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     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
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

Aircraftfan    RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status - perfectgeneral   3/4/2005 11:16:55 PM
perfect general wrote: "These days I expect that the US would regard Super Power a belittling term to describe them (I have heard Hyper Power bandied about)." Just a point of clarification. A former French foreign minister in a speech about four years ago was the first to use this term. In a speech he stated that the US was no longer a superpower and no longer comparable to Rome at the height of its power, but that the US had become what no other nation has ever been before, it is the world's first and only Hyperpower. He stated that it was due not to military power alone, but military, cultural and economic strength pointing out that the US maintained massive standing forces while spending less the 3% of its GDP to do so. The US State Department immediately dismissed the use of the term and described at it as exaggeration.
 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral    RE:The US State Department - aircraftfan   3/5/2005 12:03:13 AM
Don't they know the difference between hyperbole and exaggeration? I've told them a million times not to confuse those two and now they have reached the mega-acme of vaguery and/or doubt. ;) To say that they are the top power is no exaggeration. Acting all modest over degrees of hyperbole is windowdressing. Each nation is what it is, no more, no less. The labels are either analysis or propaganda, but they aren't any more than words in the face of the reality of any given situation. A 'second rate' status is designed to get backs up that think in terms of 'first rate' (navy people). Just running some flags up to get things moving.
 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral    RE:Viability of UK shipbuilding industry beyond next five years.   3/5/2005 6:34:36 PM
Since the number of T45 ordered so far is too low and large numbers of somesort of new frigate/FSC are needed, I'm sure that the UK shipyards (being of strategic interest) have a long and rosey future ahead. The real gripe is that, as a protected industry, they can't expect huge profits.
 
Quote    Reply

Ad    RE:'The fleet is THE obvious target' - french stratege   3/7/2005 7:52:22 PM
?FRES can wait. The army can wait. We are over extended in Iraq at present.? No it can?t and no we can?t. Why should the army continually be given the bodge job? And if I?m not mistaken, that sentence is a contradiction of its self. ?Our Marines and Paras should each build up to divisional strength and stay out of regional squabbles.? Impossible. Given the population size and current enlistment numbers, this move would be impossible. Not withstanding the fact that you?re looking at two of the toughest and most highly specialized infantry courses in the world; P-Coy and the All Arms Commando Course are beyond your average Crap Hat. Not to mention the spiralling cost per-man by more than doubling the basic training. What the RN really needs is greater man-power and a stable future; not a Minister who lives in the pocket of the Chancellor. The SSN cut down, as has been explained to me, isn?t an actual cut down on boats available for patrol.
 
Quote    Reply

Ad    RE:'The fleet is THE obvious target' - french stratege   3/7/2005 7:55:57 PM
?and stay out of regional squabbles.? I forgot to add. Then why on earth would we need fast/light reactionary forces of this size? What would be there purpose? And we?d then need to spend more on increasing the Armoured units available on rotation to deploy in support. Which increases your need for logistical supply. More sappers too. Greater defensive air cover, to protect the larger force. Greater airlift for transit. Greater sea lift and, low and behold, greater need for escort vessels.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.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