UK Defence Forum

But yes, whether farmed or marine I think we are seriously underestimating the impact on our economy from fishing once we get our EEZ back.

Some of this has been deliberate, to minimise the seen cost of the EU, though also political in that it was embarrassing for the government to be constantly overridden by the European courts whenever it tried to police the EEZ or our paltry quota. Difficult not to suspect that some of the overfishing is simply down to quotas being exceeded on the sly. I think we just gave up trying to enforce them, hence the false flagging and other ridiculous machinations.

A defence industrial strategy should take account of this and make damned sure that anyone infringing on our waters gets a bootie kicking their hatches in pronto. Even Ireland operates 8 OPVs so hardly unwise to keep hold of the other Rivers for a few more years.

The RN doesn't want them, doesn't want the role itself. It only operates the present Rivers because they're paid for by Defra. Which is ridiculous, every quid stolen is a quid that won't be going to the RN.

Anything that could be done to stimulate the lower non naval end of the market too. How do you regenerate an industry which barely exists anymore?

Spinflight wrote:But yes, whether farmed or marine I think we are seriously underestimating the impact on our economy from fishing once we get our EEZ back.

Some of this has been deliberate, to minimise the seen cost of the EU, though also political in that it was embarrassing for the government to be constantly overridden by the European courts whenever it tried to police the EEZ or our paltry quota. Difficult not to suspect that some of the overfishing is simply down to quotas being exceeded on the sly. I think we just gave up trying to enforce them, hence the false flagging and other ridiculous machinations.

A defence industrial strategy should take account of this and make damned sure that anyone infringing on our waters gets a bootie kicking their hatches in pronto. Even Ireland operates 8 OPVs so hardly unwise to keep hold of the other Rivers for a few more years.

The RN doesn't want them, doesn't want the role itself. It only operates the present Rivers because they're paid for by Defra. Which is ridiculous, every quid stolen is a quid that won't be going to the RN.

Anything that could be done to stimulate the lower non naval end of the market too. How do you regenerate an industry which barely exists anymore?

Good points, fully agreed. HMG should provide support to regenerate the fleet and associated on shore industries. In the meantime whilst capacity is being built up it might be desirable to sell quotas to foreign vessels, but mandate landings in UK ports. The loss of assess to UK EEZ will have a massive impact on the French, Spanish and Dutch fishing industries. It is something we should be highlighting during the negotiations

In the meantime whilst capacity is being built up it might be desirable to sell quotas to foreign vessels, but mandate landings in UK ports.

That would be a mistake. I very much doubt they have respected the quotas up till now. If you allow t you need to have someone monitoring where they fish and land all the time.

Best to keep them out whilst our small fleet allows the fish stocks to replenish. Eventually it will grow but should take several years to reach a sustainable level.

We can just say that we are monitoring the stocks and will sell licences once they have recovered.

The loss of assess to UK EEZ will have a massive impact on the French, Spanish and Dutch fishing industries.

Massive in the case of the Spanish. I believe that's where most of the fishing boats are built too, with huge EU subsidies.

One effect will be them plundering Ireland's waters twice as hard, which should hasten their departure too.

Job jobbed.

"Even Ireland operates 8 OPVs so hardly unwise to keep hold of the other Rivers for a few more years.

The RN doesn't want them, doesn't want the role itself."

- and they are quite right, too
- the ships are no good (for anything else than what they are doing); the running is paid for by DEFRA; what the RN gets out of it is captains that can command a ship... a proper one, should they have some more in the future

DEFRA doesn't cover the full cost any more, they've had to cut back too.

RN should ditch that role and let someone cheaper do it.

ooh. no; cant be true:

"DEFRA doesn't cover the full cost any more, they've had to cut back too"

SAR; fisheries... what else?

Lets get real: what is defence (big D?)

I think it has to be the RN, can't remember the details but you can't just board a ship or potentially even impound it if you're a mere civil serpent / fish fancier / local authority type.

It's a cheap as chips capability, provides excellent training and I'd argue is the most important duty of the Navy.

Then again when the Canadian subs were monitoring the Spanish trawlers they had to have civvies on board, who refused to accept the subs position as proof and had their periscopes altered to include GPS. I'd have to read up on it again but I'm sure there's some legalistic implications.

How do you explain US agencies providing the boarding teams for RN ships in the Caribbean?
- RE "a mere civil serpent"

How do the Scottish do it then?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:How do you explain US agencies providing the boarding teams for RN ships in the Caribbean?
- RE "a mere civil serpent"

I believe that the boarding teams etc etc are USN or USCG, who are covered by international law, I think the civilians only get involved once the suspects are on US "soil" (or deck, to be more accurate )

How do the Scottish do it then?

I can't remember the specifics, something to do with Sovereign immunity and whether it occurs within territorial waters or EEZ.

Caribbean wrote:

ArmChairCivvy wrote:How do you explain US agencies providing the boarding teams for RN ships in the Caribbean?
- RE "a mere civil serpent"

I believe that the boarding teams etc etc are USN or USCG, who are covered by international law, I think the civilians only get involved once the suspects are on US "soil" (or deck, to be more accurate )

I think you are right. The Wacco department being the civilians: either everyone is already hand-cuffed (or smouldering ashes) when they walk onto the scene.

Sir John has been wasting his time, apparently:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... -destined/

Too much common sense to prevail I guess. What's more sorting is the following:
"The Chancellor controls the spending and there’s just no money for the Navy to build the Type 31s,” according to an unnamed source defence source.

We were worried about ending up with crap T31s, perhaps we won't get them at all! Unless Box Office Phil opens the purse strings....

dmereifield wrote:Sir John has been wasting his time, apparently:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... -destined/

Too much common sense to prevail I guess. What's more sorting is the following:
"The Chancellor controls the spending and there’s just no money for the Navy to build the Type 31s,” according to an unnamed source defence source.

We were worried about ending up with crap T31s, perhaps we won't get them at all! Unless Box Office Phil opens the purse strings....

To be honest, when they announced 8 T26 I suspected that would be the lot. The rest was the usual political spin. And I have never really understood why the Conservatives are seen as pro-defence. Their record for cutting it is unmatched.

clinch wrote:

dmereifield wrote:Sir John has been wasting his time, apparently:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... -destined/

Too much common sense to prevail I guess. What's more sorting is the following:
"The Chancellor controls the spending and there’s just no money for the Navy to build the Type 31s,” according to an unnamed source defence source.

We were worried about ending up with crap T31s, perhaps we won't get them at all! Unless Box Office Phil opens the purse strings....

To be honest, when they announced 8 T26 I suspected that would be the lot. The rest was the usual political spin. And I have never really understood why the Conservatives are seen as pro-defence. Their record for cutting it is unmatched.

Absolutely, the Conservatives have an appalling record with defence spending, just one of many examples where politicians or political parties spin an image that the media take uncritically. Even though that image is false. Current examples "Jeremy Cornyn is not a career politician and comes from a normal background" not true and "The Conservatives really care for the armed forces and increase defence spending.". Frankly if this NSBS comes to nothing, then any remaining optimism I have over the future of UK defence and the RN in particular has evaporated. This is heart felt having been encouraged to make some comments on NSBS. I thought there was a mood change in government.

If you are feeling in the slightest way depressed, then don't read this exercise in futility. The last paragraph says it all.

Note:- this is a long post.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... ngStrategy

Thanks for that. As Fife is a beautiful county, HMS Fife was the first RN ship that I set my foot on
https://uk.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search? ... unty+class
and this chap puts his words so well, I obviously need to move, to be able to vote for him (never mind about the wrong party):

" No one I have spoken to through my work on the Select Committee on Defence, whether fellow members, academics, shipbuilders, trade unionists or even civil servants, sees that as an acceptable way forward, yet here we are.
[...]
The Ministry of Defence has long been able to exploit the convoluted and confusing history of the Type 26s and Type 31s to hide from its failings. I will make it easy for the Government by posing three straightforward questions that I hope they will take in good faith and respond to appropriately.

First, and most simply, when will we see the national shipbuilding strategy? Secondly, the MOD has made much of 2017 being the year of the Navy, but 2023 is a much more appropriate choice, as that is when the MOD completes the purchase of 24 F-35B planes to fly from the carriers"

Much, much later:
"We asked how the carrier group will be secured when it is at sea. There was no reply from the Minister. We asked whether surface ships would be prioritised in the budget, and again, there was no commitment from the Minister."
- but we did get to hear that Gvmnt NSS will be out in the spring (April has been mentioned elsewhere; will it be on the day preceding a recess?)
- I suggest that all entering the premises on the day will be checked for any fresh eggs in their possession

One of the preceding posts had NSBS... which I immediately read as Non-Stop BS

BTW, what has often been said here was now stated in the Parliament (so it must be true):
- with the two training ships the current number is not 19 but 17

Not so fast, with the rolling T23 LEP one of them is in the dry dock at any given time
- make it 16

Reading between the lines (perhaps it has been stated somewhere; Donald seems to be on top of these things?) one is not even going to be upgraded
- makes sense as ripping out a newly installed radar is not quite as simple as swapping a gun turret to a different vessel

its not really reading being the lines, HMS Argyll will not receive CAMM, that has been the plan for a while now.

shark bait wrote:its not really reading being the lines, HMS Argyll will not receive CAMM, that has been the plan for a while now.

Really ??

ComDevFlot ‏@CdrePaulHalton Feb 5

HMS Argyll sails tomorrow after a full refit that sees her emerge as the @RoyalNavy lead Sea Ceptor trials unit

Feb 6

@RoyalNavy @RAdmAlexBurton HMS ARGYLL at sea again and begining the trials that will ultimately bring Sea Ceptor into service.


http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/hms-arg ... story.html

I also read (with Westminster news) that, the first 3 T23s getting CAMM, are
- Argyll
- Montrose
- Westminster

see http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... grade.html

Donald,

I cant remember where I saw the "news" that one of the T23s might skip the upgrades altogether (despite the fact that the first three of the T26s will receive new kit)
... am I dreaming, or have you seen something like that, too?

Yes, that was the plan. From memory, one of the GP T23's ( the oldest? ) was to go out of service without any upgrade. I guess that may have changed now that we are only getting the 8 ASW hulls.

For sure, one of the Type 23s is not going to get the new Diesel gensets, as only 12 sets have been ordered.

Not sure if the same will apply to CAMM, maybe no.

HMS Argyll got CAMM and was the first to get the LIFE-EX metal bashing and obsolescence removal process.

HMS Richmond, going into refit this year, should be the first to also get the new MTU diesels.

Defence Committee questions Sir John Parker on 28th Feb 2017

http://data.parliament.uk/writteneviden ... 48025.html