advised, & will result in, comparatively, 3rd-rate carriers with: - 20-year-old technologies; - severe deficiencies in versatility & upgrade-ability; & - not capable of operating Directed Energy Weapons (DEW's) for use against 21st century threats- such as super-sonic anti-ship cruise missiles. Even worse, unlike the UK versions, France's new "big deck" aircraft carriers will be constructed with catapult-launch-of-a ircraft capability, from a "flat deck". French versions won't rely on ski-jump decks to launch aircraft like the UK's planned (& its present 'pocket') carriers... Compared to the UK's, France's new carriers will be: - far more capable; - able to deploy a much broader variety of aircraft, such as electronic countermeasure (ECM) & unmanned fighter aircraft; & in a business where 'size does matter'... - 10,000 tonnes heavier than the UK's (65k vs 75k). http://www.defensein dustrydaily.com/brit ain-studies-ways-to- reduce-cvf-future-ca rrier-program-costs- 01028/ http://www.defensein dustrydaily.com/fran ce-steaming-ahead-on -pa2cvf-carrier-proj ect-01621/ Instead of continuing with the misguided UK/French aircraft carrier project, the UK ought to invite itself to be part of its project designing & building the US Navy's medium sized aircraft carrier (LHD class) successor: the "LHA-6 class". Projected to displace 51,000-60,000 tonnes, LHA-6's will be leaders of their type, regarding: - offensive capacities; - anti-missile & anti-submarine defenses; - abilities to set aside sections as hospital ships; & - abilities to function as battle-space data command centre's. Also, LHA-6's MAY BE NUCLEAR POWERED, (dramatically lowering greenhouse gases) & to accommodate high energy need equipment, such as Directed Energy Weapon's (DEW'S). DEW’s are thought by experts to be the only type of ship-defense weapon likely to be able to counter 21st century naval threats like the comparatively widely deployed Russian SS-N-27 supersonic anti-ship missile. http://www.defensein dustrydaily.com/usa- broadening-conservat ion-focus-to-weapons -systems-02186/#more http://www.bloomberg .com/apps/news?pid=2 0601087&sid=akO7Y_OR w538&refer=home http://www.bharat-ra kshak.com/NAVY/Klub. html http://www.uscpf.org /html/events/2005/tr anscript.html An LHA-6 or L-HD (as suggested in ealier posted comment, above)approach would restore & significantly enhance the RN's capacities years before UK 'W.O.T.' commitments end & as much as 3/4 of a decade ahead of the misguided UK/French carrier project's 1st ships... at 1/2 to 3/5 the cost... which would allow for the building of 3 new carriers, instead of the currently planned 2... to replace the RN's current 3. For most of the last 4 decades, RN fleet/aircraft carrier rotation protocol has mandated having at least 3 fixed-wing carriers. This assumed 2 of 3 carriers on 'active' duty at any given time, recognizing that at least 1 of the 3 would be on refit/repairs/mainte nance at any given time. Squadrons of support/escort ships were- although not always at sea with them- 'planned & designated around' aircraft carriers: IE 3 'groups' of supply/Destroyer/Fri gate/submarine types 'assigned' to individual carriers. Shrink the number of aircraft carriers from 3 to 2, & by default the RN fleet-size will be obliged to shrink proportionately. The more than 50 Royal Navy ships sold, decommissioned & scrapped during the last 10-years- without-replacements being built- has already shrunk the Royal Navy to barely 2/3 of its size when Labour was elected in 1997... Today in 2007, for the first occasion since the 1600's, the RN has less surface escort ships than the French navy. Continuing this short sighted trend invites disaster! UK/French projects are not all inadvisable... but if this type of approach is going to result in technologically deficient, inferior products- [bold]& less of them[/bold] - compared to easily facilitatable alternatives- particularly in an area that directly affects national security, questions need to be asked why is it being used!! Regardless of the RN's size, shouldn't an objective of the UK govt be to ensure that its newest naval ships appear better than other countries that are building comparable classes of ships (Destroyers/Frigates /medium-sized aircraft carriers)? Roderick V. Louis Vancouver, BC, Canada ceo@patientempowerme ntsociety.com

Who handed the wee Butcher's aprons tae the weans: Superorangeman?

donald, 5:49am Repetitive bigoted tosh.

NOt enough of these ships are being built putting lives at risk - Dr John Reid lied about ordering two more at the launch of HMS Daring

Who gave out those imperial flags to the bairns. First time in about twenty years that I've seen bairns waving those filthy rags.

Not just the Union Jacks - how come 5000 schoolchildren from 'all over Scotland' sspent a school day to celebrate the launch of a small ship. The sinister politics of unionism.

typical of the brits get the wanes involved early, brainwash them into the warmongering mindset, their parents and the so called education authorities should be ashamed, how will they feel when this ship is parked off the scottish coast because some nutter in london does,nt like the democratic voice in scotland

Alison Campsie's original article is posted at Lucianne,com News Forum by the Photoonist 11/27/2007 11:05:43 PM

Bobo, Freeman and Wullie - pathetic wee-world whinings. Nice to see someone from Govan who cares not for the fact that BAe are a key employer in that area - you keep claiming your allowances then Wullie and never mind those who like to work. "Imperial flags" and "sinister politics"? Laughable small-mindedness more like from these guys - get a life and have a look at the big world out there, and accept and appreciate we have done more as Britain than we ever would as Scotland. Yesterday was a proud launch, the kids loved it and it showed a bit of pride all too lacking from these muppets who do anything to run down the country. It's worrying that these people even have a vote...

Wullie - ignorant fool - tell that to Gavin Jeffrey (see article) and see if he agrees. I think not. Rod - like it! - we do not need these sorts of people. Alison Campsie - author of article - I think you'll find she named the ship "Diamond", not "HMS Diamond" - HMS comes later once commissioned.

I was at the launch of the Mounts Bay which isn't a RN ship, a couple of years ago. The kids had the day off school and waved a mixture of flags. Was there an outbreak of paranoia then ....eh no. Just a lot of pride in a ship being launched in Glasgow.

Oh Aye Rod the laughing muppet we couldn't do all this without the Westminster handout could we?. Scotland is becoming a more confident and respectful countrysomething that the Unionists like yourself are s--t scared off.

Donald,Bobo, Feeman and Wullie. Get a grip. You're obviously the lunatic fringe of the Scottish Numpty Party. The weans had a nice day out, seeing something that is all too uncommon in our once great shipyards. A launch. You lot are so caught up in your own wee worlds that you just cannot see the bigger picture. We don't have enough young people taking up apprenticeships so maybe just maybe this will redress the balance and prevent us from having to import these skills.

Rod is that as in up yer back !!.. appreciate we have done more as Britain than we ever would as Scotland. ah yes all that killing, the redrawing of other countries borders, the theiving of resources, the opium wars in china, dont mention the middle east, of course you could bring up the british empire at its hieght the people of these islands were living in abject poverty yea havent they, we ,done well !!you must be so proud

I'm on my way to China for a while, scrubbing the upperdeck. Sorry. See you later . . .

[quote][bold]Rod[/bold] wrote: Bobo, Freeman and Wullie - pathetic wee-world whinings. Nice to see someone from Govan who cares not for the fact that BAe are a key employer in that area - you keep claiming your allowances then Wullie and never mind those who like to work. "Imperial flags" and "sinister politics"? Laughable small-mindedness more like from these guys - get a life and have a look at the big world out there, and accept and appreciate we have done more as Britain than we ever would as Scotland. Yesterday was a proud launch, the kids loved it and it showed a bit of pride all too lacking from these muppets who do anything to run down the country. It's worrying that these people even have a vote...[/quote] Rod - when it comes to muppets please look in the mirror - you'll see all th emuppets you want. Just because wullie et al don't vote your way doesn't make it wrong.I could poke fun at you all day for being a unionist but hat would be unfair as it's not really your fault that you're an imbecilic ignoramus.

It was disappointing to see the kids with Union Jacks. Were they planted by Gordon Brown. I look forward to the day the last destroyer is sailed out of the clyde and we can create civil projects instead. If anyone thinks that a job is a job no matter what. Let me remind you that these ships are war machines not nice wee boats. Furthermore I do not care if these contracts and jobs are lost. I care more about creating a moral and just society not dependent government contracts. And before I hear the bleat of "It's our lively hoods" It is my tax payers money that pays for the Navy so I and 3 million other Scots pay their wages.

Nice to see the Union Jacks out. A British ship, for the British navy after all. Rule Britannia.

Rab you are a sad deluded individual. Do you not see that these contracts are the opposite of wealth creation. We pay tax - The government spends the tax on the Navy - The Navy pays the tax back to the Shipbuilders - The shipbuilders pay the Tax back to the government and not one single penny is created. We are funding an industry and jobs out of our own pockets....and Rule Britannia is the sum total of your debate!

Rab are you sitting comfortably? Good I will begin. Working people pay tax to the government - Government funds the navy with said taxes - Navy awards contracts to shipbuilders -Navy pays shipworkers with our taxes- Shipbuilders pay taxes back to government- and so the cycle goes round and round without one single penny being created. This is the opposite of wealth creation! And your intelligent answer is "Rule Britannia" not any more it doesn't!

It never ceases to amaze where some people see conspiracy and cynicism where best endeavours were the only motive. Here we have an important national employer and international business wanting to celebrate success with its employees and with the community at large - and rightly so. So what do they get. A pathetic combination of worn out bigotry and pent up vitriol. The skills to build these ships were almost lost forever and without them we won't ever win the civil projects some seek. There are many tax payers who are pleased to this development and if we were to turn our back on these opportunities and let them be built in Korea, it will not advance the case for a moral and just society one iota. As for the Royal Navy, God bless it. I rather rely on its support than that of those can see no further than what type of flags the children are waving. If you don't like it, bug out --- the taliban operate a principled society, perhaps you would be more at home there.

Wullie - indeed - reasoned argument as one would expect. Proud? yes, actually, although not of the state of the country under the current regime, not of the rising tide of loons emerging from the independence camp, and certainly not of introspective small-minded buffoons like yourself! Appreciate the day, event and ship for what they are and get off your little bigoted soapbox. And get a job.

Ok Big Jock, or do you prefer BJ? Lets close down these ship yards, and create more unemployment in Govan and other areas. Would you be happy then? And while were at it, lets get rid of that overpriced silly wheel in Falkirk. Falkirk is a sh1thole and the only people I know who have gone to Falkirk, have come back disappointed, including my 10 year old nephew who said it was boring, and wants to go to Alton Towers next time.

To the unionist posters - it wasn't the launch of the ship I was objecting to (the Free Scots Republic will have a navy too) but the fact that according to the report 5000 schoolchildren from "across Scotland" were taken to the launch and given Union Jacks to fly. That took considerable organisation and planning, but why? I could understand the local schoolchildren being taken to the launch but 5000 from across Scotland, for a relatively small ship? It seems to me to be a politically motivated act, And in a country where many reject the Union Jack and what tit stands for I don't believe children should be given them to wave. Leave our children out of politics. Long live the Free Scots Republic.

This country is divided by religion and politics (Unionist or SNP). Not all is going to be happy the way things will progress in Scotland. I fear in decades to come, especially if politicians decide to kick the bees nest. a civil war in Scotland is inevitable. The Unionists may have to flee to England for safety. Remember Yugoslavia.

