Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The future role of the RN
perfectgeneral    10/14/2006 10:50:09 PM
It seems to me that the RN won't replace it's frigates when the time comes. Indeed it seems to want rid of them sooner. It seems that the desired surface roles are limit to:
  • Amphibeous Support
  • Coastal/Border Patrol
  • Power Projection (by Carrier Group) This leaves a requirement for carrier escorts and carriers only if power projection is given a budget. Amphibeous support vessels only if amphibeous operations continue to be desirable and an handful of offshore patrol vessels. Without a clear commitment to projecting power (through the purchase of the Queen Elizabeth class CVF) we could see the RN shink to a military coast guard within our lifetime. The final manufacturing decision is due around the end of the year (early 2007). News? Thoughts?
    Quote    Reply

    Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
    Nanheyangrouchuan       10/15/2006 12:36:52 AM
    Policing choke points in the Indian Ocean and around the Arabian peninsula.
    Quote    Reply

    perfectgeneral       10/15/2006 5:40:30 PM
    Are UK forces commited to that? What do you see as the surface vessels required to get the job done?
    Quote    Reply

    Yimmy       10/15/2006 5:58:30 PM
    What about our significant role in the preventing the trafficing of arms and drugs?
    Quote    Reply

    perfectgeneral       10/16/2006 8:05:00 PM

    What about our significant role in the preventing the trafficing of arms and drugs?


    Did you see the headline in the Telegrapgh today? One warship, one sub, one support ship. Pathetic. The government need a few more articles like this to shame them into action/funding/procurement. The blockcade of North Korea being more down to the French, Japanese and Australians should truely humiliate the PM of a perminant member of the security council. Global reach? Power projection? Hah!

    Quote    Reply

    Padfoot       10/21/2006 7:31:14 AM
    I hear that the go ahead for the new carriers will be announced on Oct 26. Apparently the MOD will make it all official in early December. Great news, huh?

    Perfectgeneral, I'm not sure what a small navy like that of Australia can do that Britain can't in a blockade of North Korea? After all the RAN is very busy as well. It's Amazing what a hysterical headline in a newspaper can do - I think you can well and truly whinge when the RN is indeed as small as the RAN or the like.

    Quote    Reply

    Yimmy       10/21/2006 11:34:24 AM
    Oh I can damn well whinge now, I assure you!
    Look at the size of the Royal Navy in 1945 - and you will see a huge force, and one to be expected at the end of the winning side of a World War.
    Look at the Royal Navy in 1970, and you will see a large and capable force, and one fit for the role of being ever-ready for the next World War (which never came).
    Look at the Royal Navy in 1982, and you see a force being heavily cut back, down to dangerous levels.
    Look at the Royal Navy now, and you see a force HALF the size of 1982.
    Steel is cheap, there is no excuse for the cutting down of tonnage and numbers of the RN.
    Quote    Reply

    perfectgeneral       10/21/2006 7:52:13 PM
    Padfoot, great news about the CVFs, but that isn't certain yet. I'll believe it when the cash is on the nail. As to what the RAN can do, they are much nearer, so they can do more with less. I suppose the real embarrassment would be falling behind France. Yimmy can't paint a stark enough image of the current state of the RN. We can't afford to wait until it is the size of the RAN or the like. We NEED a blue water navy. Those abstract deals made in the city rely on money that moves because things move by sea. The only way to block or protect movement of goods is by sea power. We can't afford to wait until the writing is on the wall and the lack of a ship costs us dearly. Even appearing weak at sea costs us politically and militarily. Countries start to queue up to ask the tough questions, knowing that we no longer have a good answer.
    Quote    Reply