RichardIC wrote:Tempest414 wrote:Of course the other way of looking at it is staff working in the NHS would after 5 years earn the right to take a 6 -9 months sabbatical from there day job to join the ships where ever they are there by doing something different and learning some new skills before returning to there day jobs with great memories and getting there heads down for the next 5 years this is no different to how the RMC work
Sorry, forgot you were the expert on NHS workforce.
RichardIC wrote:shark bait wrote:Spinning two crap ideas together does not make a good idea.Caribbean wrote:So not just a hospital ship and definitely not a new Royal Yacht! I think she's actually meaning that these new vessels could be as important for the UK's image abroad as Brittania was in her time. Interesting, whether it happens, of course, is another matter
She's not spinning two crap ideas, she's aiming for double figures at minimum.
Caribbean wrote:OK - I get it - you don't like the idea of a UK Aid ship (or maybe you don't like the Royals) . If it's the former, I think you are wrong. If it's the latter then, as far as I'm concerned, it's Rhett Butler's "final line" to you.
Caribbean wrote:The fact that, like so many, you focus on the inaccurate "it's a new Royal Yacht" part of the text (i.e. the small part of my much longer post that you explicitly quoted) and not the important part, that it wil provide extra capacity for HADR operations as well as promoting the UK "brand". It's a classic attack line of the anti-monarchy mob, regardless of whether it brings other benefits (or is in fact an accurate description of the proposal) and used, just as you did, to try to discredit the idea (because it's "Royal").
It may not have been the impression that you intended to convey, but convey it you did. You framed the context, so my comment was entirely appropriate.
RichardIC wrote:You wrote a single paragraph and I quoted it in its entirety. I did not focus on the reference to a Royal Yacht.
Caribbean wrote:I still disagree with you about the usefulness of a civilian UK Aid capability - it should be the first line of the UK's "routine" HADR response (pre-positioning in acknowledged "trouble spots" at specific times of the year, along with regular tours of countries with a shortage of specialist medical skills), with the military "on call" (and some personnel actually on board) to provide the specialist operational skills and backup in volume, where needed.
SW1 wrote:But we already have such a uk civil HDAR capability in the international rescue corps. Positioning in “trouble spots” is fine if your talking hurricanes in the Caribbean. But what if it’s an earthquake or a volcanic eruption or a tsunami. The overarching uk response is in the initial rapid response and that’s we’re ships don’t work if it’s seen as the UKs global disaster response.
If it’s more long term and medical related then is it not better to invest in civil resilience thru working with local administrations and arguably the world health organisation.
SW1 wrote:the international rescue corps
Caribbean wrote:SW1 wrote:the international rescue corps
The International Rescue Corps? You are kidding, right? A capable and dedicated group, definitely, but a typical deployment is 8-10 people (the largest I've found was 15, but they may have had larger), specialising mainly in post-earthquake urban search and rescue.
They, and groups like them, are an part of the solution, definitely, but have nothing like the logistics capability and scale needed to handle a large scale event. That's not what IR are designed or intended for - their job is the immediate post-disaster rescue of casualties, with the lightest logistic footprint possible. Without considerable assistance a typical team would be pretty limited in what they could achieve (usually multiple SAR teams fly in from all over the world to carry out immediate rescue from collapsed buildings etc, who then withdraw when the initial search is declared over (usually between 3 and 7 days) and the medium term support effort gets going - that's where the UK Aid ships come into it, bringing large quantities of aid within 1-7 days after the event, depending on location (which is why there should be more than one of them, so that they can be pre-positioned in multiple locations).
Caribbean wrote:that's where the UK Aid ships come into it, bringing large quantities of aid within 1-7 days after the event, depending on location (which is why there should be more than one of them, so that they can be pre-positioned in multiple locations).
Caribbean wrote:Multiple, as in more than one (I just didn't want to repeat the same phrase in two consecutive phrases, it makes the phrasing sound awkward). There are a couple of proposals around at the moment, one a private proposal and the other proposed by elements within HMG, though as yet not taken up - neither see the output as a "hospital ship" - both envisage at least two multi-role aid vessels, incorporating medical, supply, helicopter and small boat facilities. The private proposal looks like a crossover liner/LHD - the Government one is a paper description only, so could be anything.
Caribbean wrote:As for delivering aid within 24 hours to a week, that's what the Bays do at the moment in the Caribbean(as does HNLMS Pelikaan for the Dutch - the French have laid off their old landing craft and are using a Mistral this year). Backup comes from multiple other hulls (Ocean and Protector in recent years) and, last time, an airbridge established into Barbados.
RichardIC wrote:if you are planning a global network
RichardIC wrote:which can reach anywhere
Caribbean wrote:Point to where I said "global network"
Caribbean wrote:that's where the UK Aid ships come into it, bringing large quantities of aid within 1-7 days after the event, depending on location (which is why there should be more than one of them, so that they can be pre-positioned in multiple locations).
RichardIC wrote:So if you plan on reaching any disaster zone within seven days, and ships are to be pre-positioned accordingly "in multiple locations", then "global network" seems to describe that fairly well.
Caribbean wrote:Where did I say any disaster zone?
Caribbean wrote:Just go back and read what I actually said - ignore whatever's going on inside your head. All the information is there
Caribbean wrote:Actually, no- it's an "I've already answered those points" response.
RichardIC wrote:So if you plan on reaching any disaster zone within seven days, and ships are to be pre-positioned accordingly "in multiple locations", then "global network" seems to describe that fairly well.
But the question is, to meet that goal how many ships do you need?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests