Royal Navy - Do they have a future?

[minigundiplomat]

The RN is no more than a few war canoes, and increasingly irrelevant in todays ops. Do they have a future, or should we redirect the funding to bits of the military that are relevant?

[timex]

What about the Royal Marines?

If you go down that line then the only bits of relevant Military would be the Army, SH and AT Fleet ,some surveillance and Mud moving assets. Thankfully not everyone is that shortsighted.:ok::ok:

Guess this is about another post?

[minigundiplomat]

I think the RM are perfectly capable of being a 'stand alone' entity. As for your last question, could be!

[spanners123]

Nice one minigundiplomat!:ok:
Wonder what the next new thread will be!!!!:}

[GPMG]

For gods sake no, the Army have been trying to get their hands on the Commando role for ages and I'd hate to see my beloved corps turn Pongo.

Whilst were being daft and sniping at our fellow services when we should be pulling together, how about this.

Disband the RAF, and Army. Absorb the lot into the Royal Marines, and model it along the lines of the US Marines.

The air arm can concentrate on moving and supporting the Marines and the Army can turn into something akin to 59 and 79 Commando, supporting with tanks and artillery etc. The infantry can train up to get their Green Beret's and everythings dandy. Blah blah blah.....

[goudie]

We do need a Navy an Army and an Air force what we don't need is insufficient funding that undermines their operational capability.

[timex]

GPMG.........hadn't you heard 1st Rifles are going to be Commando. (They think)!:ok::ok:

PS how many years would we need to bring this rabble up to speed....:ok::ok:


Only kidding guys..

[minigundiplomat]

AIDU = Cock.... Fact!

[Safety_Helmut]

Pot meets kettle !

[minigundiplomat]

I have trouble taking banter from someone who has named himself 'Helmet'. Is there a reason behind that?

[Something witty]

...increasingly irrelevant in todays ops..

...What's your crystal ball telling you about tomorrow then? Shame you seem ignorant of yesterdays ops too.

[WeekendFlyer]

RN Irrelevant? I don't think so, and I did commisioned service in the RAF for a while. I even had the pleasure of a few days on one of the RN Carriers recently and was very impressed. Several reasons why the Navy is still relevant IMHO:

Power projection: There are still ocasions when it is very useful strategically, tactically and politically to park a few ships off the coast with the capability to deliver troops, supplies, SF or ordnance inshore. If you have helos or Harriers available then that power projection can be a useful tool. Sure, not quite up to what the USA can do, but useful none the less. If I were a Tinpot dicatator somewhere I would definitely sit up and take notice of a Sqn of Harriers or Apaches parked on a ship a few miles off shore. The same goes for keeping an amphibious capability; if you need to put some serious military hardware and people ashore quickly, having the amphibious option is very useful.

Littoral warfare: For any overseas ops, (GW 1 and 2 prime examples), if you intend a serious op you need sealift to move the big heavy stuff, particularly for the Army, and transport ships need protecting, waterways need de-mining, shipping lanes need patrolling, etc. You can't achieve this easily with airpower due to the lack of persistence. Height, speed and reach are all very well and good, but it takes a stack load of air assets to maintain a 24/7 CAP when a frigate or 2 cruising up or down a waterway can have the same effect, freeing the air assets to do other tasks.

ASW and convoy protection: Not particularly relevant right now, but the number of navies with submarines is rapidly increasing and one day we may need that capability again. Don't ever forget the lessons of WW2; if you lose control of the sea lanes in the place you need to operate, things can get an awful lot harder, or even impossible. Again, there is a role for airborne ASW platforms, but they complement the Navy, they can't replace it.

Personnel Extraction: Recent upset in Lebanon is a good example. There are times when a ship that is capable of defending itself is a better bet than sending in aircraft that cannot defend themselves.

Humanitarian aid: If people need to be helped or evacuated from a coastal area, use a ship! The people will be eternally grateful, their government might even be grateful too, and in this crazy world grateful allies are a good thing to have.

There a probably more good reasons, but I can't think of them right now.

So, in summary, we need to keep the Navy, and we need to fund all 3 services properly....which everyone appears to know apart from the government! :ugh: But that is a rant for another day :)

[D O Guerrero]

The RN does have a critical role to play in the kind of Ops we're involved in right now. Just because it doesn't appear to be playing a massive role right now is down to a whole host of reasons, not least cash. Theatre entry, force projection, deterrence ops etc etc are all important aspects of warfare which can be done from the sea, but the simple fact remains that if you want to do expeditionary warfare of any significance that lasts for more than 5 minutes you need a Navy.
The fact that this Government don't appreciate the basics of defence should not condemn what was once the world's finest fighting fleet to the history books. Unless it really is part of the giant five year plan for utter mediocrity in everything we've ever been any good at.
I get a bit tired of all this "lets get rid of a branch of defence" on PPRUNE. Can't we just accept that all 3 are important and needed? Except the RAF obviously :}.

[GPMG]

Cheers Mile, I'm fully aware that the Army trained the first British Commando's, however the Royal Marines have been Commando's for the past 60 years and the Army on several occasions has shown interest in regaining the 'Steely eyed Dealer of Death' moniker. :)

Weren't the first Commandos, Army Commandos? History check required here before you start to bring the Army into this matelot-slagging.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I am not going to get into the purile debate as, even as a member of the light blue, I understand the need for the RN and even their Gucci new carriers, but I couldn't let the last comment pass....

guidedweapons

An old adage mate: people, glass houses and stones....

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2004/12/22/27224/navy-pays-for-cosmetic-breast-operations.html

:hmm:

[The Helpful Stacker]

Two separate links about the same story.

Do you work for the same part of the MoD who repeatedly release press notices about buying C-17's in an attempt to make it look like we are buying more than we are?

[Roland Pulfrew]

GW

I didn't deny it that the RAF did, I was just taking exception to your quote: 'The RN prefer to allocate the majority of their budget to purchasing "war canoes"' - only it wasn't necessarily correct now was it!!

Lies, damn lies and statistics;)

[Sunk at Narvik]

Paid for out of the public purse? Shocking!

Pssst- got a link? :E

[Wader2]

Sorry, you are quite right, a slight oversight, however I am sure you are familier with this report, I suffer from a similar injury however its not from typing!

You need to get out more mate, get a girlfirend.:}

[Wader2]

Minigun,

OK, nice try, but as in the RAF thread you got a sensible and well reasoned answer from WeekendFlyer.

ASW and convoy protection: Not particularly relevant right now, but the number of navies with submarines is rapidly increasing and one day we may need that capability again. Don't ever forget the lessons of WW2; if you lose control of the sea lanes in the place you need to operate, things can get an awful lot harder, or even impossible. Again, there is a role for airborne ASW platforms, but they complement the Navy, they can't replace it.

And to this just:

Bandar Abbas

[minigundiplomat]

Sorry mate,

but if we have no navy, why would we need ASW and convoy protection. Surely, with 500,00 members, the Civvies could get the USN to do that. I don't think our tinpot fleet, and Daihatsu carriers are going to achieve much in that direction. Furthermore, if UK PLC decides we need to protect convoys, and do everything else, they can bloody well pay for it ALL.

[davaar lad]

Anyone got any idea how many hostile a/c have been shot down by RAF fighter a/c since WW2 and how many have been shot down by the Fleet Air Arm?

SMK

[buoy15]

Wader2 - Bollox - and to you WeekendFlyer

Pull down your sails, we have replaced you dear boys -- we have longer legs and the element of surprise!!

The biggest pain in the arse in tracking (and losing) Sov Nucs in the 70's & 80's were the RN - re-fuelling and sprinting, using towed array Leander and T22- remember?

In the 90's, the "wonderful, solve all solutions, ****e T23", came into service, boring in at speed across all our patterns to get in for a refuel causing a whiteout and loss of our contact, which we, the USN and MAAU had confirmed but the CO's of HMS WASNAEME denied at de-brief - remember?

I doubt if the RN were deployed in the desert they could hit a camels arse with a shovel - unless they were on rates - apologies to the RN Rates - they probably could:ok:

[Union Jack]

but if we have no navy, why would we need ASW and convoy protection.

Great stuff, even by Minigunboatundiplomatic standards!:ugh:

Jack

PS As for you and your gobbledygook Buoy 15, it's really better not to post when it's clearly well past your bedtime .....

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Whilst not denying that buoy15 has conducted a biased rant; in all fairness, I can imagine the picture. The root of the picture I see is a weakness in allied force co-ordination and RN ASW assets being spread too thinly. Spreading too thinly is, after all, something we are becoming increasingly good at: not out of choice, though.

[Wader2]

we have longer legs and the element of surprise!!

The biggest pain in the arse in tracking (and losing) Sov Nucs in the 70's & 80's were the RN

<<HMS WASNAEME denied at de-brief - remember?>>

What you say here was very true. Can't anwser for HMS ... as I was long gone by then, but it fits, and we saw the results of a P3C - the same except the grams were black in those days.

I would agree the element of surprise and the potential for longer reach but for longer legs you need sufficient assets to maintain a patrol cycle which is essential to catch a DE boat.

Minigun also raises an interesting point why would we need ASW and convoy protection. Surely, with 500,00 members, the Civvies could get the USN to do that. I don't think our tinpot fleet

The Noggies manager to protect their oil tankers quite well. They use someone else to do convoy escort. Apart from it being in our strategic interest for their oil to get through they would seem to get a double economic benefit as they don't lose their tanker and they don't pay for its protection.

Is that last point about payment true? With our bean counters I could just imagine the accountant on HMS Wasname calling up the Global Whatever, "There may be mines and submarined around here. Do you want me to confirm or deny their presence? It will be $1Bn per sitrep." :}

[tonker]

Which one single asset do you think the president of the US and A, asks about when something kicks off.:rolleyes:

[Wader2]

Which one single asset do you think the president of the US and A, asks about when something kicks off.:rolleyes:

Now that could be a whole new thread in its own.

Is it allies?

Is it an element of the US Forces?

[minigundiplomat]

Is it Monica Lewinsky?

[minigundilpomat]

Is it Monica Lewinsky?

Well? Is it?

[Hangar_9]

I cannont help but wonder why some people think the RN are irrelavant these days :}???

If you had'nt realised we are an island nation. We depend on Sea-bound trade!

I invite osama to bomb a few ship in the busiest shipping lane in the world. That'll give the MOD a wake up call that the Navy cant be endlessly culled! :mad:

Rant over

[x213a]

Is the RAF really needed now? It could easily be adsorbed by the RN. The fleet air arm are already trained in organic ops. Bit of practice and the crabs will soon get the hang of operating from remote platforms.
The WSOs and movers could get fallen in 3 deep by the bootnecks and get generally shouted at, whilst the RAF police guard the flats and passageways when they have just been polished - and the rest could help bolster the MOD's equal ops quotas manning a desk at Collingwood with the 10 percenters.
:D
Dont think the bedding stores would have enough fluffy duvets in stock though.

[Blacksheep]

The primary reason for the existence of a state is the defence of its territory. This is true for all political primates - be they chimpanzees, baboons or humans. To defend this island nation we need, and have always needed, a navy. Since the advent of the aeroplane we have also needed an air force.

As to adventuring overseas, the question is simply what, if any, political purpose is being served. Apart from defending ourselves from attack by another nation or deterring such attack in the first instance, the only logical reason for having the capability to use force of arms beyond our own borders would be the protection of national interest - seizing the territory of others so we can exploit its natural resources or preventing other nations from interfering in our economic and trade affairs. The size and composition of the military depends upon the use for which it is intended. The current use in Afghanistan is at best questionable and the invasion of Iraq was wholly unjustified.

[NURSE]

The UK does still need a navy. We are an island nation and most of our trade comes in by sea. So there is a requirement for a surface/sub surface fleet to ensure the sea lanes to this country remain open. The ships/subs have a much better loiter time than aircraft can provide one that can be measured in days and weeks not hours.
secondly we still have protectorates across the world that we as a nation are responsile for their defence and support in times of national crisis hence the Guardships carry disaster relief modules
thirdly our economic zone in the waters round this island require patroling to enforce international law and to protect our interests.
forthly we still have a merchant fleet who require protection and escort at times across the worlds oceans this also includes ships registered in some of our protectorates.
Lastly the Navy helps keep unemployment figures down.

Yes the RAF does help with some of the above tasks but Navy ships tend to be able to stay on station alot longer.

[GPMG]

The Boootnecks would not fall in the WSO's and Movers and shout at them. The Royal Navy have very capable CPO's designed for these exact and demanding tasks.

Not a very smart thread this one, not on a military airforce board anyway.

Royal Navy:
1.) Senior service
2.) Has got extensive history and experience of operating both fixed wing and rotary.
3.) Has a jolly nice uniform and high standards regarding dress code:)

RAF:
1.) Junior Service
2.) Would not have a scooby how to operate destroyers, frigates or Submarines.
3.) Doesn't

:):):)

[Gainesy]

I see the Phantom Thread Bumper Upper strikes again, post 35.

Right then about this so -called Naval Air "Wing" how many aircraft six? Eight?
Yer avin a giraffe!
:E:)

[Mick Strigg]

Minigundiplomat,

If your question was serious rather than rhetorical, then I believe that the outgoing 1SL answers your question here:

A fleet for the future | Jonathan Band | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/21/navy-strategy-force-uk)

[spheroid]

The total of Armed Forces currently based in Afghanistan is made up as follows:


Army - 75%
RAF - 8%
Royal Navy 17%

[Charlie Time]

Ummm.......a very interesting statistic. Have the light blue gone quiet?

[GPMG]

Spheroid, is that when the Marines are deployed or not?

[Seaking93]

Those figures quoted would have been a tade different 6 months ago when 3 Commando Brigade were the lead unit:ok:

[Fear The Reaper]

Factoid: The Royal Marines are not in the Royal Navy as they are all part of the Naval Service.

So I do not believe that 17% of the boots on the ground are Royal Navy - that would be 1450 fish-heads!!!:suspect:

Reaper

[Charlie Time]

This country doesn't have a Naval Service, but it does have the Royal Navy, of which the Royal Marines are an integral part.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Well, 1SL is CGRMs boss. Endex.

http://www.royalmarinesregimental.co.uk/Corps%20Line%20Diagram.pdf

[pr00ne]

1,530 RN personnel deployed in Afghanistan? Where? Doing what?

[NoHoverstop]

1,530 RN personnel deployed in Afghanistan? Where? Doing what?

Where? Well where would you hide an SSBN?
Doing what? Keeping very sharp ear out for the Marine Nationale. Those no-claims bonuses don't earn themselves.

Oooh, Vauxhall Omega. You don't see many of those around these days...

[Fear The Reaper]

Charlie Time

This country doesn't have a Naval Service, but it does have the Royal Navy, of which the Royal Marines are an integral part.

No Sir, you are incorrect. Please see...

Naval Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Service)

[Fear The Reaper]

Golf Bravo Zulu

Startex. You Sir are also incorrect in your assumption:

Well, 1SL is CGRMs boss. Endex.

The First Sea Lord is the professional head of the Royal Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy) and the whole Naval Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Service). He also holds the title of Chief of Naval Staff and is known by the abbreviations 1SL/CNS.

[andyy]

Its not that long ago since approx 60% of all UK staff deployed to Afghanistan were from the RN - 3 Cdo Bgde, NSW, Loggies & Medics.

[NURSE]

Interesting that in a Land locked country 17% of the deployed force at that time was RN.

Wonder what the figures were when 800 Sqn was there or when the RN ran the field Hospital?

[ORAC]

Surely that proves that, if they're spending all their time in a landlocked country so far from the sea, they're in the wrong service, when the Army is looking to have to cut more Infantry regiments?

[Union Jack]

Fear the Reaper

Before you incorrectly try to correct any more much more experienced contributors than yourself, and out of courtesy to you as a new boy, I have quickly telephoned round six friends, ranking from Commander to full Admiral, and including a Major General Royal Marines, with a total in nearly 200 years of real "Naval Service" between them. Not one of them had ever heard of the expression the "Naval Service" being used in the context you describe!

So, to help you refrain from making any more wrong assertions, please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer) Then, having carefully digested that, have a good look at http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/ (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/) , and the associated pages, which will provide you with a far better picture of what constitutes the Royal Navy than your friend Wiki ever will.

Jack

PS To be fair, neither I nor any of the six friends above had ever heard of Blue Öyster Cult!:ok:

[x213a]

Lots of navy medics in Afghan. Chances are, when a crab stubs his toe on his Nintendo Wii - it'll be a matelot treating him.:ok:

(t.i.c)

[GPMG]

FtR,
the Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy, we are the Royal Navy's 'sea soldier', they are our taxi service.

I was going to write a load of gumf about the Duke of Albany etc etc, but I'm too busy at the moment and it is a long time since I learnt the history as a Nod back in 91.

So here you are....fill your boots.

History of the Royal Marines : History & Ethos : Royal Marines Home (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/royalmarines/history-and-ethos/history-of-the-royal-marines/)

By the way, there is a hint in the URL.

Also, no such thing as a Naval force, it is Royal Navy.

The RAF had some small fast craft and some 'maritime' aeroplanes but they were part of Coastal Command, still not refered to as Naval Force.

[andyy]

Perhaps 3 Group should be transferred to the RN?

[minigundiplomat]

This thread was meant with tongue squarely in cheek, and in response to a similar thread debating the future of the RAF. To set matters straight, I am leaving and care little about who is victorious in the RAF/RN peeing competition.

By the time you have all finished, I fear there will be little left to rejoice in, and the only true victor will be the treasury. But feel free to quibble away as the clock ticks.

[Fear The Reaper]

Union Jack

Do you have a copy of BR2 Queens Regulations dated 2007? Apparently the reference is in Chapter 1 Section 1 "Composition of the Naval Service"? An online copy is £22...

However, if you scroll down to Page 2 on this link Prelim (http://www.scribd.com/doc/4942785/Prelim)
which is "consilidated edition" BR2 QRs you will see this reference.

You will find the words "Naval Service" used all over the internet see:
House of Commons - Armed Forces - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmarmed/154/154ap07.htm)

Sorry matey, but you and your "Senior Navy Types" are quite wrong, wrong, wrong...:=


Fear the Reaper

Before you incorrectly try to correct any more much more experienced contributors than yourself, and out of courtesy to you as a new boy, I have quickly telephoned round six friends, ranking from Commander to full Admiral, and including a Major General Royal Marines, with a total in nearly 200 years of real "Naval Service" between them. Not one of them had ever heard of the expression the "Naval Service" being used in the context you describe!

So, to help you refrain from making any more wrong assertions, please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer) Then, having carefully digested that, have a good look at http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/ (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/) , and the associated pages, which will provide you with a far better picture of what constitutes the Royal Navy than your friend Wiki ever will.

Jack

PS To be fair, neither I nor any of the six friends above had ever heard of Blue Öyster Cult!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


This is one of my 4 names on Pprune - I have been posting since 2000 (on mil forum and others - I use different names to reflect different experiences). So I make that 7yrs seniority on you, not that:

1. It makes any difference - there is no such thing as Pprune Seniority!
2. Do I look "bovverred"?:ok:

Finally, I was corrected about the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines and their relationship to all the rest last year in AFG by no other than a RM Major and Sgt Major. Not quite as lofty as your mates but they did take me to task on my General Service Knowledge of the RN and RMs - they only told me once, :ouch: ouch!

Reaper

[x213a]

Bloody hell!

Is this / was that a numbers check?

[Union Jack]

Oh dear! So we're dealing with a split personality who allegedly uses different names to reflect different experiences ......

Well, observing that with your very low post count you are obviously not only very inexperienced, but very junior, in your Fear the Reaper role, and since I understand that one must be gentle with those unfortunate enough to have personality disorders, I'll be very gentle and simply remind you of an old adage, namely that QRs are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

It's really rather sad that you have so completely missed the point that I and the other posters were making about where the Royal Marines actually do fit in to the scheme of things, irrespective of what you gullibly "swallowed" from two Royals.:)

Jack

PS You may be thrilled at having a new thread started, guessing about your alter egos, but you will probably be less thrilled by the responses ...:eek:

[Modern Elmo]

We depend on Sea-bound trade!

You mean, Britain is dependent upon imported manufactured goods!

UK would be better off the RN maintained a blockade to keep most imports out.

[The Helpful Stacker]

Modern Elmo - The RN could hardly be expected to do that. Such operations would severly hinder the supply of that essential RN boarding party equipment, the iPod. They'd have to re-write their conduct after capture procedures to remove "cry like girl when nasty Iranian takes your Britney Spears" to "push (very) rough, female-shaped munter forward to take one for the team."

[GPMG]

FtR,
when you were advised that the Royal Marines were not part of the Royal Navy and were in fact part of this fantasy 'Naval Service'. Did the Major and Sgt Major say anything along the lines of 'Reet-Deet-Deet'?

You have been had on a 'bight' (a wind up) something military personnel are very fond of and rather good at, and in my experience, especially Bootnecks. Your posts are now looking like either a successful fishing trip or they are dripping with ignorance.

I am telling you as an ex Bootneck: The Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy.



By the way, having multiple accounts just marks you out as an idiot, top tip, delete FtR and any other accounts except one. Use that one account to make informed comment, ask questions etc. And when given the facts by those who know better than you, wind your neck in. Oh and enjoy banter.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Chaps, I do rather think that some other chaps are being rather beastly to Fear The Reaper. In fairness, irrespective of any incipient bipolar disorder, that House of Commons link is titled

Annex A

NAVAL SERVICE REPORT



That said, it is a report on equal opportunities and will have been written in finest Neddyspeak.

He also mentioned BR2. I’ve just checked my current copy and, bugger I down dead, he’s right there too.



CHAPTER 1

COMPOSITION OF THE NAVAL SERVICE AND JURISDICTION OF QRRN


Glancing, through that chapter, though, I do note a significant number of factual errors. For example, it refers to an organisation (NBSA) that ceased to exist over 8 years ago. I suspect that the RN is quietly being “re-written” for the day when it formally becomes British Armed Forces, Naval Command. Land Command and Air Command are ready made for incorporation as well.

Anyway Mr Fear The Reaper, nobody (OK, there’s bound to be one!) in 1SL’s empire speaks of the Naval Service and it does not appear in any Naval “family tree” type organisation charts. What does shine through is that the Royal Marines are considered to be firmly an element of Her Majesty’s Navy. In new Beanspeak, they are in the RN TLB.

http://www.royalmarinesregimental.co...%20Diagram.pdf (http://www.royalmarinesregimental.co.uk/Corps%20Line%20Diagram.pdf)

[Navaleye]

The term "Naval Service" is an administrative term not an operational one so you are all correct. The RM is subordinate to the RN.

[GPMG]

Unless you lot mutiny again...;)

[Gainesy]

Grenade!!!:)

When did those sneaky Wafu gits drop the last five words from "Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force"?:E

[x213a]

Also worth mentioning - Booties carry RN ID cards. Different format of service number though.
When a bootneck detachment is deployed on a ship they assume the next rank up - apparently.

[airborne_artist]

When a bootneck detachment is deployed on a ship they assume the next rank up - apparently.

Not sure about that?

[x213a]

I read it somewhere. Cant say I ever saw a booty Sgt trying to pull rank on a chief though.

edit:

Just found this:

The Royal Marines rank alongside their army equivalents. However, when borne on the books of any of HM Ships or Naval Establishments Royal Marines are subject to the Naval Discipline Act 1957; in those circumstances, many officer ranks in the Royal Marines formerly enjoyed greater status. Second Lieutenants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Lieutenant) were equivalent to Sub Lieutenants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_Lieutenant) and ranks from Lieutenant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant) to Major (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major) were considered equivalent to one rank higher (OF-2 to OF-4). Lieutenant Colonels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_Colonel) were considered equivalent to RN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy) Captains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_%28naval%29) with less than six years in the rank, and Colonels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel) were equivalent to Captains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_%28naval%29) with more than six years seniority. Higher ranks followed the equivalence on the table above. This state of affairs ended on 1 July 1999, when Royal Marine officer ranks were fully aligned with those of the Army.

[Yeoman_dai]

The most important thing people always forget about this British Armed Forces Naval/Land/Air command, is...

the uniforms.

What form will they take? The colour and everything is also very important... and the ranks/rank slides?

See this is far more important than any other discussion, as looking ally as fcuk in front of our allies is more imortant than operational efficiancy!

Answers on a postcard please

[x213a]

The uniform does not matter - just as long as correct back pocket discipline is observed.

[Mech one]

What an interesting lot you all are. Squabbling about seniority, relative merits of each service, lower deck lawyer-speak, etc., reminds me of a discussion most likely to have taken place in the NAAFI half an hour after tot time. If you know what a 'tot time' is.
Had an enjoyable afternoon at Buck House recently, that was a weird experience...women in matelots uniforms?..WRNS Officers dressed up like proper officers?..cap tallies without an HMS with something about Joint Forces?..is that the way my Navy has gone?
You leave the service in good hands and forty years later you pop back and wonder what the hell has happened? and Gunners Mates walking around with bits of timber under their arms..I ask you!
Oh dear, Please tell me I was only dreaming...:rolleyes:

[sweep complete]

Royal Navy - Do they have a future?
The RN is no more than a few war canoes, and increasingly irrelevant in todays ops. Do they have a future, or should we redirect the funding to bits of the military that are relevant?

Do the UK Armed forces need idiots who spout off with nonsense like this in their ever diminishing numbers? What a :mad:

[GPMG]

Sweep, is the UK armed Forces made up of people like you that go off half cocked with no research or having not seen all of the data? I hope not.

Here is a hint, read the post at the top of this page which was written by the same poster.

Neck wound in?? There's lovely, isn't it?

[Mick Strigg]

GPMG - the phrase "sweep complete" is normally followed by the words "no echoes".

'Nuff said?

[cornish-stormrider]

No we do not need a navy, same as we do not need an army or an Aunty Betty's flying club (pip pip)

What we need is half a dozen nuclear powered super robots - covered in adamantium armour with plasma cannons and a damage modifier of +12.
Two to cover the home front, two to cover the diplomamcy and walking around being "ally" and two to be in the sh**ty parts of the world giving the Taleban a good hiding. They could all be controlled by ex RAF engineers - the only people with the reflexes and skillset to cope - all those hours spent playing x-box and PS3 have been well spent

Until this momentous day dawns I would like:

Loud pointy chariots driven by arrogant skygod types.
Big mean Booties
Large, medium and small war canoes, cocktail parties - for the hosting of
Lots of PBI
The "Bomber" as the navy so quaintly call it.
A huge amount of AT, SH, AH, and all the acronyms that come with having a properly supported and equipped purple force, drawn from 3 (and a bit) individual forces
and not forgetting some money in the pot to pay for this all.

Now, which dream is closer to being realised.....?

[Mech one]

It is all very well arguing about the value of the Navy as opposed to the RAF ad nauseum but have you had a look at what the brown jobs are up to?...they have over 20 squadrons of ac currently and had only one when I was on loan to them. Sneaky eh? Fisheads and Crabfats beware, redundancy beckons.

[Fear The Reaper]

Right, I'm still trying to track down a copy of Naval QRs on the Defence Intranet - stand fast the final "Q.E.D." answer.

In the interim, here is a link to the Defence Analytical Services Agency - a part of MoD which breaks down the 3 services. It clearly says "NAVAL SERVICE" not RN or RM but "NAVAL SERVICE"...

UKDS 2006 - Chapter 2 - Personnel (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/2006/c2/table27.html)

I'll get on with the BR2 QR search and, as long as they are not RESTRICTED, I'll post the definative when I find it.

Reaper

PS. Tenacious, moi? ;)

[Union Jack]

PPS More contumacious than tenacious, toi!:ok:

Jack

[Charlie Time]

I thought Navaleye summed it up neatly.

[Fear The Reaper]

PPS More contumacious than tenacious, toi!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


[kon-too-mey-shuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngs] –adjective
stubbornly perverse or rebellious; willfully and obstinately disobedient.

The definition sounds like me as a Pilot Officer, Flying Officer and early Flight Lieutenant; maybe I never grew out of it in later life?!!

Thanks for the new word in my vocabulary as I'd never heard that one before :ok:

Reaper

[Union Jack]

Maybe I never grew out of it in later life?!!

Well you said it, and I thought you would probably have to look it up, like everything else apparently, FTR - check the anagram of your Monniker No 4 while you're about it....

If you still haven't hoisted in what I've been saying, take a tip from Navaleye and Mech One, give us (and yourself) a break, and realise that perhaps not many of us are remotely interested in correcting you about the definition of the new-fangled Naval Service and your detailed and nugatory research into it ***. We have just been trying to help you to understand correctly the time-honoured link between the RN and the RM, so succinctly summed up by Navaleye.

Jack

PS*** And ditto for the Diabolical Analytical Services Agency .....

[Fear The Reaper]

check the anagram of your Monniker No 4 while you're about it....


Eh? Non comprendo Hablo muah poco espaniiol?

By the way, because you say Naval Service is "New Fangled" and you dissagree with DASA's labels that it is purely a matter of you both going into denial??

http://forums.mg-rover.org/images/smilies/1poke.gif

Reaper

[Mech one]

So, FTR didn't make Sqdn Ldr..tut tut..I wonder if he was too contumacious?

[Fear The Reaper]

So, FTR didn't make Sqdn Ldr..tut tut..I wonder if he was too contumacious?

Maybe if I told you my Rank, Service Number and full name as well?http://forums.mg-rover.org/images/smilies/popworm.gif

[Fear The Reaper]

Ooh! You B!tch...

http://forums.mg-rover.org/images/smilies/gfight1.gif

[Mech one]

(Maybe if I told you my Rank, Service Number and full name as well?http://forums.mg-rover.org/images/smilies/popworm.gif)


http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=5094080)

No thanks FTR, service numbers don't travel too well until the ink is thoroughly dry.

Mo.