rickusn

Im a bit disappointed with the lack of feedback.

But here are two more interesting articles complete with their own discussion board.

Scotsman.com News - Politics - Navy set to keep 30-year-old ships in service over £3.6bn carrier delays

Navy set to keep 30-year-old ships in service over £3.6bn carrier delays
JAMES KIRKUP
POLITICAL EDITOR (jkirkup@scotsman.com)
THE Royal Navy could be forced to delay the retirement of Britain's ageing aircraft carriers because of delays in the programme to order replacement vessels, the Ministry of Defence has admitted.

The decision would mean the mainstay of Britain's naval power in the next decade will be two ships which are both more than 30 years old.

The prospect of prolonging the life of HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal will only heighten concerns about the state of the Royal Navy.

Commanders led by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, have warned ministers they must spend more on the navy if Britain is to remain a global military power.

The next generation of navy ships will be built around two new aircraft carriers, which at 65,000 tonnes and 230-metres long will be the biggest military ships Britain has ever built.

But the £3.6 billion Future Carrier project has been hit by delays and bureaucratic haggling. The formal decision to place the contract to build the ships was first scheduled for 2003, but has yet to be made.

The carriers would be built in pieces, at yards including Govan on the Clyde and Rosyth in Fife, with the contracts securing thousands of Scottish jobs for up to a decade.

But despite suggestions from Labour ministers campaigning ahead of the Scottish Parliament elections next week, it is unlikely that the "main gate" contract decision for the new carriers will be made before the summer. Some fear the decision could even be delayed until after the Treasury's comprehensive spending review in October or November.

Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, is said to be putting growing pressure on the MoD to curb the costs of the project as he tries to manage tightening public finances ahead of his expected appointment as prime minister in July.

Earlier this year, the House of Commons' Defence Committee warned Britain could be left without a working aircraft carrier due to hold-ups in the carrier procurement process.

The first of the new carriers is officially due to enter service in 2012, but Navy officers and defence industry officials believe that is now impossible.

Now, a defence minister has conceded that the government may have to delay the retirement of the two existing Invincible-class aircraft carriers until the new vessels are available.

Illustrious, the flagship of the Navy fleet, has been in service since 1982 and, according to the MoD's current timetable, is due to retire or "pay-off" in 2012. The Ark Royal entered service in 1985 and is due to retire in 2015.

Now Lord Drayson, the defence procurement minister, has said those pay-offs may be put back because of problems with the Future Carrier problem.

"Our intention is for there to be, at all times, at least one ship operating in the carrier strike role until the first of the new carriers enters service," Lord Drayson writes in an MoD document seen by The Scotsman. "It is too early to say whether this will require Illustrious or Ark Royal to remain operational beyond present pay-off dates."

Lord Drayson also suggests the MoD is preparing to revise the delivery timetable for the new carriers. He states delaying the current ships' retirement "does not need to be addressed until we have determined in- service dates of future carriers".

Last night, the MoD said the "working assumption" for the delivery of the new carriers was 2012 and 2015, but conceded that a delay was possible.

• Britain and France should share the construction of the two new UK carriers and one for the French navy, Thales, a French defence firm, said yesterday.

The MoD said it was waiting for defence firms to agree a deal on carrier work before placing the final order.

MoD CHIEFS LOOK TO SCOTLAND FOR HOME PORT
BRITAIN'S next generation of aircraft carriers could sail from Scotland, Royal Navy commanders believe.

During an internal Ministry of Defence review of Britain's major naval bases, Faslane on the Clyde has emerged as a possible dock for the two new aircraft carriers.

The two serving aircraft carriers currently sail from Portsmouth, but the Naval Bases Review has sparked speculation that the English port, the traditional home of the Royal Navy, could be closed. That speculation will be fuelled by the review's provisional conclusion that it would be possible for the carriers to dock at Faslane, already the home base of the navy's nuclear submarines.

However, Faslane, officially called HM Naval Base Clyde, would require "changes in infrastructure" to accommodate the 280-metre, 65,000-tonne vessels.

The suggestion is likely to inflame the simmering political row over the future of the Royal Navy's UK facilities. The Naval Bases Review, started earlier this year, could see one of Britain's bases - Faslane, Portsmouth, or Devonport, near Plymouth - closed or downgraded.

Related topic

British armed forces
Scotsman.com News - British armed forces
This article: Scotsman.com News - Politics - Navy set to keep 30-year-old ships in service over £3.6bn carrier delays

Last updated: 24-Apr-07 01:01 BST

Comments Add your comment1. Edward / 1:56am 24 Apr 2007 The truth will come out after the elections
All the carriers will be built in France, the hint is already here ' Britain and France should share the construction of the two new UK carriers and one for the French navy, Thales, a French defence firm, said yesterday'
The french have advised the MOD that if all the carriers are built in France, there would be a saving of £ 500 Billion overall, enough to compensate the British yards for not doing the work

Report as unsuitable 2. Dragonhead, China / 1:59am 24 Apr 2007 Another 'cost cutting' exercise by a Labour Government, hell bent on destroying the Armed Forces, and consigning the UK to anonymity and 3rd world status. Gorgon Broon, Defence on the cheap! blood instead of iron! What a legacy to hand on to the next government!!! That will give the beggars something to think about!! Unconscionable Rogues, the lot of them. OUT, OUT, OUT!!

Report as unsuitable 3. Olympic Pole Vaultaire, Paddling pool / 3:26am 24 Apr 2007 Any chance of getting a couple of "Made in China" ships for two bob? that would save some cash.

Report as unsuitable 4. Conan, Here / 5:21am 24 Apr 2007 There is no reason why these 'Invincible' class hulls cannot be made to have a 50-year service life, with proper management and care.

However, that will all become unimportant to an INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND pretty soon, hopefully, as the future Scottish Naval Service/Coast Guard (all rolled into one agency) will have no use for such vessel or their expensive outfit of systems and aircraft.

Report as unsuitable 5. Groucho / 7:35am 24 Apr 2007 Why should Britain want to "remain a global military power"?
Britain hasn't been a global military power since the end of the second world war. Every war that we have been involved in, with the exception of the Falkland Islands, has been as a minor support for the USA.
In the Falklands we came close to being beaten by a tinpot dictatorship which was on the verge of collapse. We have to ask for USA approval before we scratch out backsides.
Why waste a fortune on taking war abroad?

Report as unsuitable 6. Ichabod / 7:59am 24 Apr 2007 Funny how one article talks up the Navy ability, and yet here we are hindering the very ships needed to make it effective in the future.

It's a funny old world.

Report as unsuitable 7. In the Dark, Waving not drowning / 9:04am 24 Apr 2007 I thought that the rumour was that Faslane was going to close due to the MODs concerns about Scotland gaining independence and rejecting the nuclear fleet?

Report as unsuitable 8. Ian C, Ian C, Fife ex RM / 9:06am 24 Apr 2007 Now there's surprise ! Extend the life of the carriers but will they have any aircraft ? Sea Harriers are already getting scrapped and the Joint Strilke Fighters are too big for these wee ships.

I know, let's use use Swordfish of WW2 fame !

Usual MOD (Ministry of Donkeys) stuff !

Report as unsuitable 9. von-Scharnhorst, Berlin-Preußen (Ex Bathgate) / 9:22am 24 Apr 2007 "That speculation will be fuelled by the review's provisional conclusion that it would be possible for the carriers to dock at Faslane, already the home base of the navy's nuclear submarines."
GREAT idea!
Put ALL your stratiegic assets in one basket.

Have they never heard of Pearl Harbour?

Report as unsuitable 10. Tormod, Auld Reekie / 9:23am 24 Apr 2007 The labour party attack other political parties about defense and jobs etc, they and the MOD have an appalling track record on service delivery.

Report as unsuitable 11. Lachie Todd, Edinburgh / 9:24am 24 Apr 2007 The United Kingdom is no longer a significant world power and only struts the world stage because it is a client state of the U.S.! This latest decision only confirms that the U.K. cannot afford to maintain a military infrastructure along the lines of a truly great power! Nowadays, it wouldn't be able to muster enough ships for a naval review at Spithead! The U.K. has a lop-sided defence policy which expends more on an unaffordable U.S. designed nuclear deterrent than it does on properly equipping its conventional air, land, and sea forces! The old cutting phrase "furcoat and nae drawers" comes
to mind! Lachie Todd

Report as unsuitable 12. danielrober, London / 9:24am 24 Apr 2007 I think its time we should have a serious national debate over the Royal Navy. Explaining the advantages that we all get from the senior service. As for the new carriers. Well if we can't afford to build them, how can we afford to maintain them. However, all i hear is what the government and MOD want.

I would like to know what the Royal NAvy wants. After all these are the people who are going to fight in these ships.

Could the Scotsman interview, senior naval staff?

Report as unsuitable 13. Hangem_flogem / 9:25am 24 Apr 2007 Ichabod said it: one article saying how wonderful and modern the navy is, and then this one telling us we'll have to make do with 2 old carriers for the next generation... As (s)he says: funny old world.
I don't think that a country with the gdp of the UK's can really afford to build 2 modern carriers - and equip them! Ian C said it: what bloody planes will we use?

Report as unsuitable 14. Paddy of Mass Destruction, Republic of Blairistan / 9:57am 24 Apr 2007 So, if we spend £3.6bn on these new carriers, will it stop british seamen being taken hostage by Iranians in speedboats?
Aircraft carriers, trident and the Eurofighter are relics of the cold war, and we don't need them anymore. When HMG has a problem, it is always the "Poor Bloody Infantry" who have to go and sort it out, and Noo Labour have shown scant regard for them in Scotland. What is needed is rifles that don't jam, proper body armour and decent vehicles, Not "Big Boys Toys" that look good on the shelf but do bugger all. Bliar and Broon should be spending money on what the armed forces want and need, not job creation schemes to buy votes in Labour heartlands.

Report as unsuitable 15. toryheaven.blogspot.com, Edinburgh / 10:18am 24 Apr 2007 The running down of our Navy is one of the great scandals of the New Labour Government. We shall all come bitterly to regret it. We are an island, and undervaluing the necessity of a properly financed, decent sized navy is a grave mistake. The Prime Minister should stop wasting huge amounts of taxpayers money on unnecessary rubbish, and plough it in to supporting properly our armed forces. Morale is at an all time low, and it is not hard to see why.

Report as unsuitable 16. Edward / 10:50am 24 Apr 2007 The voters in Govan and Rosyth, should be under no illusion, regardless of the outcome of the election, the carriers will all be built in France.
The French have changed there ideas on the construction and have put forward a cost saving to the UK Government of £ 500 billion, which will be used in part to compensate uk companies. This is the real reason the projects have been delayed as Labour know that anouncing this before the election, would wipe them out completely. But dont take my word, voters in Govan and Rosyth should be pressing Labour for an answer, workers should be pressing there unions to start pressing for some answers

Report as unsuitable 17. Calum10 / 10:56am 24 Apr 2007 The UK is no longer a global military power. These carriers will not be built.

Report as unsuitable 18. MadJockMacMad, Edinburgh / 11:01am 24 Apr 2007 Their home port might be Faslane? Is there an Election on?

Report as unsuitable 19. petrol head, Edinburgh / 11:03am 24 Apr 2007 #5: Groucho is right

The idea of Britannia ruling the waves is no longer the case.

The last time Britain had a proper navy was at the time of the Falklands and even then we had to rescue Hermes from the scrap yard to achieve the objective.

Once we lost the Type 21s (sold to India) and the Leanders (mainly scrapped) the Navy lost it's capability to mount anything like the Falklands again.

True enough that warfare has changed considerably since 1982 but our role now, as Groucho correctly says, is to support the USA on their campaigns.

This is something that Blair has been only too willing to do, but one wonders if the favour would be returned should the UK find itself under attack...

The planned new ships are geared to the support of NATO operations. They would not be suited to conduct any substantial campaign without NATO support.

What the Navy needs are several small frigates to replace the Leanders and more of the Type 23s to replace the Type 21s.

It's all very well having a couple of huge aircraft carriers and various other large capital ships like Ocean and Bulwark but if you can't defend them with frigates and destroyers, whilst at the same time prosecuting the conflict with other frigates and destroyers then you don't have an effective fighting force.

Report as unsuitable 20. John Jamieson, Edinburgh / 11:10am 24 Apr 2007 Bet that the French come up with a solution which results in the new aircraft carriers being completed in a French shipyard.

Report as unsuitable 21. cataibh, Ach yur seen it / 11:20am 24 Apr 2007 When I was in Co. Durham two weeks ago there were strong rumours going the rounds that the carriers would be cancelled and the announcement held back until after the May elections.

Report as unsuitable 22. Billy, Germany / 11:36am 24 Apr 2007 I also fear there is no way these ships will be built,
not in the UK anyway. It's part of the plan to render the UK forces incapable of operating independently.

It's the old European Army scenario again. Render your forces useless, then join the european army as a bit player. But hey, have you seen how much cheaper that would be. A national disgrace.

Report as unsuitable 23. Vaward, Perth / 11:40am 24 Apr 2007 If Britain hasn't been a global military power since the end of the second world war then why does it have the world's second largest defence budget?

The UK Defence budget in 2007/08 is some £33,447.00($ 65,470.02 USD). In terms of monetary expenditure, this puts Britain second in the world on defence spending. France is at about $58 billion (USD) for 2007/08

Another comparator is defence spending as a proportion of GDP. At 2.2%, we are above at the NATO European average. We spend about the same proportion as France and much more than Italy and Germany.

As for a decline in the navy, well - The Royal Navy is currently benefiting from a huge investment programme.

In the last decade twenty eight ships and one submarine have been put into service including a new Helicopter carrier HMS Ocean, two Albion Class amphibious assault ships, four Bay Class amphibious logistic support ships and three River Class patrol vessels.

To claim we could not prevail in a conflict such as the Falklands is wrong. Infact it's plain ignorance to suggest otherwise. In reality the RN is more capable of waging long distant amphibious warfare in 2007 than it was in 1982.

Report as unsuitable 24. Boy Wonder / 11:47am 24 Apr 2007 Hang on!!! This article and the previous one "Shipshape" are BOTH using the SAME picture!!!!

Didn't you have another naval pic in you library, or was this a time-saving exercise not to go searching for one??

Poor show Scotsman!!!

Report as unsuitable 25. Edward / 12:03pm 24 Apr 2007 #20 John Jamieson
Actually yes they have, they have advised that there would be a cost saving of £ 500 million to the UK
Life Style Extra...
also
'In February and March 2007 reports appeared in the French press stating that France was again urgently seeking a much closer industrial linkage between its PA2 project in order to achieve substantial cost saving for the two countries - this apparently including the manufacture at the Aker shipyard, St. Nazaire, of CVF superblocks or even their whole hulls. Based on previous hints from Thales, this website estimates that the potentials saving to the UK MOD of building the two CVF hulls in France could exceed £500 million. The French apparently propose that BAE Systems Surface Ship Solutions (formerly known as BAE Naval Ships) and VT Shipbuilding were compensated for the loss of work by being given a share of the total savings.'
Navy Matters | Future Aircraft Carrier Part 19

Report as unsuitable 26. Rab McClair, ON THE FLIGHT DECK / 12:31pm 24 Apr 2007 #23 VAWARD
Fact is that the Navy publicly concede that they couldn't repeat a latter day Falklands adventure. The Navy is down to a TOTAL complement of 14,000 personnel after the latest cuts, and we now have twice as many admirals (and Rear-Admirals) as we have ships.
The Falklands re-visited would still be about getting troops into theatre and we just don't have THAT capability either..........Oh, and many of the same Harriers c.1982 would still ahve to go back.
Sad but true !!

Report as unsuitable 27. Porry, Lower Saxony / 12:35pm 24 Apr 2007 What has happened to my question in the original #9? You could have answered it instead of simply omitting it and changing the caption that contained the form in question. (Languages are by no means static and therefore almost anything can change time passing, my dear journalists.)

Report as unsuitable 28. Allan (Glasgow) / 1:27pm 24 Apr 2007 23,

Dont know what planet you are on. The Navy now consists of the 25 destroyers and frigates, two ageing but available aircraft carriers with a third in mothballs, a helicopter carrier, two assault ships, four Trident missile submarines and nine nuclear-powered attack boats, eight mine countermeasures vessels, 17 small patrol and fishery protection boats, six survey and hydrographic vessels and 18 Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships manned by civilian crews.

The Navy now has fewer than half of the warships and submarines it could deploy in 1982, with just three small carriers, eight old destroyers, 17 frigates and 15 submarines and only 12-14 of the major warships from the surface fleet are available at any given time.

As was stated in another post, the navy themselves have admitted that they couldnt repeat the Falklands
effort.

Report as unsuitable 29. Alex the wandering flanker, repeat of the Falkands / 1:57pm 24 Apr 2007 Luckily Argentina is not in much of a position to stage a re-run either.

Report as unsuitable 30. Kenmac, Oban / 3:15pm 24 Apr 2007 Britannia used to rule the waves.
Now she waives the rules.

After the last debacle in the Gulf it is obvious that the present set up in Whitehall could not run a menage.

Report as unsuitable 31. Goat Boy / 4:53pm 24 Apr 2007 #19 Petrol Head:

Hermes also went to India and we renamed the INS Viraat.

The through deck cruisers where more like cruise liners when compared to awful state of the Hermes in its latter years.

Report as unsuitable 32. Mrs. Trellis, Devon / 5:05pm 24 Apr 2007 #24. Boy Wonder,
Actually it's very old navy trick, during WW2 we used to change the names of ships to make it look like we had moreships than we really had.
With the US Dollar on the floor at the moment against the pound.. Now! is the surely the time to make an offer for a couple of those slightly used American nuclear aircraft carriers they have mothballed. And lets face they owe us big time at the moment!!

On second thoughts, better make that one, as we haven't got the the planes or even sailors to man one, let alone two.

Mrs.T

Report as unsuitable 33. danielrober / 5:15pm 24 Apr 2007 # 32 Mrs Trellis

What a very good idea, why not ask for some other equipment at the same time. If we have to buy it from abraod then lets buy one that can be delivered on time.

I also deeply question an ability to save £500 million. Unless that is that the ship yards in France intended to build more ships. Maybe Italy and Spain are after new carriers in a decade or so.

Has the treasury calculated the potential loss of income from lossing a share of possible future requirements in the rest of world. Exports.

Report as unsuitable 34. Chief S, Edinburgh / 7:27pm 24 Apr 2007 Re #23

I'm due to go back on a T42 as a marine engineer, something I thought I'd never have to do when I left HMS Glasgow in 1996. The Blair government delayed the T45 programme as well as the new super-carriers.

As to the new River Class ships, these are owned by Vosper Thorneycroft and are on a 5 year lease by the RN. The Albion & Bulwark were brought into service years late and we had to attempt to keep the Intrepid & Fearless running as virtual wrecks.

Lack of investment coupled with the inability to conclude speedy contact negotiations means that whenever a ship programme begins they are already out of date, smart procurement indeed. The T23s are a classic example, cold war anti-submarine ships built in the post-communist era.

I've only a couple of years service left till I can grab my pension and run but still have to manage an under-supported engineering section manned by disillusioned staff.

Report as unsuitable 35. Chief S, Edinburgh / 9:20pm 24 Apr 2007 Re T45s & T42s

On taking power the Labour government ordered a Strategic Defence Review that was published in 1998. They also set up the Defence Procurement Agency in 1999.

BBC News | UK | Navy 'facing warship gap'

In 1999 the Defence Select committee queried the 8 year gap between the de-commissioning of the first T42, HMS Birmingham and the in service date of the first T45, HMS Daring (still not ready and not due in service till 2009 so the gap will be 10 years!).

An update of the 1998 SDR was done as 2002 SDR New Chapter which responded to the challenges raised by the War on Terror. This was watered down again in the 2003 Defence White Paper, Delivering Security in a Changing World (reducing the requirement from 12 ships to 8).

So far two T45s have been built on the Clyde with another now under construction in Portsmouth. The total has now been reduced to 6, half the original order!

This is only speculation but the Independent carried a story last month that the Saudis are about to place a £2 billion order for 2 T45s. They are likely to get our 5th & 6th ships whilst we try to keep the decrepit T42s operational.

The ships will be call Daring, Dauntless, Diamond, Dragon, Defender and Duncan. Call me cynical but I'm not sure that we'll see the last 2 ships.

Scotsman.com News - Scotland - Shipshape?

Shipshape?
STEPHEN MCGINTY

OUR first glimpse of HMS Albion is through a metal grille, one that's being relentlessly splashed by salt water and cold sea spray. The grille rises like a drawbridge at the front of the grey Landing Craft Vehicle and Personnel (LCVP: the navy loves its abbreviations), a troop-carrying vessel which seems to have been lifted from the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan. Today, instead of its usual detachment of Royal Marines, the LCVP is carrying members of Her Majesty's press, invited to tour one of the Royal Navy's flagships from its 21st-century fleet.

Over the next two weeks the waters off Scotland's west coast, from Arran to Cape Wrath, and around many of the islands in between, will become a battleground. Fighter jets will launch low-level assaults on frigates, killer submarines will track aircraft carriers, including the famed HMS Ark Royal, while helicopters will perform ship-to-ship rescues. This is all in the name of the Neptune Warrior training course, which takes place twice a year: this time, however, it will carry a special significance.

Every one of the 19 ships, 20 helicopters, 60 fixed-wing aircraft and 4,000 men and women involved will be reflecting on the 25th anniversary of the Falklands conflict, the last battle Britain fought alone. Yet the military message imparted at today's event is clear: a quarter-century on, Britain is better equipped than ever to defend itself at sea, following a £14 billion investment package which, in the past ten years, has resulted in 28 new ships, including the HMS Albion, and one submarine.

Once the LCVP is alongside the ship, giant steel cables are lowered, and the entire boat is efficiently hoisted up and secured to davits (the arms that hold lifeboats on civilian vessels), allowing us to step freely on to the ship's deck, where Rear-Admiral Tony Johnstone-Burt greets us. The Flag Officer for Scotland, Northern England and Northern Ireland, the Rear-Admiral is our host for the morning. After shaking hands, dispensing broad smiles, sprinkling everyone with a brisk, friendly "welcome aboard", he escorts our party along tight and sharply-angled corridors painted grey, through bulkhead doors and down narrow steel steps, until we reach the main storage deck, which resembles a massive car ferry hold. It is packed with heavy trucks, small military vehicles and a few dozen marines, polishing kit, and sitting atop huge rucksacks.

HMS Albion, which was launched in March 2001, and which weighs 18,500 tonnes, is a purpose-built landing platform deck ship, designed to carry troops as far as possible into combat across water, delivering them to smaller vessels, thence to take the short trip ashore. The LCVP on which we came aboard, and which is capable of carrying 30 marines, is the baby brother of the Landing Craft Utility (LCU), which can carry an 85-tonne Chieftain tank. Four of these tanks currently sit, one pair in front of the other, at the stern. As we wait and watch, the stern slowly opens and the ballast of the ship is adjusted to allow it to sink, the chamber to flood, and the first vessel to drive out.

Even here under a cold and rainy sky, the Rear-Admiral exhibits the excitable nature of a head boy at school. The Royal Navy, he says, is in great shape as the result of the government's investment over the past decade.

"The new vessels have created an incredible flexibility," he says, "from which we now have global reach and greater influence. We can swing from humanitarian work to peacekeeping to actual war fighting; onboard we have all the skills necessary - engineers, electricians, plumbers, even dentists."

When I put it to him that we often read naval "sources" insisting that the service is badly underfunded, he neatly pooh-poohs any such notion: "We have enough ships to do what we are being asked because of our capability. But if the government wants us to do anything more, then that will have to change."

His enthusiasm is infectious; his pride absolute. Even when questioned about the recent wave of poor publicity for the Royal Navy, following the Iranian captives crisis and subsequent media interviews for which those involved were permitted to accept payment, his smile does not waver.

"The Navy is very resilient. You wouldn't want me to talk about what the Secretary of State said," he says, referring to the Defence Minister, Des Browne's recent non-apologetic apology, "so I won't add to that, but what I would say is that the Navy bounces back. The sailor's morale is very robust."

As the LCU takes a few spins around the vessel, offering it a fine view of a military helicopter coming in to land, I speak to a number of local servicemen and women. Alanna MacLeod, 24, from Glasgow is a surgeon lieutenant who works as a Royal Navy dentist.

She joined up four years ago, after completing two years at Glasgow University. "I just couldn't see me operating as a dentist in civvy street. I think I would have died of boredom. You sign up knowing these things [such as being captured] can happen," she explains. "But I don't know how I would react."

Jacqueline McNeish, 20, from Lesmahagow, joined up just ten months ago and is now an engineering technician (weapons). Before joining the Navy she had been working as an apprentice electrician, and she decided that she fancied a greater challenge, as well as a chance to travel the world. "It's great fun. You do work hard, but it's with some great people."

This picture-perfect portrait of a naval career is punctured slightly by James Snowball, 22, a Bellshill boy who knows on which side his bread is buttered. Asked why he joined he explains instantly: "Pension - I want to retire when I'm 42." Yet his accompanying laughter suggests there may be more to his career choice than that.

After the LCU makes its way back to HMS Albion, the Rear Admiral slips away, leaving us to sample the legendary delights of naval cuisine: delicious pork chops and generous amounts of mashed potatoes - I have to admit, it isn't half bad.

Our "lift" back to dry land takes much longer this time: HMS Albion has sailed on "doon the watter" and so it's back on the LCVP to crash through the waves until Largs hoves into view. Our last image of HMS Albion is an arresting and memorable one: a helicopter appears to parallel park, moving backwards into its spot, secure on the ship's top deck.

After even a fleeting visit such as this one, I am left with the sense that, 25 years on from the fire and fighting of the Falklands, the Royal Navy continues to honour those that fell and to support all those who now stand in their place.

Related topic

British armed forces
Scotsman.com News - British armed forces
This article: Scotsman.com News - Scotland - Shipshape?

Last updated: 24-Apr-07 01:01 BST

Comments Add your comment1. Bret, New York / 3:47am 24 Apr 2007 Lord Nelson would have loved that amount of investment in his navy!

Report as unsuitable 2. Welcome Page. / 5:34am 24 Apr 2007 Fine pathe news style reporting

Report as unsuitable 3. Conan, Here / 5:34am 24 Apr 2007 The pension arrangement needs to be reviewed. it is ridiculous these days when people live so long to even think about having a 20-years's service retirement ..... it should be extended at least to 25 years, and more likely 30 years.

Report as unsuitable 4. Welcome Page. / 5:36am 24 Apr 2007 I feel the urge to shout spiffing and jolly good

Report as unsuitable 5. Jim A, East Calder / 5:55am 24 Apr 2007 #3 Conan, you said you said "The pension arrangement needs to be reviewed. it is ridiculous these days when people live so long to even think about having a 20-years's service retirement ..... it should be extended at least to 25 years, and more likely 30 years".
Well mate in the Armed Forces living that long especially in todays world is not guaranteed. Also after 20-22 years service believe me when I tell you that pension is well earned. If your young enough mate go give it a try, you'll soon see what I mean.

Report as unsuitable 6. Ichabod / 7:49am 24 Apr 2007 No problem with Naval pension agreements. 20 years in the Navy would deserve a good pension. Far too many leave the armed services and find great difficulty fitting back into civilian life.

In spite of the officers delight, I still think all sections of the armed forces are struggling today. Overstretched and lacking far too often equipment that is required.

Some things never change.

Report as unsuitable 7. Urban Clearway, Tyneside / 7:57am 24 Apr 2007 "the LCU takes a few spins around the vessel"

Hardly necessary. There's been no shortage of spin on that exercise.

Report as unsuitable 8. Dave From Barra, Western Isles / 7:58am 24 Apr 2007 We give a very large proportion of our wage over to our pensions during the service years. The contributions are reflected in our pensions. The living wage we recieve during service years is not great (well ok as a single guy as we get accomodation and food paid for but if you're married it's a slightly different story) but if we manage to make 20 year service then we deserve the pensions we get.

Report as unsuitable 9. Porry, Lower Saxony / 8:03am 24 Apr 2007 "four large landing crafts" ?

Just out of curiosity (and since I have read this in The Scotsman before), since when does the plural of "craft" take an 's'?

Report as unsuitable 10. Dick / 9:12am 24 Apr 2007 A ship is not measured by its weight but by its displacement.

This reporter needs to be shown the "golden rivet"..

Report as unsuitable 11. von-Scharnhorst, Berlin-Preußen (Ex Bathgate) / 9:25am 24 Apr 2007 "which can carry an 85-tonne Chieftain tank. "
CHIEFTAIN????

I thought they were all out of service now?

Report as unsuitable 12. Dave From Barra, Western Isles / 9:28am 24 Apr 2007 AISLiverpool - Current AIS for CLANSMAN

They are measured in tonnage according to this website which is a live tracking of current shipping in the uk waters.

Report as unsuitable 13. Jacqueline Hyde / 9:46am 24 Apr 2007 #1 Brett
Nelson's ships were expected to last a lot longer than today's tin boxes which seem to spend more time being refitted than afloat. However today's fleets are far more specialised and most of the investment is in electronics . . . the Victory just need the odd rub down with a Black & Decker.

Report as unsuitable 14. Halitosis / 10:08am 24 Apr 2007 English Navy to repel all Scots Boarders....lol...but they should have practised on the Thames.

Report as unsuitable 15. petrol head, Edinburgh / 11:24am 24 Apr 2007 #10: Dick

As you know, there are many and varied ways of measuring the "weight" of ship.

You can't expect Stephen McGinty to use the correct terminology. He's only a mere reporter!

Report as unsuitable 16. Rita / 1:21pm 24 Apr 2007 If Scotland is ever again invaded by sea, we can always tell them they can't land because they didn't spell anything right

Report as unsuitable 17. Salem / 1:22pm 24 Apr 2007 HMS Cornwall or any other British warship could have simply blown the Iranian motorboats that seized 15 British sailors out of the water.

Sir Alan West the former First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy explained the British rules of engagement, stressing, they were very much “de-escalatory” because we don’t want wars starting all over the place! And that is why our "chaps" were able to be captured.

Along with her sister ships Cumberland, Chatham and Campbell, Cornwall is slated to be mothballed as the British government does what no foreign enemy could ever do — sink the Royal Navy.

Two months ago, Britain announced that almost half its fleet of 44 warships will be mothballed due to budget cuts.

British naval forces have been so degraded it is doubtful they could pull off the Falkland Islands mission today.

This time next year the British navy that once ruled the waves will have a navy the same size as the punk nation of Belgium!

Britain’s once proud navy will be reduced to a river boat patrol and coastal defense force.

This is the reality of what has become of the Queen’s Navy, a navy with more admirals than ships.

The Scotsman article is a piece of jingoistic nonsense to make people feel good!

Report as unsuitable 18. Chamelion, Stranger things have happened at sea / 1:34pm 24 Apr 2007 If HMS Albion weighs 18,500 tonnes out of the water, then it displaces exactly 18,500 tonnes of water. If it weighed zero, it would have zero displacement. I weigh half a tonne, and therefore displace am awful lot of water in my bath.

Report as unsuitable 19. von-Scharnhorst, Berlin-Preußen (ex Bathgate) / 1:36pm 24 Apr 2007 12. Dave From Barra, Western Isles
They are measured in tonnage according to this website which is a live tracking of current shipping in the uk waters."

Gross registered tons for commercial ships, tons displacement for naval vessels.
A naval ship does not change weight beyond fuel and amunition depletion, a merchant vessel, however, can run empty, or full. A BIG difference.

Report as unsuitable 20. Baw heid, Holland / 1:53pm 24 Apr 2007 Gunboat diplomacy? Hallo, the Scottish election time is here, co-incident.Should have had a show
of force in Irak and saved the sailors.

Report as unsuitable 21. Dave From Barra, Western Isles / 3:32pm 24 Apr 2007 Yup, fuel and ammo depletion, staff, cargo such as warheads, bombs, missiles, jet planes, and other assorted army equipment and so on and so forth. Who cares.

Report as unsuitable 22. JRMS999, Edinburgh / 4:51pm 24 Apr 2007 More 'morale boosting' tripe from the seniors who run the navy.

I use to be a Royal Marine and had the displeasure of spending almost a year and a half at Faslane.

What a dump of a camp.

Combined with the lack of opportunities and treatment from others, who are supposed to be your comrades in arms. It's no wonder the armed forces have the manning problem it does.

As soon as the SNP close Faslane the better, what are nuclear weapons doing in Scotland anyway?

Report as unsuitable 23. Anne / 5:19pm 24 Apr 2007 Not sure I'd fancy visiting a dentist who had spent only two years at university.
I presume the Surgeon-Lieutenant actually joined up as a cadet officer while completing her studies!

Report as unsuitable 24. AlphaNEIL / 6:15pm 24 Apr 2007 This reporting is enough to make me vomit! The Chieftain tank is no longer in service and was not 85 tonnes as reported but 55 tonnes. I don't even want to waste my time *****ing about the poor journalism who couldn't even pass a comprehensive.

Report as unsuitable 25. Sambo, The deep south / 6:41pm 24 Apr 2007 The reason the sailors were captured, they were in a wee rubber boat and didn't want to make waves