Now I must ask, what’s the BNP policy on the military? Will it increase manpower and such or what?

Savings made elsewhere will be more than enough to fund our Armed Services, the Service Personnel and their families - Ed

This is all part of the plan of destruction and sabotage. They are grinding everything that made us great right into the dirt.

An ideal topic for discussion on the news forums found here…

The WebMonkey ; )

Is this right? We have ZERO Battleships and ZERO Cruisers? Look at Russia and the economic hardship they faced yet they wouldn’t dream of having zero anything. And remember what was in the news only last week, China is building up secret submarine bases on its coast.

The answer to Freddage91 is (as I understand it) the BNP is committed to armed neutrality - that is developing our armed services to the extent as to be capable of adequately defending the British Isles and our interests overseas. The BNP does not believe in arms for arms sake - but in Britain being able to defend itself as an independent nation.

“…can only be because of the dedication of the Jolly Tars, men and women, who remain as stalwart and loyal as ever.”

Loyal to what? To multicultural Britain? Our military personnel are more likely to come up against ‘British’ Pakistanis as enemies than as comrades at arms. Loyal to the Queen? That head of State who resided over the colonisation of her own nation and then, from a lavish tax-funded palace, told the inconvenient natives that they’d better bloody well tolerate it. Loyal to their units? New Labour have disbanded units whilst in theatre and have spent only half of the minimum recommended GDP on the military whilst ensuring that it mirrors the decadent ‘diversity’ circus of civvy street. As much as I respect and love our military, it has been truly shafted by some of the worst traitors this nation has ever seen.

A thoroughly disgruntled ex-military man.

This pathetic government will as we speak be looking to buy white flags to wave. With a groveling message in every language under the sun.

99 ships total, how many Admirals I wonder? In the days when we did indeed rule the waves, it was managed without income tax. Now it seems when we do build a new ship nothing special just a Frigate, the cost is multipuls of tens of millions of pounds. Back to Admitals. Does any one out there know the answer.

Re Tony Rogers comment. What does the queen do for us since she has failed on her promises to the British indigenous and as leader of the C of E? What good are the royal family full stop if the original reason for us having them is not being performed?

There was an item in the news about three weeks or so ago, seemimgly kept very low-profile, concerning the closing down of a BAE munitions factory in Somerset resulting in us having to source those munitions from abroad (in common with practically everything else these days) No doubt all part of the great master-plan to make us totally dependent on others. I believe the Americans weren’t best pleased as they were customers of this BAE factory. Can anyone shed any further light on this closure?

-

http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/mostpopular.var.2159743.mostcommented.sad_day_as_firm_sheds_workforce.php
- Ed

Our Queen seems to have behaved just like the character of Robert the Bruces dad from the film Braveheart, self interest first, freedom of the people…..who gives a s*** about the people. Unlike all our forces in the wars of our history that have laid down their lives for king or queen and country, our queen or royals will not attempt to protect us in any way. All she has to do is say the words.

Just how much aid did we give to India last year. £800 million I’ve heard. India, one of if not the fastest growing economy in the world. That can afford an independent Nuclear Weapons Programme and an independent Space Programme. I wish we could afford either of these or at least boots for our foot soldiers that don’t fall apart in the desert heat!

That area of cuts is just one thing. I am based a 580 transport squadron RLC (T.A.), and we have landrovers that are 20-30years old. We have hardly any new vehicles, in fact none. I respect the fact that we are T.A. but if we have to do a job, then we need up to date proper equipment.
One thing I will say for the Yanks, they get their deserved support off their government, which is more than what can be said for our lunatics in parliament.

Your link to the bridgewater mercury proves that this government want to leave us defenceless.
No munitions no fight. Not much chance of a coup. Trapped and helpless.

-

Thats their intent. Defence inverted to surrender.
Remember the ban-the-bomb lot, CND?
Well, they’re now in power.
The CND symbol is inverted. - Ed

When it comes to the armed forces, we are used to getting caught with our pants down. Now, we look like being caught completely naked. Nothing will convince me that all this is not part of a secret agenda to completely remove all means of defence and so leave us open to a takeover by European forces. TRAITORS THE LOT OF THEM!!

Perhaps part of the rationale is, ‘what’s the point of a navy when your enemy is free to invade UNDER the sea?’

—
The EU wants to take control of our nuclear deterrent as well. - Ed.

