HMS Daring

233 · 3 Feb 2006 at 12:49

not too many only a handful

theleg · 3 Feb 2006 at 12:52

sormicoft said:
not too many only a handful

Only article i could find on bbc said 150..but that was a few years back.

Lt. Manlove · 3 Feb 2006 at 12:54

Nana said:
WHO IS GOING TO ATTACK US?????

should I be living in fear? what do you all know that I don't?

For christ sake grow up you old boy. It's better to have and not need than to need and not have. You are exactly the type of person who would groan at the lack of defence if we didn't have a Navy.

Nana said:
shame that so many of you fail to see a larger picture of life, and that apparently no-one here can accept that it is possible for a nation to be peaceful and not at risk by choosing to be that way.

Yes it is possible, but very unlikely

I will stick a large sign in my street saying 'I am peaceful, please do not steal and destroy my assets because I have no security' and hope for the best.

pyro · 3 Feb 2006 at 13:19

lucasade1 said:
Well according to wiki we are 2nd behind the US and the largest in Europe This is based on tonnage.

Military, yes, but in commercial naval you are way behind, with a mere 885 ships, we have over 3,000 :cool:

Thus Greece > Uk.

edit: 3061 to be exact.

fatiain · 3 Feb 2006 at 13:37

pyro said:
Military, yes, but in commercial naval you are way behind, with a mere 885 ships, we have over 3,000 Thus Greece > Uk.

edit: 3061 to be exact.

REAL navy, not tugboats

pyro · 3 Feb 2006 at 13:49

Of course, all over 1,000T, if we include the smaller ones we are looking at 5 digits

fatiain · 3 Feb 2006 at 13:55

pyro said:
Of course, all over 1,000T, if we include the smaller ones we are looking at 5 digits

Real Navy > Merchant ships tbh

Quality > Quantity too

pyro · 3 Feb 2006 at 14:01

They two different things, not better than eachother! Plus quality and quantity > a few ships.

Nana · 3 Feb 2006 at 14:13

Nix said:
lol, you were saying Nana?

is that HMS Daring? no
Is that link relevant? no
[Removed] - No need to go there.

Otacon

SIAT · 3 Feb 2006 at 14:17

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13502344,00.html

And another link...

Thats a type 42 destroyer the same type that the Daring is going to replace in the future...

SCM · 3 Feb 2006 at 14:18

Nana said:
is that HMS Daring? no
Is that link relevant? no

Is it HMS Daring? No, but it could be seeing it is a multi-role ship and it could go anywhere while it waits on the carriers being built.

It that link relevant? Yes as it shows the role the Royal Navy does around the world with its ships in many different tasks.

SCM

wordy · 3 Feb 2006 at 14:20

Nana said:
is that HMS Daring? no
Is that link relevant? no

You said HMS Daring won't be used on anti drug ops. hes posting a link where an RN warship is used on anti drug ops, which Daring will end up doing because it will end up being deployed to the carribean it some point in the future

leaskovski · 3 Feb 2006 at 15:10

Another reason why we have to keep our navy up to scratch...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4676916.stm

So we can go and help people in need....

Britain has sent the warship HMS Bulwark to help and it will arrive in a day-and-a-half, the Royal Navy said.

Ex-RoNiN · 3 Feb 2006 at 16:28

Balddog said:
On a semi related note..Does anyone know how many F-35s we will be buying in total?

Probably none, since BAe are being refused access to mainframes, software codes and similarly important infrastructure.

Luseac · 3 Feb 2006 at 16:36

Balddog said:
On a semi related note..Does anyone know how many F-35s we will be buying in total?

150.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/jsf.html

malfunkshun · 3 Feb 2006 at 16:53

F35a/b or a mixture? (A for the RAF and B for the RN?).
In some aspects i prefered the Boeing X32, the fan system the F35b uses for STOVL must be an inherent weak point.
Either way, fantastic pieces of kit and a massive improvement over the ageing, but still amazing Harriers

iv-tecman · 3 Feb 2006 at 16:59

Nana said:
is that HMS Daring? no
Is that link relevant? no

Why do you continue to try and argue a point that has been beaten down by so many? They have all told you; these new Navy Warships are not a waste of money but a vital upgrade to our aging Navel forces. They are not only going to be used for defence or acts of war, but for other multi roles as well.

They have provided you relevant proof that the Navy are multi functional, the Navel forces of Britain are used for more then just showing any aggressor we can defend if need be. I see your argument as now pointless and irrelevant.

And whilst you now try and pick out faults with my reply, in attempts to knock what I say down, to try and prove me wrong, saying my post count is too low to have a say, all I see is someone with a view that is totally unfounded.

These vessels are bringing much needed pride to Britain, much needed help with the ever increasing fight against drugs etc, and also helping to defend the very land we live in.

I bet it now hurts, knowing that your tax money is helping to pay for this. Next you will be calling the Navel forces of Great Britain legalised racketeering. Sadly, they are a needed force, that does more then defend our shores. Deal with it.

Stolly · 4 Feb 2006 at 01:37

Balddog said:
On a semi related note..Does anyone know how many F-35s we will be buying in total?

Hopefully none. A navalised Typhoon would be better for the same money.