Add Comment

Des Browne is a self confessed liar- he also used the not intentional line when he had to apolgise to the house for misealding us all over over forces pay. Dopey Des cares more about his beloved civil servants ( becasue they can vote - John Reid denied thousands of servicemen the vote remember) - sailors stories, cockpit video, hopsitals, MAtty hull, Sgt Roberst Body Armour - all lies. It is a measure of the lack of calibre in Labour and lack of intellect in Kilmarnock he is still in post. Come Des, radio units, the toehr two type 45s, the mess up with the Chinnoks you bought that can't fly - answer those questions. No wonder ingram got sacked.

[italic][bold]"NO, THINGS ARE EVEN WORSE THAN THE ADMIRALS & GENERALS ARE SAYING!"[/bold][/italic] The RN's new Type-45 ships are being built, effectively, as 'hollowed-out' ships: missing much of their most important types of defensive weapons systems, decoys, and, believe it or not: WITHOUT ANY 'STANDARD' OFFENSIVE WEAPONS. Contradicting their designers' specifications and common sense, all Type-45 Destroyers that are built will have no surface- target 'attack' missiles and without ship launched torpedoes, necessary to offensively attack other ships/land-based targets... Of the few Type-45 Destroyer’s that ‘may’ be built for the Royal Navy, THEY'LL BE STRIPPED 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. Instead, 25-year-old technology CIWS's are being installed: Where from? They are to be 'transplanted' from to-be-decommissioned presently in service RN ships like the Type-22 Frigates: http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type45.h tm If a front-line warship’s main anti-missile defenses fail or are ineffective, a second layer of anti-missile defenses (a Close In Weapons System (CIWS)) is standard for any modern warship to have for use against this well-recognized-as-l ikely battle scenario. IF both main and secondary anti-missile defenses fail, 'legitimately' leading edge, modern warships have up-to-date anti-missile decoys, such as the BAE Systems Australia mk53 Nulka active missile decoy system, for use against this well-recognized-as-l ikely battle scenario... The US Navy has this active missile decoy system missile decoy system installed in over 80 of its most up-to-date warships.... Why isn’t the Type-45 having (up to date) active missile decoy systems as well as up-to-date Close In Weapons System’s installed? The Type-45's cost is more than double that of the most recent versions of the USA's front line destroyers... (both USA & Korean built versions) http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2007/11/27/ hms_diamond_launches _ouch_ouch/ http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type45.h tm The USA's Destroyers (whose designs have been licensed to other nations) are larger (9500 tonne displacement) compared to the Type-45's (roughly 7500 tonne displacement), and are literally bristling with types of weapons systems, decoys and related hardware that the Type-45 was designed to be fitted with- but is not having installed: apparently due to Labour directives, motivated by 'cost factors'. 12 of the potentially 'world beating' Type-45 Destroyers 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. How can 4 STRIPPED DOWN Type-45 Destroyer's 'replace' the RN's 8 currently in service, dangerously out-of-date Type-42 Destroyers?? Despite their out of dateness, these 8 Type-42's are ALL "MULTI-PURPOSE"/"MUL TI-MISSION" Destroyers..."MULTI PURPOSE"/"MULTI-MISS ION" meaning these ships are (albeit inadequately) capable of and are regularly assigned to conducting not only anti-air defense roles but also 'land-attack'/'surfa ce-target attack' functions/roles as well as "anti- submarine" functions/roles... using 'attack' missiles AND by ship-launching torpedoes. The Type-45's will not be able to conduct any MULTI-PURPOSE/MULTI- MISSION functions, and will be restricted to carrying out ONLY 'anti-air' defensive roles due to the Type-45's being fitted-out with barely 1/2 of the weapons & related systems their designers specified: http://www.theregist er.co.uk/2007/11/27/ hms_diamond_launches _ouch_ouch/ http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type45.h tm It was recognized in the late 1990's by the MoD that the whole of the RN's surface fleet was vulnerable to being 'sunk in 1/2 an hour', if up against a modern-weapons-equip ped foe.. with access to existing and emerging anti-ship weapons like supersonic cruise missiles. A good example is the widely marketed Russian SS-N-27, "Sizzler": 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 http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type42.h tm Hence the motivation for the design/build of the Type-45 to replace not only the 8 egregiously and dangerously out of date Type-42 Destroyers: http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type42.h tm http://www.globalsec urity.org/military/w orld/europe/type45.h tm .... but also the RN's 17 other main front-line escort warships, the Type-22 and 23 Frigates. While most of these are only moderately newer than Type-42's, even the newest- due to technologically deficient designs & weapons- are still without capacities to fend off modern anti-ship missiles. The Type-22 Frigates (constructed late 1980's/early 1990's; and Type 23 Frigates (constructed early 1990's up to 2002... have been 'updated/re-fitted', but not with equipment and technologies adequate for 21st century anti-air or 'surface-target attack' naval warfare. Their Seawolf anti-missile system, with its minuscule 3-mile range, is not competent to defend against modern anti-ship missiles. Type-22's & Type-23's would ALL be sunk in less than 1/2 an hour if up against a few cheap 'gun boats' equipped with modern bolt-on anti-ship missiles, like the SS-N-27!! It was also widely acknowledged by the MoD in the late 1990's that additional variants (IE 'anti-submarine' and 'land-attack/expedit ionary support' types) of the then under development Type-45 were needed to have begun a build programme around the same time as the Type-45 base-line "anti-air" version, to replace ALL of the Type-22 and 23's over the course of about 12-15 years starting in 2002. (Similar to the Type-45 base-line version, its variants (Type-22 and 23 'replacements') were designated to have been MULTI-PURPOSE/MULTI- MISSION ships to replicate the MULTI-PURPOSE/MULTI- MISSION functions/roles carried out by the Type-22 and 23 Frigates.) Not only is the base-line Type-45 programme not being implemented with MULTI-PURPOSE/MULTI- MISSION Type-45's as the resulting product,replacement of Type-22's & 23's has not even begun to occur, as Labour has not approved funding for planning related to this urgently needed-for-national- security programme. The Iraq invasion of several years ago exposed the Royal Navy to zero legitimate adversity. No up-to-date weapons had to be defended against. No hostile naval vessels had to be attacked or defended against. It was basically like sailing a few metal rafts into the Persian Gulf and, without resistance or risks, disembarking troops/materiel. Given its present heavily degenerated state, should the RN be put into battle against a 'fighting adversary', esp one with a few modern anti-ship weapons? Only the most intellectually dishonest/corrupt politician would say yes... Roderick V. Louis, near Vancouver, BC, Canada

Roderick,while not understanding the technical information,I get your very worrying drift!

The RAF is unfit for purpose. The Royal Navy is unfit for purpose. The Army is unfit for purpose.

Des Browne is unfit for purpose Bob Ainsworth is Unfit for Purpose Lord Drayson is unfit for purpose

Troops fighting for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, Brown and co . Pi**ing on it here, speaks volums !!!

Hey, Des browne speaks the truth. How could anyone disbelieve him. New labour are our protectors - honest, forthright, straightforward and commited to public service. Indeed, in October big Gordon flew out to Iraq for a photo-shoot with troops in Iraq. Now that shows just how committed he is to our forces. If anyone suggests differently then they are obviously mistaken or politically motivated to say otherwise. Stay safe, vote Labour.

In view of the Nimrod enquiry-the findings of which Browne has known for some time this makes the story ,if true, make Des Browne look like a pathological liar

Des Browne really is a waste of space. He claims that he does the Scottish job in his spare time and unpaid. We don't need a Scottish office (jobs fot the boys) we have our own government who can talk directly to Westminster, we dont need anyone else, especially an unpaid part-timer, you ignorant ****!!!