"Why does everyone, including the dumbed down media, insist on calling all surface warships "battleships"?????"

Who ever played lightcruisers as a kid ? Anyone?, no we played battleships!!

I plan to be joining the navy and if i were to be around anybody saying what you have had jlc they would be in a wheel chair.

Hopefully you'll get in, that way at least you'll be segregated from civilised society for long periods.

so if some one told you he wished you and your colleagues died under tragic circumstances you would do nothing?

I would laugh at such an idiotic comment, rather than cripple them.

2 different mind sets and i hold the up most respect for armed forces personal, i may have been rash saying i'd put him in a wheel chair but i would clearly make it know how i feel!

I am glad not all submarines of the Royal Navy end up at the bottom of the ocean otherwise 2 generations of my family would not be here as my grandad served on subs in the 1920s as an asdic/wireless operator

you lot are actually arguing for a bunch of idiots in a giant nuclear powered/armed metal tube. Now that is ironic…

Oh well at least we'll all be able to sleep at night knowing that an extra 1000 square miles of Iranian desert would be incinerated in a potential future nuclear conflict thanks to the sub and the 'brave lads' onboard.

The astute class is not nuclear armed. You also go on to say that it is a waste of money and resources. Surely that depends on the job that the sub fulfils and since you can't correctly identify its weapons systems, I suspect that you don't understand how it will be employed either.

Whether you agree with its purchase or not and whether you agree with the role of the forces or not, I think that wishing the mass death of everyone onboard is hardly a proportionate response.

Clearly, there are people on here who know far more about the subject than I, but my view is that despite claims of being the ‘senior service’ the Royal Navy in recent years has been by far the least-distinguished of the three. In the past decade alone there has been controversy after controversy.

Last year, a RN sub managed to hit a French one in the middle of the Atlantic. A pretty big patch of water. Yet another crashed into an underwater mountain in the Red sea because someone used the wrong chart. A destroyer almost sank after running aground near Australia because yet again, someone couldn’t read a chart.

The two (probably soon to become one) aircraft carriers won’t be nuclear powered or possess steam catapults (a British invention ffs). Why not? Wouldn’t it be good not to have to rely on coming into port to fill up the tank every time it’s running low? I seem to remember harbours are not always the safest of places for big boats.

That Type 45 destroyer pictured a few pages back behind the new sub apparently can’t take corners too well and could very possibly topple over due to the top-heavy design where all the fancy radar is housed. Someone who was in a position to know, but probably not to say, told me that sea trials had shown up a number of minor issues in either the submarine or the destroyer (I can’t remember which) like water-tight doors wouldn’t close properly and it listed in the water. Pretty trifling niggles I guess.

Why join the navy? You sit in a metal box for 6 months at a time, pressing buttons. On the few occasions that you do come into contact with unfriendly forces, either passively observe as British citizens get taken hostage by pirates 100 yards away or make sure you’re smiling for the cameras as you work on your table tennis backhand in Iran.

I don’t begrudge them having expensive pieces of equipment. The men and women serving in our armed forces deserve the best that the nation can afford. What I do question is the ability and competence of the people running it. At the moment, it’s an embarrassment.

Clearly, there are people on here who know far more about the subject than I

Having read what you have just said, you'd be right.

BBC2 sunday night 21.00 hrs a programe about the giant spam can that is that submarine.

So because the navy has made some mistake you feel they should no longer be the senior service?
I would also like to remind individuals that they royal marines and special boat squadron fall under the senior service.

Does every one easily forget about what the 4 royal marines did when they strapped themselves to the outside of an Apache ah6h longbow to search for a lost colleague?

and the raf and army have both made some huge blunders! but they are performing incredibly well under the circumstances!

Time to finish your homework then off to bed 4XJ. Night night.

pardon?

Last year, a RN sub managed to hit a French one in the middle of the Atlantic. A pretty big patch of water

Hmmm, apportioning blame. Who's to say they didn't hit us. Secondly the ocean isn't that big when you consider all subs like to hide in the same geographically suitable areas

The two (probably soon to become one) aircraft carriers won’t be nuclear powered or possess steam catapults (a British invention ffs).

Why would you install a steam system on an otherwise al electric system. Perhaps we're waiting for advances in electric catapults?

That Type 45 destroyer pictured a few pages back behind the new sub apparently can’t take corners too well and could very possibly topple over due to the top-heavy design where all the fancy radar is housed.

I work on one and have sea trialled the most recent one. They turn just fine thanks. Less likely to topple over than most ships, the relationship between centre of gravity and centre of buoyancy is better than previously. The radar doesn't weigh that much and the reason the width (beam) of the T45 is so large is to accommodate the weight at the top of the mast.

Yes we hit a rock near Auz and yes the hostage thing in Iran was an embarrassment but we're not all like that. I bet your individuals in your company have made mistakes too, should we assume you all behave like that?

Why join the navy? You sit in a metal box for 6 months at a time, pressing buttons.

Wow, just wow. Completely inaccurate generalisation in every respect.

The two (probably soon to become one) aircraft carriers won’t be nuclear powered or possess steam catapults (a British invention ffs).

The aircraft that will supposedly fly from the carriers will be flown by the RAF whose requirement is to have these aircraft perform the same role as the Harriers were originally intended, thats why the version we may be buying is STOVL. A bit pointless these days if you ask me.

The carriers have space on board for cat and trap and there's space for an extra gas turbine to power it.

Thanks Mintman, that was a comprehensive rebuttal! Interesting to hear the extra detail about the destroyer and the carriers.

Perhaps poor taste to question the professionalism of our sailors on Armed Forces day so apologies for any offence caused through my ignorance.

My view might also be tainted by the fact I find submarines pretty scary. Something about the sinister appearance and lack of windows. Brave men and women who serve on them – I couldn't do it.

Off to eat humble pie on my road bike for a couple of hours 🙂

Glad u found the post interesting. I really don't mind views that differ from mine but like to present my point of view, that's the nice thing about a forum I guess. If we agree to disagree then that's fine by me too. Glad i could add some clarity about T45 though, it's the one thing inreally know about!

If armed forces day encourages people to talk about the value of our forces these days (in a positive or negative light) then I think that's good too.

Submarines aren't my cup either and I'm damn glad I don't work on one! I like windows and daylight too much!

Just so you know there is a 3 part documentory on the making of the astute

Program on BBC 2 Scotland right now!