Rab Yugoslavia's troubles were caused by Serbia's resistance to independence for the other member countries. Yugoslavia would happen here only if the English resist Scottish independence with violence. The other danger is an English nationalism that is a very different beast from Scottish nationalism., read the articles and comments in the Daily Mail (English edition) and the Daily Telegraph. the biggest danger of violence is the English applying a 'Final Solution' to the Scottish Problem. No doubt you would blame the Scots though.

Stop being so bloody miserable, it is an amazing ship and the launch day was fantastic. - Stop winging and get on with your miserable lives. The sea cadet guard of honour were fantastic, i wonder where they were from.

"Free Scots Republic"- Hilarious!! Wonder where they'll get their navy from?! - can't see the RN just handing over a few ships to get them started until they build some more. Still - nice to see that fantasy is alive and well!! Rule Britannia!

Another video of the HMS Diamond on No 1 slipway 1:22 on Splashvision.com/vid eo/10259 - HMS DIAMOND on the No 1 slipway.htm/ 59k Nov 21 2007

Andy As a successor state to the UK an independent Scotland will be entitled to its share of the UK's assets including it's navy. Scottish taxpayers have paid for these ships just as much as the English taxpayers have. Sharing out of jointly financed state assests is common on disintegration of a sate - see CzechoSlovakia and Soviet Union. Scotland will be free, and either at the same time or a litte later in time we will be a Republic - the Free Scots Republic.

Andy - the Free Scots Republic will be a successor state to the UK. We will have our share of the UK's assets including it's navy that we have paid for - it is already ours.

Freeman - Hopefully not in my lifetime - still - it's (please note correct use of apostrophe) good to have our share of loonies to keep the rest sane! Now - back to your cage, think it's been rattled enough.

II WAS THERE TO LAUNCH THT SHIP IN SCOTLAND LOL XX[bold]bold[/bold]

Bill - so someone who wants an independent Scotland that is also a republic is a 'loony'? That says more about you than me. BTW Your statement doesn't make sense, how can the rest of the loonies be sane?

A delayed entry of sorts regarding the LHA-6 thread...the LHA-6 is based on the US LHD-1 Class hull with modifications from conventional steam propulsion to gas turbine [going nuke is a US tabloid pipe dream placating US politicians who don't understand naval engineering] and replacement of the well deck (important feature for landing craft) with aviation maintenance and storage spaces. The end result is that the LHD-1 Class and LHA-6 Class can support the exact same amount of aircraft of the mix which Marine Expeditionary Units generally deploy with, or can surge the same amount of fixed wing air craft a Marine Expeditionary Brigade or Force may sail with. The difference will be the level of servicing the planes receive. It appears to be a sound design for a 'pocket, or escort carrier' as y'all coin it but fairly poor for large deck amphibious ships L-Class which carry combat power, large vehicles, combat power, and put boots on the ground via surface lift with sustainment (sustainment = combat power). Though aircraft are an important part of Marine tasks and missions they maneuver requires surface and ground assets which the LHA-6 cannot deliver in any sizeable build up without a well deck and craft delivery scheme. I also recommend that folks don't categorize her as a 'leader' regarding: (1) offensive capacities; (2) anti-missile & anti-submarine defenses; (3) abilities to set aside sections as hospital ships due to the following facts; (1) offensive capacities only if she's dedicated in a strike role with 20+ Joint Strike fighters or AV-8s OR fully loaded Marines. If she's fully loaded with combat Marines then getting them to the beach is difficult if the platform is support JSF/AV-8 strike missions due to rotary wing versus fixed wing VSTOL operations. (2) leader in 'anti-submarine defenses' is a looooong stretch not to be discussed in an open forum (3) While she has 2 ORs and 24 beds she has limited facilities compared to the LHD-1 Class (6 ORs and 64 beds plus expansion into adjacent Marine Berthing). But care is care. Lobby hard for securing replacement escort/pocket carriers though please stay clear of pit-falls of designs which may appear useful from the 10,000 foot leve. Cheers