The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - February 9, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status
Aircraftfan    2/27/2005 3:38:23 AM
This month's issue of "Warship" (a UK-based publication) describes what it terms the ?relegation of the RN to second rate status? and its fall from the third most powerful Navy to being behind US and Russia and soon to be overtaken by Japan, China and India.

Current funding will result in a combat force of 25 destroyers/frigates (average age of 18 years), only 8 SSNs, 3 or 4 SSBNs, 2 or 3 assault ships and the 2 proposed aircraft carriers (apparently there is some doubt as to the ability to really build these at the planned funding levels).

Magazine states that viability of UK shipbuilding industry is in doubt beyond the next 5 years.

What's up in the UK? Why is the UK letting such a fine organiszation decline like this?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
gf0012-aust    RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status   2/27/2005 5:45:10 AM
I'm not sure I'd put them behind the Russians yet. Remember that up to 80% of the penanted fleet in the Russian Navy is deemed inoperable for fleet/blue water work. In the last 3 years, approx 27 Russian nukes have been chopped up and another 6 are due for the cutters this year. If you exclude nukes, then I'd probably say that the Japanese are closer to being 2nd in real terms. The reality is, you can't factor out the SSN's. In Seatime, hours, vessels on station, platform mix, fleet flexibility, I would still argue that no other Navy is within coo-ee of them yet. Methinks it's a windup for vested interests trying to ensure that the RN isn't chopped up by that moron Hoon.
 
Quote    Reply

spsun10000    RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status   2/27/2005 6:43:37 AM
Money: A change in treasury accounting policy that has hit the MoD hard. Poor procurement decisions (an attempt to self design and build everything even when that leads to not value for money less capable equipment and no competition with contractors subsequently holding a gun to the governments head over cost increases to complete the programme. This works even better when you add in a European dimension where more time is spent arguing over workshare than delivering capable equipment) Lock in to a tactical fighter programme (Eurofighter) in numbers well beyond what the country needs but with so many jobs riding on it that we have to keep going even at the cost of defence equipment that we do actually need.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status   2/27/2005 2:01:12 PM
It is a little short to say Hoon is necessarly a moron. Facts: Uk has spent a lot on Iraqi war, 2 new aircraft carriers are necessary, Eurofighter or ATF transport can not be delayed or program reduced because of penalties, and UK army is behind US and France for digitalization and C4ISR.So other saving has to be made somewhere.The fleet is THE obvious target.
 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral    RE:'The fleet is THE obvious target' - french stratege   2/28/2005 4:17:07 PM
Obvious to french eyes maybe, but we live on an island that can only be reached by sea or air (the Chunnel not being a realistic invasion route). FRES can wait. The army can wait. We are over extended in Iraq at present. The UK should not be at war with anyone east of Suez on land. Britain is a naval/air power. The standing overseas army is a leftover of the cold war that should be brought back to britain. Our Marines and Paras should each build up to divisional strength and stay out of regional squabbles. If we don't like a country we should say so from a sustainable position: offshore islands, the sea and the air. Only a naive PM could bring us back to a position of imperialism. The man is an idiot to listen to Bush's people. We should have enough army to defend and enough airforce and navy to attack in UK interests.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:'The fleet is THE obvious target' - french stratege   2/28/2005 6:24:24 PM
"We should have enough army to defend" Well, given the near non-existant threat of the UK being invaded, according to your reasoning we may as well dispand the regular army and rest our defence and civil strife issues on the TA....
 
Quote    Reply

blacksmith    RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status   2/28/2005 10:33:25 PM
Let's face it. England no longer has an empire to defend. It is an island sitting in an American lake (that ought to get somebody's dander up). What is the invasion threat? Belgium? Norwegian vikings perhaps bent on re-establishing the Danegold. France? How large a Navy should England maintain to defend the Falklands from the Argentinians? The Royal Navy is a Tradition in its own right. Few institutions can claim such an honored past. I will be sad to see it pass over the bar.
 
Quote    Reply

Aircraftfan    RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status   3/1/2005 4:25:17 PM
Regardless of your view on foreign policy, it would take an idiot not to acknowledge the risk of terrorism to western countries. Given that a lot of the personnel and materials used by terrorist are moved using ships, is not the Royal Navy a very valuable asset to interdict and prevent terrorist activities? In many ways the RN seems better positioned than many other navies in terms of doctrine and types (not quantity) of ships. Smaller, faster and more numerous battle groups based around small carriers (like Illustrious) or amphibious ships (like the Ocean) would provide more coverage to carry out such interdiction missions. Big blue water carriers like the US?s can only be in one place at one time and are very expensive.
 
Quote    Reply

blacksmith    RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status   3/1/2005 10:59:40 PM
This is true, but at some point the Royal Navy becomes a glorified Coast Guard. Hardly the Master of the Seas of yore.
 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral    RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status   3/3/2005 1:12:16 AM
So the navy is an anachronism? Why do we need any national forces if the United States of America can do it all? Do we need a seperate government? Getting tired of independance are we? The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will always police it's own frontiers. Co-operation with allies is always welcome, but not the only option. Hegonomic diplomacy used to be our stock in trade, so don't expect us to surrender to it. We will remain a Major Power (or minor super-power as we like to see it) well into the future. The possibility of doing away with any arm of the services completely is unthinkable. More likely, we will innovate. Peacetime defence spending (yes we call this peace) is a balance between capability maintanence and keeping your powder dry for the real deal. Things have been flirting with hotting up lately, but it is hardly worth gearing up over. Yimmy: TA verses IRA? No thanks. The islamic terror alerts are a clear manufactured caesus beli, but I don't think one of the largest economies in the world will rely on a part time defence force just yet ;)
 
