Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

perfectgeneral RE: FRES can wait. The army can wait. 3/7/2005 9:05:51 PM

FRES is about supporting rapid reaction. The army can reorganise to do this now, without FRES. Battalions trained in support of Para and Commando units could bulk out our initial reaction forces. The airborne brigade (16th) and the parachute regiment could deploy with air transportable light armour as an airmobile division. The RM 3 commando could be beefed up with extra battalions, a few chally2's and a M777 battery into a marine division. The extra forces need not have the full training of the spearhead elite units, just enough to allow them to cover the same ground, later, and keep up. Not true divisions, but brigades with brigade plus close support. The paras and marines should also be recruiting from all arms to increase their recruitment pool. Why dedicate some/most of the army to the RN and RAF? Because the time for large scale mainland commitment of forces is over. Ventures such as Iraq show how far we have wandered from a sensible strategic path. Britain has always used troops best as rapid intervention forces. We lack the population to sustain a slogging match. The Great War showed the folly of that.

Quote Reply

HorribleSailor RE: FRES can wait. The army can wait. 3/8/2005 7:32:45 AM

You're against intervention in the Great War, perfectgeneral. I know Niall Ferguson said that in 'The Pity of War,', but come on, he was being controversial to sell books....

Quote Reply

Ad RE: FRES can wait. The army can wait. 3/8/2005 8:04:07 AM

You still fail to address the points. Firstly the system of deployment in small scale conflicts (I.e. not major ground operations as seen in Iraq) of the tiered echelon process already exists. ?The extra forces need not have the full training of the spearhead elite units, just enough to allow them to cover the same ground, later, and keep up. Not true divisions, but brigades with brigade plus close support.? Do you mean forces should operate in their given roles, like, say the UK 3rd Divisions? This already exists, so why on earth would either the Parachute Regiment or 3RMC need to expand in size? As I?ve already stated, you can?t simply enlarge either force due to their demanding training. This is for several reasons; firstly not everyone is up to it and secondly the cost of operating 28 week and 32 week infantry course programmes across the board (although would be ideal) would cost vast amounts of cash. You?re then littered with the same problem that you?re requiring 2Para and 3Para along with 40, 42 and 45 Commando to be everywhere on deployment at once. Why deploy elite Light Infantry to a situation demanding armour? Armour which in your ORBATR is tied up in support. it?s the very reason these Corps already (and have for decades) exist. As for enlarging 16thAA, are you going to foot the bill for further Army Air Corps Regiments like 3 and 4? As you?d need a further two Four regiments to supplement the kind of lift already required by a further two light brigades. This is just one element of the brigade that you?d need to increase. Also these revolutionary supporting units actually already exist. The House Hold Cavalry Regiment already supplies an armoured Reconnaissance force to the Brigade, while the 1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders is also deployed with the Brigade. ?The paras and marines should also be recruiting from all arms to increase their recruitment pool.? Why? Elite Light Infantry are exactly that. Maybe if the population increased, then you?d be able to add a further 530 men to the Parachute Regiment or a further 800 to 3RMC (which does not need beefing up as the amount of fire power already available to a given Commando Unit is exceptional by infantry standards). ?Because the time for large scale mainland commitment of forces is over. Ventures such as Iraq show how far we have wandered from a sensible strategic path.? Once again, a contradiction. British forces were required to deploy on mass for the second time in ten years. Britain, if anything, should retain its flexibility to deploy on any situation if required. That?s a sensible strategic plan; keep the ORBAT flexible. Don?t over stretch the units that already are (as you want to)

Quote Reply

Lawman RE: FRES can wait. The army can wait. 3/8/2005 12:57:28 PM

Hmm, I have to say, people seem to think of the current RM Commando as a regular marine unit, like in the USMC, which it really isn't. The UK used to have regular marine brigades, supplemented by a 'spearhead' elite unit - the RM Commando. I would have thought the best solution might be to re-form the regular forces, and leave the existing structure intact, but separate. The same with the airborne forces, i.e. leave them as an elite, but bring back an air-mobile infantry, more akin to the air-landing units of WW2. They would be regular infantry, and not need much more training, just a bit of tactical development, but could deploy with the airborne forces. The idea of staying out of regional conflicts is not such a great idea in my opinion. Regional conflicts are great morale boosters, because they are easy to support (5000 troops being easier to support than 50,000!), and still give decent combat experience, which is lacking in peacekeeping. I feel the best role for the UK for the future is going to be small unit operations, i.e. Brigade sized forces, conducting expeditionary operations, and with full logistic support. The UK needs to quit using the TA as a regular reserve, they are not designed for regular use, but to fill gaps in emergencies. At most, they should be used for short duration deployments, in supporting roles, like logistics, engineering, and other specialised roles.

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral RE: FRES can wait. The army can wait. 3/9/2005 11:27:14 AM

'The UK used to have regular marine brigades, supplemented by a 'spearhead' elite unit - the RM Commando. I would have thought the best solution might be to re-form the regular forces, and leave the existing structure intact, but separate.'- Lawman, I quite agree. Ad states: 'Do you mean forces should operate in their given roles, like, say the UK 3rd Divisions? This already exists, so why on earth would either the Parachute Regiment or 3RMC need to expand in size?' 'The same with the airborne forces, i.e. leave them as an elite, but bring back an air-mobile infantry, more akin to the air-landing units of WW2. They would be regular infantry, and not need much more training, just a bit of tactical development, but could deploy with the airborne forces.' - Lawman Ad adds: 'As I?ve already stated, you can?t simply enlarge either force due to their demanding training. This is for several reasons; firstly not everyone is up to it and secondly the cost of operating 28 week and 32 week infantry course programmes across the board (although would be ideal) would cost vast amounts of cash.' I think my answer lies somewhere in there. The units to make air mobile and amphibious already have those specialties to a certain extent and the funding and aptitude to get them to elite level don't exist. The RM commando and Para can't expand, but they could have more rapid reaction units joining them (or replacing them when elite forces aren't required). This would require greater strategic lift and logistical support (plus escorting cover) from both the RAF and RN. The recent commitments in Asia (as in 'Never fight a land war in asia') on two fronts (as in 'Never fight a war on two fronts'), I don't find good arguments for sustaining a large continental style army. I'm not supprised that use has been found for them. I just question whether that use or even that army, is in UK interests. The regional scale that I intended to refer to would be commitments of 20,000+ to a prolonged occupation. As Lawman states, actions at brigade and divisional level are good experience and interventional forces can do a lot of good in the world. Rapid deployment at this level should be enough to keep UK forces busy. Police actions on a large scale (20,000+, say) tie up our forces and overstreach us for demands in other theatres. If we have to choose between cutting back on army, navy or airforce, I think it should be army. If we have to cut back on army, numbers, training or mobility, I think it should be the overall size of the army that drops.

Quote Reply

blacksmith RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status 3/9/2005 10:28:13 PM

"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?" Having commitments is not the same thing as defending national territory such as maintaining an empire entails. There is no naval threat to the UK. A quarter century ago, the Royal Navy crossed the Atlantic and beat the bantam weight Argentine Navy. Barely. How much of that navy (the Royal one, that is) still exists? Broad areas of responsibility do not make a Great Navy. The US Coast Guard is in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf. It is in the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans. It provides the only law of the sea for much of the central Pacific. But it does not pretend to be able to sustain itself in open combat. It does not pretend to be a navy. Conflict every year... The USCG is in conflicts every day. It's still not a navy. A Navy is a combat arm. If a country cannot assemble a maritime force capable of repeling a major maritime threat (even if there isn't one) or project power against another country, it's not a navy. (and there are lots of navies that aren't navies) If the UK is not willing to make the investment to maintain a Navy, it needs to decide if it is going to invest big bucks in a handful of combatants that can serve as reserves for somebody else's Navy, or accept coast guardness, forgoing the expense of combat capability in exchange for sufficient assets to cover its own needs against non-traditional military threats and law enforcement.

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral RE:promoting Royal Navy to second rate status 3/10/2005 4:29:06 AM

Yes the second biggest navy in the world is the US Navy reserve. All we (UK) can expect from a 'peace-time' government is a little over 2% of GDP to spend on defence. If that is enough I would aim to make the RN the second largest navy. Starting by expanding the T45 purchase to 1 vessel every year. The FSC would be reinstated as low radar signature trimaran frigate on a rolling program of two a year from 2010. With an inservice life of twenty years thats forty frigates by 2030. CVF would be a rolling program building a new CV-LHD every five years with an inservice life of 30 years. Although that's only 3 CV by 2020, from 2035 onward we would have six. The Albion class would be discontinued (may as well keep the ones we have until 2025). A Wasp style 50,000-60,000 tonne 24knot+ LHA, but with a full flight deck and well deck would allow greater flexibilty of mission. It could either be configured as an LHA, LHD or CV depending on load. Six CV/LHA, twenty destroyers and forty frigates seems about right. Using smaller crews we could do that with existing personnel levels. Twelve SSN and four SSBM seems sufficient. Thats probably over budget, but the airforce don't see enough combat experience unless we take them overseas and neither do the army. Cut the army until we have a real navy with decent air cover. Long-term we should look at nuclear fusion or fission for our capital CV/LHA ships (maybe large destroyers too). These could recharge satellite all-electric LCACs, minehunters and frigates. They could be a great help to the local grid when in port too. Given the state of the carbon economy this should be funded alongside a nationwide fusion/fission reactor program

Quote Reply

TDHM RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status 3/10/2005 5:39:42 AM

"Having commitments is not the same thing as defending national territory such as maintaining an empire entails." So what about the 49 far flung dependants that the UK consists of? Forget that? Those are commitements, those are defending national terrority. Why does the US maintain Large Armed forces and Defence Budgets? The US has commitments, the UK has Commitments. To deny one, is to deny the other. "There is no naval threat to the UK. A quarter century ago, the Royal Navy crossed the Atlantic and beat the bantam weight Argentine Navy. Barely. How much of that navy (the Royal one, that is) still exists?" Blacksmith what you know about the Falklands conflict can obvisously be written on your dick. Aka, not much. The Argentine Naval Arm never left port after the General Belgrano was sunk. Barely I dont think so. The Argentines, despite being better equiped and having Home team advantage were comphensibly beaten. barely? Try it on with something else. As for what remains of the Royal Navy? 12 SSNs. 4 SSBN's. 3 Carriers, 1 LPH, 2 LPDs. 6 LPD(A)'s. 20 Frigates. 11 Destroyers. That answer your question? "Broad areas of responsibility do not make a Great Navy. The US Coast Guard is in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf. It is in the Arctic and Antarctic Oceans. It provides the only law of the sea for much of the central Pacific. But it does not pretend to be able to sustain itself in open combat. It does not pretend to be a navy. Conflict every year... The USCG is in conflicts every day. It's still not a navy." What conflicts is the USCG is invovled with Everyday? one specific example please? And we're not talking pirates here. You were talking about how the United Kingdom does not need a Navy. Why? Afterall, it did fight the major Naval war of the last 50 years... "A Navy is a combat arm. If a country cannot assemble a maritime force capable of repeling a major maritime threat (even if there isn't one) or project power against another country, it's not a navy. " Ok dimwit... Name a Navy which the Royal Can not completely decimate. And give an example of how the Royal navy can not project power. Overlooking the fact that Navies aren't expected to project power and never have. They have been used to protect SLOCs. Only recently, as it since the last 40 years, has Power projection been a Naval Mission. So you argument goes that only since the 1960's there has been Navies? Please. "and there are lots of navies that aren't navies) " "If the UK is not willing to make the investment to maintain a Navy, it needs to decide if it is going to invest big bucks in a handful of combatants that can serve as reserves for somebody else's Navy, or accept coast guardness, forgoing the expense of combat capability in exchange for sufficient assets to cover its own needs against non-traditional military threats and law enforcement. " Heres a little advice before I start being really rude. Because One thing I hate is pompous wankers. Read the Strategic Defence Review of 1998. According to you, there is only one navy... What an idiot.

Quote Reply

TDHM RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status 3/10/2005 7:57:47 AM

"This month's issue of "Warship"" Which issue of Warship? Because I cant find such a publication, even on the Internet.

Quote Reply

HorribleSailor RE:Relegating Royal Navy to second rate status 3/10/2005 9:25:45 AM

TDHM - it's called Warship: International Fleet Review, and is a fairly established publication, sister publication of Shipping: Today and Yesterday To find it on the internet you might try googling international fleet review, or Warship IFR.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT