Royal Navy - Do they have a future?
Thread Starter
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?
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.
Guess this is about another post?
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.
Guess this is about another post?
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.....
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.....
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A serious contribution
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!
But that is a rant for another day 
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!
But that is a rant for another day
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who knows...
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
.
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
.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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/articl...perations.html
guidedweapons
An old adage mate: people, glass houses and stones....
http://www.personneltoday.com/articl...perations.html
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
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?
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?
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minigun,
OK, nice try, but as in the RAF thread you got a sensible and well reasoned answer from WeekendFlyer.
And to this just:
Bandar Abbas
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.
Bandar Abbas