New frigate

“Tim said- 'A frigate here or there will make no different to piracy. The shipping companies need to take responsibility for their own security. We can't escort them all for free."

Yes if I ran a shipping line I'd arm my crews with automatic rifles, and mount a few heavy machine guns and 20mm cannon on the superstructure with the orders to put shots across the bows of any suspicious approaching vessel to warn them off, that's all it'd take to deter pirates, no need to kill them .”

“Lester said- 'Britain's households would soon notice if the ships that bring our imports of food, consumer goods and fuel, failed to arrive at a UK port every few minutes of every day. Retail shops' shelves would soon be nearly empty, as would the local filling station and soon the car's tank and the bus. Heating in winter would become tricky, too"

That's being overly pessimistic mate, as much of that stuff could be produced in Britain then there'd be no need to ship it in..:)
For example I bought some apples the other day and when I read the stickers on them at home with a magnifying glass they said "Produce of New Zealand"!.
Don't Brit farmers make apples any more or what? Also, the ship that brought them halfway round the world must have used up a lot of fuel and caused pollution from its funnel, it's a crazy world!”

“Much cheaper to adapt the Royal Barge, crew it with ex-navy officers and send it off around the world.

I'd have a bit more sympathy for those who yearn for the good old days when the fleet could steam off anywhere and threaten jonny-foreigner if I didn't read constantly about how much money the armed forces waste by dire procurement practices. It seems that they always fall for the first salesman who promises them the most expensive and inappropriate weaponry available.

Furthermore, when they have been required to front up their attempts have been comical - remember when the Mr Bean lookalike and some of his colleagues were captured by the Iranian navy a while back?

I'm rather proud that we are civilised enough to still be spending money to help people who are less fortunate than us, its a sign that we are caring - akin to the Olympic spirit.

Rick O'Shay
Zog”

“So you would punish the millions of poor people in India because their government wastes some money?
Should we all stop giving to U.K. charities because our government wastes some money?

A frigate here or there will make no different to piracy. The shipping companies need to take responsibility for their own security. We can't escort them all for free.”

“As for India hoe can we possibly justify giving them millions in aid when they are engaged on a space programme costing £1billion and spent £250million on a Grand Prix circuit?
As for the merchant navy were it not for them the task force in 1982 would have been a sorry sight indeed. And in the 2nd World War they were as important as the Royal Navy in keeping up supplies without the weapons to protect themselves.”

“Oh dear, Nevman. I don't consider £280m peanuts - that is the view stated by an Indian government official. You have chosen to misread my letter.

Frigates are not toys for admirals - a childish statement that serves to undermine the rest of your comments. You are almost certainly wrong to claim that the Navy has demanded nuclear-armed submarines: the Navy mans and runs them, of course, but they are a government requirement.

95% of our trade goes by sea and the government has a duty to safeguard the sea lanes. I don't want the Navy to have any more frigates than necessary but the number in the fleet now means that the UK is not playing a proper part in policing the seas.

I'd happily see some of the other parts of the defence budget cut to provide the frigates necessary to protect sea trade. My views have nought to do with any wish to be a world power (such a wish is nonsense) but are concerned with the fundamental day by day activity of any Navy - protection of trade. Some countries - islands - rely on sea trade more than others and ours is one that does rely more - and relying on others for the protection of that trade is fine to a point but we must play our part sensibly. We also have 14 overseas territories, all but one islands, in distant oceans - their defence is our responsibility too.

It is naive to think that trouble is not afoot: there will likely be wars over food, water or oil in future years - there are too many people and too few resources on the planet and trouble brews ... war is a likely result. But I am not scaremongering at all, merely pointing out that our just-in-time economy relies of ships arriving at our ports safely, and in a timely fashion.

I am certainly not encouraging armed forces of a size larger than necessary and your remarks about self-aggrandisement are insulting. I would not be happy if any government spent more than necessary on defence but the defence mix is now nowhere near right. Most of us who served - or who serve - fully understand the role of our armed forces and silly, insulting, remarks, like yours, add nought to the debate.

I am not suggesting imaginary mass closure of the sea lanes, either, but were the Strait of Hormuz closed even for a short time you'd soon notice. There are plenty of other choke points as I mentioned. The Navy is an insurance policy and one has to decide how much to spend on insurance but my feeling is that we are not doing enough; your view is different. Time will tell and I hope you are right.

There is room for saving in Whitehall across the spending departments. National impoverishment, as you call it, could be avoided more easily were we to smarten up, work smarter, learn smarter and not cheat the system as so many do. We spend £1bn a year cleaning up our streets, mostly because no one challenges litter louts any more - and no one arraigns them and fines them. We waste money on TV Licensing when the BBC could be paid for by hypothecated income tax. I would question the £7bn we spend on the RAF - why so much?

I could go on but I think it fair to say that our island trading nation needs a navy commensurate with its activities in this dangerous world. I am sorry you seem not to agree.”

“A very succinct article,and very true. The power to protect our trade routes,especially the sea lanes upon which this country depends is vital,and I cannot understand those who do not wish us to have the assets with which to do so,unless they have a different agenda.
To say there is no threat is sheer foolishness.

As for India,they manage to maintain a nuclear option,yet still hold out the begging bowl which we continue to fill. It is not the UK armed forces that are skewed in their thinking.

Great Britain first,and foremost. UKIP can,and will make it so.”

“You may consider £280m peanuts, Lt Cmdr May, and maybe the Indian government shares your view. But the fact remains that £280m makes a big difference to a lot of human beings. Let's not waste it on more toys for our surfeit of admirals.

The fact is that we aren't a world power any more, and it's time we got used to it. We still spend far more, as a proportion of GDP, on our armed forces than most nations - and the Navy's demands for another generation of carriers and nuclear-armed subs, to 'deter' a threat which vanished over 20 years ago, are a luxury we simply can't afford.

Your nightmare scenario of a replay of the Battle of the Atlantic on a global scale is scaremongering at its worst. The whole world relies on ocean freight, yes - but nowadays the world shares the responsibility for policing it.

The purpose of armed forces is not self-aggrandisement, it's to protect their nation's people and their cherished way of life. Our cherished way of life is endangered not so much by an imaginary mass closure of the sea lanes, but by national impoverishment. When the armed forces demand more than their share of these parlous finances they risk becoming a threat, not a shield.”