Quote    Reply

TDHM    RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status   3/3/2005 9:59:05 AM
"(or minor super-power as we like to see it)" As you like to see it. I think Britian is at best a world power and at worst a Marginal Regional Power. Not Super power, not a marginal super power, just a country with the potential to be a PITA for anybody. Why do wetry and always make ourselves sound better than we are? We're good enough already forgodsake. And as for Blacksmith the UK actually has more overseas commitments than the US. not too mention some of the same intrests as the US. So which one needs its Armed forces? One which has been in conflcits every year since the end of WWII? Or Some country who fights occassionally every 10 years and performs some UN duty on occasion?
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status   3/3/2005 10:04:35 AM
"Yimmy: TA verses IRA? No thanks" I never said we should dispand the regular army, I was simply stating what the previous posters opinion could lead to. However, the TA is more than capable of dealing with the IRA with help from the securitiy services, same goes for Islamic terrorism on our home turf, I fail to see what real threats thee are for us to defend the UK against.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status   3/3/2005 10:28:28 AM
Why do wetry and always make ourselves sound better than we are? We're good enough already forgodsake. I know you're just being realistic and I'm sorry for the following but... this kind of thing really gets my goat, it's a major reason why this country isn't going forward as best it can. More and more then general public and government are taking the stance that we shouldn't try to be a super power because we never can be and whenever anything comes up that shows Britain being strong or whatever people scoff. Perhaps we can't be a superpower but then perhaps if that's what we're aiming to be we might be able to achieve something in between that and where we are now. Don't get me wrong I agree that we shouldn't let ourselves get distracted by delusions of grandure but that mindset, in my opinion, is stifling this country's ability to perform as a leading nation. The governments aversion to our national flags is a minor but perfect example. Rant over.
 
Quote    Reply

TDHM    RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status   3/3/2005 1:00:26 PM
"this kind of thing really gets my goat, it's a major reason why this country isn't going forward as best it can." Actually the thing which IS stopping Britian going forward is that fact that we percieve ourselves to be better than we are. Hence we dont try. "More and more then general public and government are taking the stance that we shouldn't try to be a super power because we never can be" Why the hell should we try and become a superpower in the first place RM-Nod? One good reason? And the fact that we don't have the population nor the industry to become a superpower is a bloody good reason not to try. Heres an example, I want you RM-Nod to become an Olympic Gold Medal power Lifter. "and whenever anything comes up that shows Britain being strong or whatever people scoff." Thats your problem mate. Whilst I don't pat myself on the back like most people on this forum seems to do, I don't tend to scoff at anybodys achievements. Perhaps if Britian just got down to business instead of arsing about arguing about how good we are, we might actually justify some of that praise in the first place. Its almost like India siezing on every bit of news and pulling it to the fore if it shows them in a good light! "Don't get me wrong I agree that we shouldn't let ourselves get distracted by delusions of grandure but that mindset, in my opinion, is stifling this country's ability to perform as a leading nation." My Mindset? Piss the off. My mindset is perhaps one of the most realistic on this forum, and sorry if I dont like the handle 'minor superpower', but if you dont see that belittles us as much as saying we're a pile of , then you need a reality check.
 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral    RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status   3/3/2005 1:23:12 PM
These days I expect that the US would regard Super Power a belittling term to describe them (I have heard Hyper Power bandied about). Truthfully I find this hyperbole rather ridiculous (but an interesting insight into the population's sense of nation). Each nation is what it is. To imagine that all power in the 'world ranking' of power lies with nations, or even governments is self deceiving. Government's don't just exist to protect us from other goverments and each other. Not all NGO's are charitable. How come the largest navy in the world needs help doing a little coast guard work? Drug smuggling. Why can't we be sure of US/EU intentions as an ally at any given moment? Corporate influence on political systems. We could get hung out to dry if JSF is the only option, so too if we rely totally on Typhoon.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status   3/3/2005 1:30:38 PM
Mate, you misunderstand, I wasn't refering to you personally, I'm talking about the general public's opinion that Britain isn't worth it anymore, that bit of your post just reminded me of it. Sorry if you took it the wrong way. I totally disagree that the problem is that Britain generally thinks it's better than it is, that contradicts everything I've seen. Aside from the rhetoric of a couple of comedians, the BNP and a few others not many really think that Britain should be playing a role in the wider world. Britain has got it into its head that it's a small part of Europe and a little friend of the US and can't do anything by itself. It's not about labels like superpower or whatever it's simply about doing what we can, and I don't think Britain is doing the best it can, I think the main reason is the feeling that we can't be anything more than a quant little European island (perhaps an exageration but you get the picture). Heres an example, I want you RM-Nod to become an Olympic Gold Medal power Lifter. My point is that we may not be able to achieve an ultimate goal but if we aim for it we may get halfway there, which is a lot better than going nowhere. Using your example, I may fail to do what you suggest but I would probably be a lot stronger than if I were to do nothing because I didn't think I could make it in the first place. Thats your problem mate. Whilst I don't pat myself on the back like most people on this forum seems to do, I don't tend to scoff at anybodys achievements. Perhaps if Britian just got down to business instead of arsing about arguing about how good we are, we might actually justify some of that praise in the first place. What do you mean by that?
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy