Off Topic Hull City Centre Public Realm Strategy

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
The Ukrainians can't simply throw men in there and treat them as disposable
like the Russians do
They already have being, plenty of videos of them dragging people off the street, why do you think tens of thousands of men have fled the country since the beginging of the war.

It's ok though because while Ukrainan men are dieing on the front line there going to be replaced by fast tracked migrant labour from Africa so it will have all of being worth while.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim the Tiger
If Argentina had waited a year or two, there was a good chance that Thatcher's government was going to give them the Islands anyway, to save costs. There had been a couple of years of discussions about it and the Islands were seen as pointless and expensive - the majority of the UK at the time hadn't heard about them, the government was cost cutting and Northern Ireland was draining the defence budget. Suited both countries to go to war at the time.

Realistically now, Argentina won't do anything without the ok from the US, because of debt obligations, and if the US ever oks it, the UK has no chance holding on anyway.
Yes true I read the book about the Falklands Island.
They where negotiating in the late 70s and getting towards an agreement.
Then the 1979 election happened and the talks didn't progress .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heimdallr
We don't.
We have....
6 sometimes functioning frigates.
5 sometimes functioning destroyers
2 aircraft carriers.
The rest are ancillary vessels (patrol, mine sweepers, survey vessels, etc)
In decline for decades.
Is it necessary to have more? Are there any naval conflicts on the horizon?

Russian and Chinese ships/subs have been encroaching in territorial waters for decades and if you're honest, no one wants to start a war with either.

If the UK had three times as many frigates/destroyers in service, they would have been mainly rusting away, the tech going out of date and sailing round doing training the last twenty years, costing the taxpayer hundreds of billions - who would willingly have paid this? What would these frigates have prevented?

A couple of Russian oil tankers sail over invisible borders to test the patience of politicians, and now many want a huge amount of money spent to 'scare' them off... Makes no sense.
 
Yes true I read the book about the Falklands Island.
They where negotiating in the late 70s and getting towards an agreement.
Then the 1979 election happened and the talks didn't progress .
Yes true. Can't remember who, but a couple of backbenchers kicked up a fuss and halted the transfer of sovereignty process, that the foreign office had pretty much negotiated. Then the invasion occurred and the Islands became politically useful.
 
Is it necessary to have more? Are there any naval conflicts on the horizon?

Russian and Chinese ships/subs have been encroaching in territorial waters for decades and if you're honest, no one wants to start a war with either.

If the UK had three times as many frigates/destroyers in service, they would have been mainly rusting away, the tech going out of date and sailing round doing training the last twenty years, costing the taxpayer hundreds of billions - who would willingly have paid this? What would these frigates have prevented?

A couple of Russian oil tankers sail over invisible borders to test the patience of politicians, and now many want a huge amount of money spent to 'scare' them off... Makes no sense.
No need, absolutely nothing going on around the world, or even around our shores these days :emoticon-0112-wonde

Not my specialist subject tbf, but a quick quote for context ".... during the Falklands campaign the RN had around 50'ish large warships, it currently has 20'ish. And whilst the ships that we have today are way more technologically advanced (as are other country's), they still can't be in 2 places at once. Bearing in mind that however many ships we have, at any one time at least a few of them will be in dry-dock?". If we didn't have our legacy nuclear subs we'd have fallen way down the league table. No critiscism of the brave men, but our forces are a shadow of what they were and what they need to be, given where we're at nowadays (not where we could be or should be in terms of a European Army, Nato, US relationship, etc), while the world has been becoming an ever more dangerous place.
I'll keep saying, we're in a bad place. The above plus, police overwhelmed, trading standards overwhelmed, most hospitals overwhelmed, doctors, dentists, prisons, ...... the list is endless. Meanwhile taxes, obvious and hidden, contine to rise at an unsustainable rate, along with cost of living, welfare bill, etc.
 
Last edited:
No need, absolutely nothing going on around the world, or even around our shores these days :emoticon-0112-wonde

Not my specialist subject tbf, but a quick quote for context ".... during the Falklands campaign the RN had around 50'ish large warships, it currently has 20'ish. And whilst the ships that we have today are way more technologically advanced (as are other country's), they still can't be in 2 places at once. Bearing in mind that however many ships we have, at any one time at least a few of them will be in dry-dock?". If we didn't have our legacy nuclear subs we'd have fallen way down the league table. No critiscism of the brave men, but our forces are a shadow of what they were and what they need to be, given where we're at nowadays (not where we could be or should be in terms of a European Army, Nato, US relationship, etc), while the world has been becoming an ever more dangerous place.
Imagine telling admiral nelson that in the future britain would need to rely on the french navy
 
No need, absolutely nothing going on around the world, or even around our shores these days :emoticon-0112-wonde

Not my specialist subject tbf, but a quick quote for context ".... during the Falklands campaign the RN had around 50'ish large warships, it currently has 20'ish. And whilst the ships that we have today are way more technologically advanced (as are other country's), they still can't be in 2 places at once. Bearing in mind that however many ships we have, at any one time at least a few of them will be in dry-dock?". If we didn't have our legacy nuclear subs we'd have fallen way down the league table. No critiscism of the brave men, but our forces are a shadow of what they were and what they need to be, given where we're at nowadays (not where we could be or should be in terms of a European Army, Nato, US relationship, etc), while the world has been becoming an ever more dangerous place.
I'll keep saying, we're in a bad place. The above plus, police overwhelmed, trading standards overwhelmed, most hospitals overwhelmed, doctors, dentists, ...... the list is endless. Meanwhile taxes, obvious and hidden, contine to rise at an unsustainable rate, along with cost of living, welfare bill, etc.

Another consideration is the lack of our merchant navy, many are now flagged abroad to save money leaving not very much to commission. Thinking of the Norland, QE2, the freighters, the tugs and such like.
 
The Navy debate is missing submarine warfare, there has been a big investment in replacing all our Navy submarines with new high tech Astute and Dreadnought subs, I know this as BAE build them and we were all offered jobs on the project at Barrow when manufacturing ended at Brough.
 
The Navy debate is missing submarine warfare, there has been a big investment in replacing all our Navy submarines with new high tech Astute and Dreadnought subs, I know this as BAE build them and we were all offered jobs on the project at Barrow when manufacturing ended at Brough.
Massive investment in Astute and Dreads subs and it's the change-over period from type 23 to 26 and 31 frigates. The 23s are nearly 30 years old, many unsuitable for use (HMS Northumberland?) and so being sold off or scrapped.

It's right now in the in-between period, so the navy is lighter than it should be - no different to any lull in naval history. It suits the hysterical media and certain influences to focus on the actual number of ships. May as well get upset that there's not an armed camel unit in case of desert warfare...
 
Massive investment in Astute and Dreads subs and it's the change-over period from type 23 to 26 and 31 frigates. The 23s are nearly 30 years old, many unsuitable for use (HMS Northumberland?) and so being sold off or scrapped.

It's right now in the in-between period, so the navy is lighter than it should be - no different to any lull in naval history. It suits the hysterical media and certain influences to focus on the actual number of ships. May as well get upset that there's not an armed camel unit in case of desert warfare...
Imagine telling T.E lawrence theres no armed camel division in the future
 
No need, absolutely nothing going on around the world, or even around our shores these days :emoticon-0112-wonde

Not my specialist subject tbf, but a quick quote for context ".... during the Falklands campaign the RN had around 50'ish large warships, it currently has 20'ish. And whilst the ships that we have today are way more technologically advanced (as are other country's), they still can't be in 2 places at once. Bearing in mind that however many ships we have, at any one time at least a few of them will be in dry-dock?". If we didn't have our legacy nuclear subs we'd have fallen way down the league table. No critiscism of the brave men, but our forces are a shadow of what they were and what they need to be, given where we're at nowadays (not where we could be or should be in terms of a European Army, Nato, US relationship, etc), while the world has been becoming an ever more dangerous place.
I'll keep saying, we're in a bad place. The above plus, police overwhelmed, trading standards overwhelmed, most hospitals overwhelmed, doctors, dentists, prisons, ...... the list is endless. Meanwhile taxes, obvious and hidden, contine to rise at an unsustainable rate, along with cost of living, welfare bill, etc.
So offer to take less pension and refuse healthcare then, GFAW - so more money can be spend on defence, on the off chance that Russia may invade.

In all seriousness, the future should be a combined security force operating for Europe as a geographical entity, where the cost is shared. A fully operational naval force on standby is too expensive for any other than a handful of countries to afford.
 
So offer to take less pension and refuse healthcare then, GFAW - so more money can be spend on defence, on the off chance that Russia may invade.

In all seriousness, the future should be a combined security force operating for Europe as a geographical entity, where the cost is shared. A fully operational naval force on standby is too expensive for any other than a handful of countries to afford.
According to AI we did have fifty back then but actually have 63 now
Not quite the same but as original minority said we have more subs
I know he won’t want to believe it he doesn’t like facts n stats and thinks he’s won when he puts his stupid laughing face on

And what are we actually needing more n more for? We aren’t at war or likely to be
Oh ye those immigrants he probably wants to use them on them
 
According to AI we did have fifty back then but actually have 63 now
Not quite the same but as original minority said we have more subs
I know he won’t want to believe it he doesn’t like facts n stats and thinks he’s won when he puts his stupid laughing face on

And what are we actually needing more n more for? We aren’t at war or likely to be
Oh ye those immigrants he probably wants to use them on them

Also according to AI

No, the Royal Navy has significantly fewer ships today than in 1982. During the Falklands conflict in 1982, over 100 Royal Navy vessels were deployed, with around 55 destroyers and frigates. Today, the total fleet is roughly 60–70 vessels, with only about 13-19 principal surface combatants (destroyers and frigates).

Key comparisons to the 1982 fleet:
  • Total Ships: Over 115-127 ships were available or deployed in 1982. Currently, active commissioned ships number around 63.
  • Warships: The number of destroyers and frigates has decreased from 55 in 1982 to only 13 as of 2026.
  • Submarines: Submarine numbers have also reduced, decreasing from 29 in 1982 to 10 in 2019.
 

Attachments

  • 1778061965342.png
    1778061965342.png
    981 bytes · Views: 2
Modern naval combat is mostly aircraft carriers, launching missiles and humanitarian crisis

Modern Jets and submarines take down ships so easy
 
  • Like
Reactions: SW3 Chelsea Tiger
Also according to AI

No, the Royal Navy has significantly fewer ships today than in 1982. During the Falklands conflict in 1982, over 100 Royal Navy vessels were deployed, with around 55 destroyers and frigates. Today, the total fleet is roughly 60–70 vessels, with only about 13-19 principal surface combatants (destroyers and frigates).

Key comparisons to the 1982 fleet:
  • Total Ships: Over 115-127 ships were available or deployed in 1982. Currently, active commissioned ships number around 63.
  • Warships: The number of destroyers and frigates has decreased from 55 in 1982 to only 13 as of 2026.
  • Submarines: Submarine numbers have also reduced, decreasing from 29 in 1982 to 10 in 2019.
AI slop at its finest. Of those 127 ships, only 43 were RN vessels.
 
Last edited: