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.:ok::ok:

Guess this is about another post?

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

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

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.....

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

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..

AIDU = Cock.... Fact!

Pot meets kettle !

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

...increasingly irrelevant in todays ops..

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

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! :ugh: But that is a rant for another day :)

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 :}.

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. :)

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

:hmm:

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?

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;)

Paid for out of the public purse? Shocking!

Pssst- got a link? :E

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

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

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.

Question
 

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

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:

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 .....

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 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." :}

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?

Is it Monica Lewinsky?

Well? Is it?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

:):):)

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:)

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

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


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

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

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