When discussing anything on the future of the armed forces for some reason the Royal Navy (and RFA) always seems to be the most emotive, attract the most polarising single service mentality arguments and many seem to insist that more reductions in the RN will result in the world ending, the nation being unable to feed itself and other various disasters.
Finding impartial argument on the internet or anywhere else is particularly difficult because most discussion usually ends in accusations of the RAF trying to do in the RN/FAA and the quality of the debate seems to end there. There are even campaigning websites devoted to saving the Royal Navy that follow the well trodden line of condemning the Typhoon as a cold war relic, by extension, seeking to maintain or increase spending in one service at the expense of another. They might accuse others of ‘sea blindness’ but aren’t they equally guilty of ‘air blindness’
The Army has lost hundreds of famous regiments with long and proud histories, the RAF has also been significantly reduced in size so in this, the RN is no different. What might be a fair argument and I don’t know if this is factually true is that the RN has certainly been toppled off its previous top spot in the order of things. The nature of conflict has changed and of this means a reduction in the RN greater than in comparison to the other services then this is something that the RN will just have to accept and look beyond their own service issues.
Has the Royal Navy had more than its fair share of embarrassing scandals over the last few, probably not?
For every running aground, massively over budget project, watching pirates take British hostages or iPods the Army and RAF has its own set of scandals, but they seem to sting more with the RN.
Why this is is not certain, maybe it stems from its long and proud history, its role in the pre eminence of England and the British Empire or many other factors, it is the Senior Service after all.
These of course should not be forgotten but we must have a modern and impartial approach.
The Royal Navy actually has a proud tradition of strategic, tactical and and equipment innovation, the realisation that training and discipline were key to fighting efficiency, hygiene, nutrition, accurate mapping, timekeeping and navigation aids, HMS Dreadnought, amphibious warfare, heliborne operations, anti submarine warfare, naval aviation, ASDIC, the switch from sail to coal, HMS Warrior and the Falklands Conflict are all good examples, amongst an ocean of others (see what I did there 
)
But where is the next HMS Warrior?
The UK is broke; perhaps innovation is the child of austerity but one thing is certain, the Royal Navy needs to face up to the realities of the future.
Readers must not assume that I think we should have 2 gunboats and a tug for a Royal Navy, far from it, but the current plans do not seem sustainable.
From the tone of this article I feel we are going to disagree in coming articles, but i’ll leave it for now until there are specific issues I can address.
I would just like to point out that the RN can’t really be accused of air blindness in the way the RAF or army could be accused of sea blindness because the RN operates across the air, sea and land spectrum’s to quite a significant extent.
OK as an ex-matelot I will take all the bait above, and readily snap…
However ref: “The UK is broke; perhaps innovation is the child of austerity but one thing is certain, the Royal Navy needs to face up to the realities of the future.”
Well technically the UK is not broke or else it would not be a member of the G7, indeed I am sure I saw a post on this site that reminded us that the UK is apparently the sixth wealthiest nation on the planet ? It is not the Navy which needs to face up to the future, it is the government. What does it want its Navy to do ?
So lets start with that shall we, what do we want the Navy to do. The last proper SDR when New Labour had just took over put all the UK armed forces on a ‘expeditionary’ footing, and laid the foundations for improvements to the amphibious flotilla and of course famously stated the requirement for the two big white elephants, oops sorry, ‘real’ carriers.
However to do this properly we must consider the maritime threats to UK security first:
1. All out peer to peer conflict. Not likely due to globalisation. I don’t see NATO or the UK in some other coalition going to war against China or Russia any time soon. However use of proxy’s, and the scrabble for resources might mean that any conflict with other nation states is actually more likely to happen at sea, away from civvies who can be become collateral damage.
2. All up naval campaign against “less than peer” – think retaking the Falklands from the Argentinians again. Well lets face it, even if that particular scenario were to play out, we have already dropped below the capabilities required to take on such a fight on our own.
3. Major coalition operations. We can still, and should plan on being, a player in standing NATO task groups and other formations, and in this scenario a ‘near peer’ fight might be against Russia if NATO were to stand up for Georgia for example.
4. Policing – Anti-piracy / anti-terrorism. A job the RN has done for hundreds of years, but what is the real threat to UK commerce ? It depends, but it might include the proliferation of modern anti-ship missiles to ‘non-state actors’ (think Hizbolla and its attacks on Israeli navy), mining of choke points, and even the proliferation of modern diesel electric / AIP submarines. Think of a scenario where AQ or other ‘global jihad’ organizations take over the north coast of Somali and parts or all of Yemen…. ?
Of course linked to this is the current spate of piracy (and there has been much worse and much more violent piracy in other oceans for decades – just much less reporting of it) and the possibility of nuclear and other proscribed technologies being transported between ‘rogue states’ in merchant fleets.
So how seriously does the government of the day consider these and other threats, and how do they impact upon its desired foreign policy ? Personally I think submarine launched Tomahawk cruise missiles are the way to deal with identified terrorist training camps etc, but I don’t fall for the BS peddled by the government that if we dont fight the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan, they we will soon be fighting them in Doncaster, Bradford and Glasgow.
This of course links to your comments about the army loosing lots of historic regiments, and the air force taking its share of cuts. Its all true, and its all bad – but one should not destroy the Navy because we are currently fighting an ill conceived land locked campaign that takes little account of the history of the area or its peoples.
The army is not guilty of propaganda per se, it has been deployed, and thus needs the cash and kit, but dont forget all the RN how are there helping, be it the RM, the FAA Junglie squadrons, or the ‘Naval Strike Wing Harriers’.
The RAF however has been extremely guilty of propaganda ever since the Falklands, when the Black Buck raids were militarily completely pointless, but sure delivered great press coverage (and according to Cdr Sharky Wards book about Sea Harriers in the FI’, there were more RAF brass at the big service in Westminster Abbey than there was Navy – go figure !) So I don’t slag the Typhoon, but I do question the use of an air force which requires secure bases in friendly countries from which to operate versus the flexibility of vessels on the high seas.
So however much it may sound like banal Naval propaganda, but 90% of the UK’s commerce does move by sea, thats just a fact. As is the gas coming in on LPG carriers and also the fact that the country has about 48 hours worth of food at any one time – not propaganda, just “inconvenient truths”. The question is, do we value the ability to do something to safeguard these commodities on their routes to the UK, or do we just want to protect our ports using the TA while the Typhoons fly CAP overhead ?
I think this is an area where we may disagree, which as you know I encourage
However, don’t think I want the RN to be weak and useless, far from it. My next post will try an look at how cost escalation and the desire to stay at the high end has created a top heavy fleet with reduced utility for the type of things that the RN is actually required for these days. Much like a fast jet focussed RAF has neglected its transport and ISR fleet, the RN needs a correction. I think we all agreed with the premise of the RAF making some wrong decisions based on the desire to retain the high end with the result being weaknesses in the type of capabilities that are actually needed.
I agree about the degree of commerce that goes by sea, but how much of that is across the North and Irish Sea, how much of that is passenger movement, how does the Channel Tunnel change things, how many ports do we have that are capable of bringing in food and how much of that commerce that moves by sea is as a result of transhipments, i.e. landed and then moved on to say Hamburg from Southampton.
Finally, how does the fact that so much of this commerce goes by sea, justify CVF and JCA
ding. ding…
In response to Jed
1. No one can stand against a united NATO.
This is an undeniable fact.
However, its based on US might and Diplomatic Power, and to a lesser extent, the will of its other members.
A Russian invasion of Poland would go unopposed if Germany called for calm talks so as not to imperil gas supplies and the US was busy dealing with Russian proxy Iran in the middle east.
2. Weak as we are, could Argentina even take the Falklands today?
Doesnt the Argentinian Air force consist of what we didnt shoot down last time?
Much as I complain about the T45, it can intercept current generation anti ship missiles and fast jets.
The Argentinians have missed the current and previous generation havent they?
I’m pretty sure half their Navy is still reliant on 40mm Bofors Guns for air defence, the rest having old model short range missiles.
Replace Argentina with the Confederation of Socialist States of South American (CSSSA) and we’re in trouble, but just Argentina?
3. Georgia was a very interesting war.
The Georgian Ground Forces overran the Russian armed and trained militia in days and then stopped a Russian advance dead.
It wasnt until the Russian air force managed to break the back of Georgian air defences, its two main radar systems, and could start serious ground support that the Georgian defence failed.
If you were to refight that war but base 60 or so Typhoons in Turkey to enforce a no fly zone over Georgia and the break way republics, could Russia win?
Would NATO escalate to that level is the real question
4. If Iran armed a proxy with anti ship missiles, and they use them to sink a British registered merchant ship, I think our response should be a massive punitive strike against Iran.
Trying to keep the 800 or so super tankers and the 600 or so super containers, along with tens of thousands of smaller cargo ships under constant protection is just impossible.
Creating a Royal Navy that can punish anyone for arming a proxy against us is quite easy, and historically, its what we did.
If we happened to catch a ship based on the barbary coast, fine, we jailed its crew and sold the ship, but our main method of retaliation against the pirates was to send a battleship squadron to fight their way into the port, destroy the defences, and then spend the next 12 hours pummelling the surrounding city until we’d ran out of shot.
I’m sure the French fired 10,000 cannon balls into the city in one day once.
All forces need to modernise, and quickly, the modern RN is a force barely changed since the second world war, still reliant on carrier battlegroups.
Not so bad when your the worlds third richest country, but we’re now fighting to remain in the top seven, a fight that we’re far from certain to win.
Shouldn’t we at least look at a T45 hull stripped down to an austere short range missile, CIWS and a large battery of VLMS, or something new at any rate
Admin said:”Finally, how does the fact that so much of this commerce goes by sea, justify CVF and JCA”
It does not, and I don;t try to justify it, I would stop building the carriers and withdraw from the F35 programme immmediatley if it was down to me ! But the current plans of the MoD based on the last SDR are all about power projection and expeditionary warfare – in which case they do make sense.
Thats why all build work on the CV(F) should be stopped immediately until the new FDR has taken place. Or least start negotiations to sell them to India, a country way more poor than the UK, but one which appears serious about its Navy !
Dominic – could the Argies take the FI today – probably not HOWEVER “two wrong’s don’t make a right” – could we take them back if they did, NO !
There are a few broader things that stick out for me.
I used to be very sceptical about ‘jointism’ – the trend for tri-service establishments. It seemed like simply a way to save money. However, if it encourages a more ‘UK Defence’ based culture than the partisan service rivalries we get currently, it might lead to more balanced planning, rather than services briefing against each other and squabbling with each other for funding.
Mind you, the effect of the combined Ministry of Defence has led to the Government being able to divide and conquer the armed forces, whereby the service that is slickest with its PR and has the ear of the Government always seems to prosper. The RN has been weak in this respect in recent years.
I must admit I’m still very sceptical of ‘Jointism‘ I will admit it seems to work for other nations in some aspects but no nation that I can think of that is as militarily powerful as the UK has tried it. Canada is the largest nation I can think of that has joint armed forces and from what I’ve heard and I’ll freely admit I’m no expert on the Canadian Forces it has problems even although it was implemented in 1968. If it was a wise thing to do I think we would see more nations out there with joint armed forces? Even when all the politics is taken into consideration there should still be more examples of it. I would probably still have a separate Admiralty if I’m honest while the Army and Air force would work together as they usually will be base together on operations while the navy is out at sea doing their job. Naturally this has its own flaws what but I feel it would still work as the Navy does have a connection to both of the other services the Marines with the Army and the FAA with the RAF.
Why does the Royal Navy always seem the most emotive possibly because we are an island and in the past our naval power has saved us so many times from being extinguished. The Royal Navy helped create as well as sustain the largest empire the world has ever and possibly ever will see and is the oldest of the services. The Royal Navy and the empire is arguably the reason why the UK has any standing in the world as it was fundamental in shaping it from Europe to Asia it was a dominant force for a long time. Trade flows by sea and has done so for a very long time and whoever controls trade can influence the world we recognised that and so did others. It’s arguable that open sea lines of communication are more important now than they ever have been in the past as nations are now no longer anywhere near self-sufficient. Imagine if you cut off the flow of oil from the Middle East or the flow of food and cheap goods from Asia how long would we last in this throwaway just in time society? Days for oil and gas, weeks for food and months for cheap goods. I’m aware I sound paranoid but feel free to point that out.
Whats good for General Motors is good for America
Whats Good for the NHS is good for Britain
Whats good for the Royal Airforce is good for Britain
Thats the mind set of the people involved, rightly or wrongly.
Will creating a joint defence body paper over some issues, probably, but Dannat would still have been commandant of the AAC and put the survival of the AAC first.
The IDF works as a joint force because they have a simple mission everyone agrees on, but even then, the Lebanon intervention was a disaster because an air force general had decided multi brigade level ground wars were not likely and so cut funding for training for them.