Put it this way, the armed forces are really p***ed off with the government, I would like to use stronger language, but it would be unsuitable. I was on face book and I searched BNP, and the first thing that came up were British Soldiers.

Doors, generals, in, kick, the.

Way, the, look, other, will, we.

Slaves, never, Britons, be, shall.

The French Navy is very much larger than the Royal Navy. France is the leading EU power, and sees the EU as the means to diominate Europe once again, correcting the historical error of Napoleon’s final defeat at the hands of the Allies in 1815. Accordingly, our Quisling political establishment has been instructed to reduce the Royal Navy to the size of a fisheries protection force, so that in the event of the BNP gaining a popular mandate to form a government, the EU can intervene militarily. For the EU to ferry forces to Britain in sufficient numbers to cowe the population, it is vital that France control the Channel with her navy.

Looking at the list it is quite disapointing to see that so many ship’s have been lost due to tax-cut’s but to point out two flaw’s in this assesment,
50 year’s ago there was a great problem with mine’s in the sea today there is almost none(to my knowledge), minelayers i think may be ilegal to day and in a war anyone useing them would face international condemation for there use,
And not to upset anyone here why would we need so many ship’s today we needed that many 50 year’s ago to maintain the british empire, today there is no empire and to have that many ships would be a waste of taxpayers money and we simply do not have the manpower to suport such a fleet. i myself am dissapointed in this but as far as i know those are the fact’s if iam wrong please let me know.

They are simply waiting for 2009, when as far as they are concerned, Britain no longer exists. This wind down has taken place since the days of Eden and Macmillan and Co in the mid fifties. Macmillan told the nation that ”You have never had it so good”. What he meant of course is that, you’ve never been in so much debt. This debt has created what we have now, and enslaved our armed forces, and other institutions. The Armed Forces are to wound down through lack of funds, and to be replaced by the EU forces etc.

The British armed forces are now set up to perform 2 roles…

1) To deliver humanitarian aid to 3rd world countries.
2) To be used as target practice for the americans.

I think their latest acquisition was a load of american made unarmed transport planes…

Regarding the munitions factory closure, just remember the traitorous MP`s who voted for a ban on landmines…
China, Russia, USA etc, still make and export them, but we can sleep safe at night in the knowledge that our weapons wont be maiming or killing anyone, even if it means we cant defend ourselves and puts our people on the dole!

I know some may slate me for saying this but I don’t think we need a large navy these days. Everytime we get pushed into a conflict it’s the Army & Air Force that do all the work.

Ps the Battleship was obsolete when the aircraft carrier arrived.

Defiant: You are right about battleships (and cruisers), but the number of frigates and destroyers and submarines is unacceptably low, to put it mildly.

I thought that the one good decision Blair made, was to insist on the upgrade/continuation of Trident. Then I realised, this was probably intended to be handed over to his precious EU.

We do not actually possess any aircraft carriers at all; what we have is three through-deck anti-submarine cruisers that also carry a few fighters. I believe the real aircraft carriers that are planned one week and unplanned the next etc. are over-the-top in terms of operational requirements, use huge chunks of the budget which could otherwise be used to beef up the entire Fleet, and could prove to be vulnerable. (You could sink half the Navy with one torpedo or missile.)

We should always put practically and cost-effectiveness ahead of any considerations of ‘prestige’. We need more patrol boats, submarines and frigates to defend these islands from increasingly assymetrical threats - rather than huge floating airfields. In my opinion.

apendragon the most powerful ships in the world today are the Nimitz class carrier’s & Britain has two aircraft carriers on order which will be close to them!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier

The only problem with those is they’ll be partly French (of course no back handers involved in that)

I agree with some posts about not needing a sucha big Navy Fleet these days, but one thing we should not forget is that we are still and island…… When we do manage to break down this headlong march turning us into surrender monkeys to the rest of Europe, we will still need to defend our “Home Land” and other parts of our ever so small empire such as “The Falklands, Gibraltar and the Channel Islands”……..

We do and will need our own Navy, it needs to be big enough to fight off another attempt by the likes of Argentina to take the Falklands, as you can bet they are keeping a close watch on our ability to defend ourselves and our terrotories……….

