|
|
| [ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Maybe you are right but... | |
Author: Paddy (Scotland) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 20:01:51 12/02/04 Thu In reply to: Nick (UK) 's message, "Future Navy" on 17:50:04 12/02/04 Thu Like I have said before, a strong Navy is an insurance policy. Hindsight is a dangerous thing indeed. I would agree that since the implosion of the USSR a lot of our ships have been over-potent for their used role. I feel, though, that Britain's close ties (far from being merely historical and romantic) with the Commonwealth dictate that we must keep up sufficient forces to mount a serious expedition to a trouble spot anywhere on the globe (say, to counter an invasion of Australia - Oz sent an army to the other side of the world in our hour of need!). A few years ago a large mainly Royal Navy task force HMS Albion HMS Invincible HMS Iron Duke HMS Manchester HMS Sir Galahad HMS Sir Tristram HMS Sir Percival HMS Fort George HMS Fort Rosalie Commando Helicopter Force Headquarters 845 squadron Naval Air Station (NAS) (Sea-King) 846 squadron NAS (Sea-King) 847 squadron NAS (Lynx- and Gazelle) 849 Bravo Fleet Special Boat Service Task Group Headquarters 17 Port & Maritime Det RLC Brambleleaf Oakleaf Naval Home Guard AREA 1592: 4 Cutters was simulating an invasion along the coast of Norway. A small diesel/electric Norwegian submarine, whose commander knew the coast very well, "sank" amongst others: Invincible (the aircraft carrier), Albion (the landing command ship) and Iron Duke and Manchester (the only serious escort vessels present). For this reason, it is worth keeping a good number of capable escorts available. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ship titles in CANZUK Navies | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [Edit] |
Date Posted: 20:22:32 12/02/04 Thu Presently they are: Britain - Royal Navy - HMS Canada - Royal Canadian Navy - HMCS Australia - Royal Australian Navy - HMAS New Zealand - Royal New Zealand Navy - HMNZS [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Royal Canadian Navy? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [Edit] |
Date Posted: 20:24:57 12/02/04 Thu Jim, is there still such a thing? I thought that since the collapsing of the command structure, it had simply become Canadian Forces - Navy, or something similar? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Canadian Navy | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [Edit] |
Date Posted: 20:28:32 12/02/04 Thu In 1968, the Canadian Forces were merged - the RCN became the Canadian Armed Forces Maritime Command. They were all put in ridiculous green uniforms (I know I wore one - what an embarrassment). When Brian Mulroney's Conservatives came to power in 1984, he restored navy blue uniforms and brought back the title RCN within the unifed command structure. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: In that case | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [Edit] |
Date Posted: 20:32:16 12/02/04 Thu A letter is in order... There is no mention of the Royal prefix on the website Canadian Navy [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I have spoken to my MP (a Liberal) about that and will follow up | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [Edit] |
Date Posted: 20:46:45 12/02/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Quite right - these things are important | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [Edit] |
Date Posted: 21:35:32 12/02/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
|
Forum timezone: GMT+0 VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB: Before posting please read our privacy policy. VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems. Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved. |