Uk defences

I, too, agree that Nanna's comment was offensive and ill-informed.

What I genuinely don't understand is why people, often 'top brass' types from the armed forces and security services so often tell us (and therefore the world) that we are vulnerable to attack, and how we would struggle to survive if Russia or Iran decided to launch an offensive.

Surely that makes such an attack more likely? Wouldn't the sensible money be on saying those things to the government and otherwise keeping it quiet? Then announce that £Xm has been spent on whatever it was and how it has meant that we could do the necessary if we have to.

I tend to assume that yes, we do need to spend more on defence, as we can't rely on the US, and in any case it is only fair to pay our way. Having a % formula rather than a fixed amount for countries to pay is sensible, so that poorer states can afford to do it. But I also assume that those making the statements are pushing for higher budgets and using the threat of attack to scare us into accepting the need.

I am the first to acknowledge that I am in no position to know the truth, but equally, I think that the general population never (and should never) know the truth about things like defence and national security. Everything we are told, our enemies also know.

Granatlast007

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0n8gj6x

BBC. podcast - Complex
Kimberley and her guest, psychotherapist and author Jennifer Cox, explore ‘gaslighting’ and how to recognise it. It's a term that's often bandied about but it has serious consequences.

Worth listening before you bandy about labels that are actually complicated and misused.

Thank you. Confusing innit?

Cossy

nanna8

Well before that they defeated the Spanish Armada but these days they would probably have just hidden away and admitted defeat.

I think you do our armed forces staff a huge disservice.

It's from the Trump version of history in which British forces are cowards and losers who don't fight.

Nanna8 on China;

"Starmer loves them - he is a true communist"

A modern aircraft carrier is roughly 15 to 20 times longer and carries 200 to 400 times more displacement (weight) than a large 16th-century ship. While a 16th-century galleon was considered a "floating castle," a modern supercarrier is essentially a floating city and airfield.

Apart from the fact that comparing ships from the 17th century with those in the 21st is like comparing numbers of horses with cars, never forget - “there are lies, damned lies and statistics”

I agree with Petra too and can understand her anger, I am pretty annoyed too, is bad enough having our armed services disrespected by Trump.

@ fancythat

The Uk navy is the most depleted since 1642

Back in 1642 the Btitish Navy did not have a fleet of nuclear powered and nuclear armed submarines, nor did it have aircraft carriers , or the airborne backing of the RAF.

So it's rather hard to make any qualitative comparison between defences then and now.

The lack of archers and bows and arrows in today's army is of no concern.

Casdon Unfortunately it takes a considerable time to build these ships, so we can’t increase our capacity overnight.

No. Quite.

That I read it from.

Could have been any number of sources. By the looks of things.

I dont remember where I read it from ^RosiesMawagain.
But this is AI.

AI Overview
The claim that the Royal Navy is as depleted as it was during the English Civil War (mid-17th century) has been highlighted by defence analysts and researchers in 2026, noting that the fleet is smaller than at any point since that era. While modern ships are exponentially more powerful, the total number of vessels has reached historic lows, with reports indicating only 13 major surface combatants (destroyers and frigates) and just over 70 ships total including support vessels.
Facebook
Facebook
+2
Key Indicators of Naval Depletion (2026)
Smallest Size in 400 Years: Researchers from King’s College London stated that the current number of hulls is smaller than at any point since the mid-17th century.
Operational Availability: Critics have described the situation as "dangerously depleted," with reports that often only a handful of the 13 destroyers/frigates are operational at sea, due to, or waiting for, maintenance.
Personnel Shortages: The navy has seen significant decreases in personnel compared to previous decades, dropping to around 32,000 personnel, including the Royal Marines.
Maintenance Backlogs: Many of the Royal Navy's vessels are stuck in ports for long-term repairs, with reports suggesting that both aircraft carriers have been affected by operational availability challenges.
The Week
The Week
+3
Comparison with History
Vs. WWII: In 1939, the Royal Navy had over 1,400 ships.
Vs. 1982: During the Falklands War, the UK deployed 127 ships, 43 of which were warships.
Vs. 17th Century: While raw numbers are lower than or comparable to the Civil War era, a single modern Type 45 destroyer possesses more potential lethality than a fleet of 17th-century ships. However, the ability to be present globally has severely diminished.
Reddit
Reddit
+4
The situation is often attributed to long-term under-resourcing, delayed procurement programs, and a reliance on US naval power, resulting in a navy that struggles to cover all its required duties

RosiesMawagain

^And he who gratuitously gives offence deserves all he gets^
RosiesMawAgain 2026

😂 well said.

And pre 1642 we weren’t exactly on our uppers either

Tudor Standing Navy (16th Century): The Navy began to take shape as a professional establishment. Henry VIII is often considered the founder of the Royal Navy as a permanent force
The Spanish Armada (1588): A defining moment where superior English ship design and manoeuvrability , and gunnery defeated a larger Spanish fleet, highlighting the effectiveness of a dedicated navy.
Early 17th Century Challenges (1603–1642): Following the Union of the Crowns, the navy's efficiency declined and corruption grew, necessitating an inquiry in 1618. During this period, the navy struggled to combat Barbary corsairs, and England's relative naval power declined against the Dutch and French
Ship Money (1634): Charles I levied this unpopular tax to fund naval expansion, which, while strengthening the fleet's hardware, became a major grievance leading to the English Civil War

Down to money again?

It is happening already.
AI summary:
The Royal Navy is undergoing significant modernisation, with
new classes of ships currently under construction.
Key additions include Type 26 City-class anti-submarine frigates, Type 31 Inspiration-class general-purpose frigates, Dreadnought-class nuclear submarines, and Fleet Solid Support ships, aimed at increasing the fleet's capacity by the 2030s.
GOV.UK
+3
Key New Vessel Programs:
Type 26 (City Class) Frigates: Eight advanced anti-submarine warfare vessels are planned. The first, HMS Glasgow, Cardiff, and Belfast, are expected before 2030, with five more to follow.
Type 31 (Inspiration Class) Frigates: Five vessels (HMS Venturer, Active, Formidable, Bulldog, and Campbeltown) are being built in Scotland, designed for flexibility and to be in service by the early 2030s.
Dreadnought-class Submarines: The next generation of ballistic missile submarines (four in total) is currently under construction to replace the Vanguard class.
Fleet Solid Support (FSS) Ships: New vessels to support the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA), including the recently initiated RFA Resurgent, built to sustain aircraft carriers.
Type 32 Frigates: Planned for the future to further bolster the escort fleet, though these remain in the early concept phase as of 2026.
GOV.UK
+6
The strategy emphasises a hybrid fleet, combining traditional crewed warships with increasing numbers of uncrewed, automated vessels for specialised missions.
The House of Commons Library
+1
Unfortunately it takes a considerable time to build these ships, so we can’t increase our capacity overnight.

And he who gratuitously gives offence deserves all he gets
RosiesMawAgain 2026

He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.
— Brigham Young

A simple search brought up the following, which entirely contradicts your assertion

The Stuart Period and Early Challenges (1642–1688) Following the English Civil War, the restored monarchy recognized the navy's necessity for national defence and trade, though it faced challenges like the Dutch victory in the 1667 Medway raid.
Emergence of Dominance (1688–1763)
Britain established, then asserted, its maritime superiority over France , notably winning four wars during this period. The navy gained valuable experience in global operations, protecting shipping while breaking enemy trade links.
The Napoleonic Wars and Global Dominance (1793–1815): The Royal Navy displayed unmatched prowess, culminating in Admiral Nelson’s victories. The 1805 Battle of Trafalgar cemented Britain's total dominance of the sea for a century.
Pax Britannica and Technology (1815–1914)
Britain commanded the world's largest navy, ensuring relative global peace and protecting its massive empire. By 1889, Britain enforced the "Two-Power Standard," requiring the navy to be as strong as the next two largest navies combined
World Wars and Modern Role (1914–Present)
In WWI, the navy successfully protected trade routes and controlled key waters. While the economic constraints of WWII shifted global supremacy to the USA, the Royal Navy remained a prominent force (Surface Fleet, Submarine Service, Fleet Air Arm)

Out of interest, and before we get too bogged down in frankly ridiculous and ill-informed opinions from down under, but what do you base this on?
The Uk navy is the most depleted since 1642

AGAA4

Britain should be preparing for war. Many people are agreed that this is important now but are unwilling to pay more in taxes or cut services.

A government's first responsibility is the safety of the people and after years of neglect will have to make some unpopular decisions if we want to build up our armed forces.

I agree and I would happily pay more in my taxes for this, even though we’re not in any way wealthy. I want to protect this country and others, war is never the answer but we do need good solid defences.

RosiesMawagain

nanna8

Well before that they defeated the Spanish Armada but these days they would probably have just hidden away and admitted defeat.

This is frankly appalling and insults all those in the Royal and Merchant Navies including those who ran the Atlantic convoys in WWI and brought food to your grandparents, possibly parents in England before you and your family emigrated to Australia. You clearly have no concept of the role of aircraft carriers, minesweepers, battleships, cargo ships, clippers, not to mention the thousands of “small ships” who risked all to rescue our troops from Dunkirk.
I am shocked at your suggestion of cowardice and think you owe a grovelling apology not least to any families or descendants of our brave sailors in the two twentieth century world wars not forgetting the Falklands War and those who lost their lives.

Cheering from the rooftops. 👏👏👏👏👏

AGAA4

Britain should be preparing for war. Many people are agreed that this is important now but are unwilling to pay more in taxes or cut services.

A government's first responsibility is the safety of the people and after years of neglect will have to make some unpopular decisions if we want to build up our armed forces.

I agree.

Britain should be preparing for war. Many people are agreed that this is important now but are unwilling to pay more in taxes or cut services.

A government's first responsibility is the safety of the people and after years of neglect will have to make some unpopular decisions if we want to build up our armed forces.

“I absolutely and completely understand her anger and agree with her!”

Hear, hear Cossy.

I too agree with Petra. The comment, by an Australian poster, effectively calling our naval service men & women cowards, was deplorable.

petra

I’m reminded of the biblical quote ^Please lord help me to keep my mouth shut until I know what I’m talking about^

"Set a guard, O LORD, over my mouth" (Psalm 141:3).

It is a plea for self-control, discernment, and the humility to remain silent rather than speaking rashly or foolishly.

nanna8

Well before that they defeated the Spanish Armada but these days they would probably have just hidden away and admitted defeat.

This is frankly appalling and insults all those in the Royal and Merchant Navies including those who ran the Atlantic convoys in WWI and brought food to your grandparents, possibly parents in England before you and your family emigrated to Australia. You clearly have no concept of the role of aircraft carriers, minesweepers, battleships, cargo ships, clippers, not to mention the thousands of “small ships” who risked all to rescue our troops from Dunkirk.
I am shocked at your suggestion of cowardice and think you owe a grovelling apology not least to any families or descendants of our brave sailors in the two twentieth century world wars not forgetting the Falklands War and those who lost their lives.

'divide' of course, not divine, perhaps AI is trying to be ironic!