Originally Posted by
Vortex Hoop
That's a bit tenuous, as none of the carriers you list have anything to do with the original point of the RN sidelining CGRM, denigrating amphibious capability, and splurging the family silver on CVFs (which contributed nothing to CAS on Herrick).
Do you often argue that capabilities that did not exist at the time (but most of the money had been spent by that stage) are useless because they could not be used before they existed? Is the A400M useless as it was not used during the Berlin Airlift?
The carriers were originally mentioned in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review - as replacements for carriers and aircraft that had been busy in the Falklands, Cold War, Adriatic, and Gulf - and one of their intended roles was to defend amphibious forces from air or submarine attack. A quick search suggests that he did not get promoted to Flag Rank until 2014 in any case. I do know that when he became First Sea Lord he was told in black and white terms by the Secretary of State for Defence this his priorities were to to get more ships to sea, to get more people in ships, FAA squadrons, and RM units, and to deliver on the 'Future Navy' - of which the Future Commando Force is a key part.
I am not sure why you think amphibious capabilities have been cut. Two forward deployed 'Littoral Response Groups' - admittedly one of them UK based, but that is for a NATO role, a company of 42 Cdo based in/with the carrier, and smaller RM detachments..
..
Both the LRGs will, I believe, rotate companies from 40 Cdo and 45 Cdo.
The Royal Marines are part of all five pillars of the Future Navy - an increased commitment to the North Atlantic, Carrier Strike, Future Commando Force, Continuous At Sea Deterrence, and Forward Presence.
I find it nothing short of disgusting that some people who should know better a exploiting a tragedy to push the agenda of - well actually I am not sure, but it is smear campaign against the First Sea Lord. Understandably the RM community has closed ranks, but the question should not be about refusing to adapt, it should be about do senior (and other) personnel and former personnel get properly supported?