As with all the sections of our armed services, we need our boys to come home and be ready to defend our Land and not someone else’s……………

Defiant: There are other probs with these carriers that I will not go into. Of course the big carriers are powerful, but they’re not much use against fleets of illegals floating on old tyres, or the pirates who will soon be turning up off our coast, or drug smugglers in speedboats.

We need to drastically increase the number of patrol boats, and we need to invest in a couple of hundred new helicopters (and pilots) at least.

It’s the close-in defence of these islands that I see as the priority. And - thirteen submarines for, how many miles of coastline?

Green Vista: We’ll just pull the plug out!

The Queen’s even dressing like a muslim these days, as she supports Turkey’s entry into the EU. 60 million muslims coming to a street near you. What a treacherous betrayal of her coronation oath. It’s her treachery that’s hardest to stomach. We know politicians come and go, but I for one never would have believed this from her. We’ll have to pray the Irish see sense.

—

HM is being very astute by delaying the royal nod to the EU Constitreaty until after the Irish have voted in a referendum on June 12th. - Ed

Billy I think you’ll find the Turkish population is just over 70 million and a poll carried out a few years ago showed half would emigrate into the Christian west if they got into the EU

The state of todays navy is actually worse than the above figure would have you believe, for example of the “3″ Aircraft carriers in todays navy, Since 2002 only one is used at any given time.

The navy’s 2 new Super Carriers (CVF) will arrive late and although at 65,000 tonnes each they will be big enough to carry “36″ FJCA (F35 future joint combat aircraft) and “4″ Merlin helecopters, In truth there will only ever be one of these vessels at sea at any given time, and it will only carry a dozen F35’s in peace times because of cost , except for the occaisonal jamboree every 2 years.
The navy needs 3 Aircraft carriers, Why? because this would guarantee that there would always be 1 in service, 1 in reserve and 1 in refit. This is how they operate the escorts (3 ships for ever 1 in service)
Of the 2 assault ships (albion and Bulwalk) Only one is ever in service, they dont even have LCAC (hovercraft) to take troops and equipment ashore, instead our troops lives are put at risk in tiny landing craft that offload equipment in shallow water when investment in LCAC would allow us to take equipment straight from the ships onto the shore and inland. (didn’t we the British invent the hovercraft).

Battleships did obsolete with the arrival of the aircraft carrier, but the grate thing about the battleship is the huge guns they carried, The opening shots of the first Gulf war in the 90’s was from the US world war 2 Battleship Missouri, She could sit safely 15 miles out to sea and pound the beaches where the first landings of the gulf war were to take place (The first time she had fired these guns in anger since Korea in 1953). My point is a battleship could pound an enemy shoreline from way out at see continually.
Escorts (Destroyers and frigates) For the first time ever we now have less escorts than France,

Patrol boats - Look at what happened with Iran, such an embarrasing for the Navy having its sailors paraded on Iranian TV, if they had Patrol boats (Such as the CB90) this would never have happened. What the CB90 can’t out gun, it can out run.

We also have the Falkland Islands Shelf to consider, Drilling for oil is now to start in the Falklands. An estimated 60 Billion barrells of oil lie beneath the Falkland Islands shelf and the Argentine government which still claims the “Malvinas” as it calls the islands, and their oil fields as its own, are looking jealously at the situation. Surely this alone is a good enough reason to have a strong Navy.

MW

An aircraft carrier is a thing of prestige, and I have to say that it is something that we do not need in this modern world. Gone are the days when Britannia ruled the waves, and gone are the days for needing a large Navy.
Our sea presence worldwide can be more effectively represented by frigates and destroyers : big guns have been replaced by missiles and the guided missile cruiser now packs more firepower than a battleship ever could. It is also a smaller target.
Where I fear for the Navy is that, should the two carriers go ahead, they will rob the service(s) of funds for decades. Don’t forget that it is not just the cost of the ship but an entire air force that must be maintained. And with the Navy the size that it is I fear that we do not have enough support ships to maintain (and protect) two large carriers.
It is true that the Army and Air Force are bearing the brunt of our current wars, but the Navy has historically been this Island’s saving grace.
Something that the current crop of politicians forget in their headlong grab for EU suicide.

—

Now, Britannia just waves the rules! - Ed

fgthfgth said “Look at what happened with Iran, such an embarrasing for the Navy having its sailors paraded on Iranian TV”

Perhaps if the Lynx helicopter that was in the air at the time warned them or god forbid opened fire at the enemy they wouldn’t have been captured ;)

baz

99 ships (well, that includes things like coastal patrol boats etc, so it might be more accurate to say 99 vessels). 33 admirals.

So one admiral for every three vessels.

http://tinyurl.com/37jgzo

I should think the numbers would be somewhat similar for Air Marshalls/squadrons and Generals/regiments.

So we have a paltry 99 ’ships’,does anyone know how many are actually seaworthy at any one time.I am sure that i read somewhere that a quite large pecentage of our navy is in dry docks etc.
Should be interesting to find out if our Navy is up to the task of defending our Nation.

—

They could probably defend the village duck ponds - Ed

The cuts in our defence budget and numbers of fighting personnel must be reversed, but sensibly. I noted from reading the recently recommended book Squandered that most expenditure goes on civil servants in the MoD - that should be dealt with properly.
I’d suggest forming a British Indian Regiment for assimilated Britons of Indian culture/descent. After all, we do have links to India, they are useful people and Hindus and Sikhs are no threat to our identity, but are aware of the threat that we face (recent bombings in India).

Bring back the hovercraft into naval service! A fine British invention!

It gets better every week. Yet another Nulab success story. Fifty years ago we had comparatively little immigration and the RN had 17 patrol boats.
Now we have unfettered immigration and the RN now has 18 patrol boats.Lets all celebrate!

Ed, do we still have any village duck ponds? Do we even have any of our traditonal village greens left,or have they all been built over to provide housing for our multi-cultural ‘enrichers’?
Would a BNP government rebuild our once proud Navy?

-

Hi, Ghost2054,
Yes, there are plenty of ye olde village greens left,
and yes, the BNP would certainly rebuild our Navy. - Ed

ciobair
Ah! but are all eighteen patrol boats in the wet stuff where they should be? Don’t celebrate to early!

By the time the BNP gains a mandate to govern, it might be too late to defend Britain. I should hope that over the next few years (supposing we are not banned in the meanwhile), as we gain more and more political clout, that we might be able to form a coalition government with the minority parties, well before we receive an outright majority; we need the time to prepare our Navy, building many more destroyers and frigates with surface to air and surface to surface missiles, so that we can defend our island nation once we gain outright power, and face the inevitable aggressive military response from the EU.

How would a BNP government go about rebuilding our Armed Forces?

#1, We want to maintain a professional volunteer army that is the best in the world. Yet I would welcome National Service for idiots.

#2, Weaponry - The M.O.D. has just spent millions on upgrading the L85A2, now it only has the same problems as any other assault rifle, regards stoppages. I was on exercise, my rifle got quite mucky, while out there, and it still fired. It is the most accurate assault rifle in use. I cant say to much due to the O.S.A.

#3, 20-30 year old vehicles?

#4 What about the Middle East. Yes we are not wanted there. Though you can’t just pull out of a warzone. It takes time and preparation, (something that Blair should have sorted).

Withdrawing from Iraq, should be a case of joint effort with the Yanks. Because we leave Basrah, and with the Iraqi forces being how they are, the Americans will be cut off. You don’t abandon comrades in arms (even if they are American).

Also I feel, we have duty to the Iraqi people to clear up the mess we have created.

The is no such thing as 5 min operation in war. Another thing, never let the media know what intentions are as the enemy will be watching and attack.

Let the generals do their job, and make the decisions. No offence, but when it comes to military matters, civvies and politicians haven’t a clue.

#5 The Saudi deal with BAE, what you do about that?

Read Askari’s two posts, 2.08 a.m. and 7.07 p.m.. There you have the reality, in a nutshell, short and precisely to the point.

We need more submarines fitted out with cruise and trident missiles…
Aircraft carriers are a waste of money…

FALCONS 1988 suggests conscription for idiots.Thats fine,but what use are idiots to a professional outfit like the British armed forces?? This will make the PC bunch of softly,softly twerps throw up their collective arms in horror,but first,the “IDIOTS” will have to have all the badness KNOCKED out of them, and sense KNOCKED in before they become worthy of wearing the uniform.After years of listening to these no good fools,we still refuse to admit that these “mothers little darlings” do not respond to kindness and sympathy,which is why there are so many of them over filling our”HOLIDAY CAMP”prisons.I think it makes far better sense to look after our service men and women and we could start by replacing some of the obsolete junk they are issued with and giving them the modern equipment they need and deserve.