HMNB Devonport (RN)

News and discussion threads concerning defence personnel and their units.
User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by SKB »



User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by SKB »


User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by SKB »


(Forces TV) 20 Nov 2018
Commissioned in 2009, USS New York is the latest in a long line of waships named after the American state and city. However, it carries more than just the name alone - it is made in part with steel from the ruins of the Twin Towers. It also contains reminders of 9/11, including a surviving firefighters jacket in the bridge of the ship.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by SKB »


User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by clivestonehouse1 »

SKB wrote:
It seems siren tests are very regular at Devonport
Every monday at 11.30, the dockies use it as a sign to naff off for lunch.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by clivestonehouse1 »

Over the last few years parts of South Yard have indeed been shelved off.
The old Granby area has been given over to private housing schemes and Oceangate comercial units, the Heritage site and CIWS maintenance area are now enclaves, roperies and Mutton Cove areas are mow under control of Princess Yachts.
Rest of South Yard (i.e jetties, docks and 1 Basin) are still firmly under MoD control (for now) but schemes are progressing (slowly) to hand over most of these to commercial use, however the MoD intend to retain the jetties and slips as another enclave.
The main base will effectively end at the South Yard bridge where a new dockyard gate will be established.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by SKB »


User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by SKB »

Image
(@NavyLookout) 21st July 2020
Upgrading the Royal Navy’s nuclear submarine support facilities
More: https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/upgrad ... acilities/

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by Jensy »

SKB wrote:Image
(@NavyLookout) 21st July 2020
Upgrading the Royal Navy’s nuclear submarine support facilities
More: https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/upgrad ... acilities/
Was just reading over the STRN page.

There was a mention of how Dock 10 was last used by the Albion Class, but that they will now use the smaller Dock 8. Made me wonder if it's not a mistake to be modifying the largest dock at Devonport and that the works should be carried out on Dock 8 instead.

Though I'm not exactly confident a replacement for the Albion Class is forthcoming, this project effectively limits the size of any future amphibious vessel based at Devonport to less than 200m in length. Otherwise, like the carriers, they will require dry-docking away from their home base.

In the grand scheme of issues facing the Navy, perhaps not the greatest of worries but it's either an admission that the Albion Class will not be replaced or else that their expected replacements will be modestly proportioned by modern standards. The much disliked Ellida concept or a Mistral Class would be pushing the limits and a Canberra Class would be far too long for any of the remaining dry-docks.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Jenny Wrote:-
“This project effectively limits the size of any future amphibious vessel based at Devonport to less than 200m in length”..

Not at all! It is just the non-strategic, non joined-up thinking that has bedevilled defence and more particularly the worst aspects of MOD decision making for many a long year, aided and abetted by misjudged political expediency.
:mrgreen:

User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by clivestonehouse1 »

It's more the fact that 8 dock is not ideally positioned to allow for the infrastructure required to install a sliding defuelling housing as used in 9 dock.
8 dock is way too close to a main traffic route and also the rail system for flask movements is in that area too.
10 dock has plenty of space either side in which to restructure the facilities and also has a far easier access route from the basin.
10 dock is also vastly underused at present, landing craft maintenance and tarting up Courageous being the only work they have undertaken there recently.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

With all due respect to clivestonehouse1, who may not even believe in the “official rationale”, but would also be unable to say so:-

This just illustrates the endemic “wrong-headed” short-termism that bedevils official thinking. There are problems doing “X“, so let us do “Y”, but all that does is to dig you deeper into the hole that you are already in. Just the same as “We have run the navy down to too small a size, so we do not have a need for Naval bases to be as large as they are ... let us sell-off as much of them as we can for Housing and Marinas”. No Defence “Nous” is shown in this approach whatsoever! Perhaps someone somewhere believes that if needed we will be able to build a new Naval port somewhere else. :mrgreen:

User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by clivestonehouse1 »

Is it sensible to maintain an area of a dockyard that has limited industrial capacity and crumbling listed buildings that soak up shrinking defence budgets and can't be modified for different purposes / demolished to make space for modern facilities or better to release the land to commercial uses and recoup some monies to the coffers where it can be used for something more important.
The defence estate in general is vast and can afford to contract a fair amount before important capacity is even slightly affected.
Holding on to land purely for nostalgic reasons does not make sense at all.
The MoD budget in it's entirety must be utilised in the smartest way possible no matter how unpopular the concept may be.
Simple adage - You cut your cloth to match your pocket.
Being within the MoD for 18 years I have seen the effect of underfunding on many sites and the demoralisation it causes amongst staff, nothing worse than working somewhere that is falling down around your ears whilst seeing defunct sites soaking up budgets that are much better used elsewhere.
Cut the dead branches to allow the tree to thrive.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

The point is current and future Defence is more important than just about any listed building in a Naval Dockyard. It’s primary purpose is to support defence and whilst listed buildings are very nice to have, they should not and must not obstruct the rational development of a Naval port. If they are to be kept, then a bigger physical footprint for the base needs to be maintained, in order for alternatives within the base to be possible.

A recent case in point at Devonport is the “Can’t expand the Frigate Re-fit complex for T26” because of a road, a listed building etc. What fool put the Frigate Re-fit complex in a position where the limitations on its possible expansion were so restrictive? Yes, I know it has already been enlarged once (for T22), but the lack of future defence vision by those deemed to be experts in defence matters is to put it Quite frankly truly “Mind Boggling”. :mrgreen:

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

A little off-topic perhaps, but it is the same train of thought that would seriously consider using a 65,000 Tonne Strike Carrier as an LHA. As I said earlier, just symptomatic of the wrong-headed thinking that is too often seen in UK defence matters these days. Likewise, move our SSN to the Clyde, whilst continuing to develop the maintenance facilities for SSN and SSBN at Devonport. No joined-up thinking In evidence here either. Back on topic now. :mrgreen:

User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by clivestonehouse1 »

Do you own a crystal ball?

Didn't think so, neither do I.

The frigate complex was built well before any t22/t23 ships were even on the draft board so how the hell could they predict the t26?
How can you plan for a unquantifiable thing?
Your argument was moot before you started it.
The frigate sheds can be extended out in to 2 basin but not the other way, I'm pretty sure Plymouth City Council may have some objections to closing a major city road just because Jack wants a facility to maintain a bigger toy he doesn't own yet.
You take away the internal road to stretch the complex at the cost of the road access through the base.
In an ideal world the whole base could be flattened bit by bit to build modern, well laid out facilities but a clean slate can not and will not happen, end of chat!


Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by clivestonehouse1 »

Devonport has the only licence for nuclear defuelling / refuelling which Faslane could not take on due to size and location (plus a fair bit of bitching from the Scottish Mafia).
It's a fact of life- get over it and yourself while you're at it.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

My argument is not with you, You may be fully indoctrinated or not. However, The points that I have made are still valid. There are too many people in our country who will tell you “what you (or they) cannot do” but hardly ever “what you (or they) can do”! There are also people who misuse national assets (like motorways) by building damn shopping “Malls” next to them and then moan about the decline of “The High Street”. Sound familiar ........ Endemic! :mrgreen:

User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by clivestonehouse1 »

Do you work at Devonport?

Have you ever been in Devonport?

Do you live near Devonport?

Can you even find it on Google Maps?

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladed swallow?

If you answer other than yes to the first three questions then don't even try to justify your points (fyi - questions 4 & 5 are pure sarcasm in case you didn't notice).
I'm Plymothian by birth and am the 5th generation of my family to work there so may just have a slightly more objective view of the subject than you (unless you answered my first 3 questions correctly of course).

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

I specifically expressed my respect for the points that you had made in your first post.
I then excused you from having to agree or disagree with my points of view.
I have made plain that the basic problem is one that is pervading our country and should not be permitted in defence matters.

I am not criticising; either you, or Devonport, or the Dockyard. Rather, I am criticising the misuse and waste of what was and still should be an invaluable national asset.

You have now responded with thinly veiled insults & innuendo and you have tried to “lecture” me and dismiss the points that I have made. Please bear in mind, that at no time have I even made the slightest suggestion that you did not know what you were talking about or your commitment to Devonport.

You have in the past, posted sensible and supportable points of view. However, the questions that you posed in your last post are neither called for or relevant and together with the implied snobbery, they reflect very badly upon you. Like all members, Who I am, what I know and where I have been is no concern of yours.

User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by clivestonehouse1 »

So it was no to the questions then?

Before you even have the temerity to lecture on what should or should not happen at Devonport may I suggest you get out in the real world where rose tinted spectacles don't work?

Nobody like an armchair quarterback


Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by clivestonehouse1 »

Btw, I suggest you grow a thicker skin before you stand toe to toe with someone that actually might know what he's on about.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by Scimitar54 »

I know who has the thinner skin and so will anyone else reading these exchanges. I suggest that you stop “digging”.
Even now, I will not sink to the level of making insults.

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Last post has been deleted - please leave out the personal insults or bans will be issued. Back to the topic.

Edit: User was banned after more insults.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: HMNB Devonport (RN)

Post by SKB »


Post Reply