From time to time I like to look at an article in the mainstream media and come over all smug at the basic lack of research or any basis in fact but this one took even an old cynic like me by surprise.
Writing in the Telegraph today Con Coughlin makes a case for a strong navy, nothing wrong with that of course. We do need a strong navy but in justifying the central point he makes the following statements
But, then, the fact that the Royal Navy can only get into the headlines these days by providing an emergency ferry service for fractious holidaymakers is indicative of just how little public attention is paid to it
By all accounts the holiday makers were far from fractious and had nothing but admiration for the way the Royal Navy and Royal Marines handled the situation. Whilst one can be forgiven a little cynicism (none more than me) about Gordon Brown showboating by sending the Royal Navy into the English Channel when the cross channel ferries were doing a good job with little fuss the movement of service personnel returning from Afghanistan is a good use of Royal Navy resources.
Indeed, its role in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has been so peripheral that many people might be surprised to discover that we still have a navy at all.
In fairness, it is not the Navy’s fault that the two major wars Britain has fought in the early 21st century have been in countries with little or no access to the sea.
As with the RAF, the Navy has been mainly reduced in Afghanistan to providing a support role for the movement of troops and equipment to and from the conflict zone. The only contribution of real note has come from the Royal Marines, who have fought heroically.
What the fcuk is he going on about. The RAF has supported operations in Afghanistan with everything from ISR, unmanned systems, transport inter and intra theatre, vital close air support, force protection, air traffic control, logistics and dogs. Let’s not even go to the members of the RAF and RAF Regiment that have been killed or injured. As for the Royal navy, the Naval Strike Wing, provision of helicopters, support personnel, drivers, technicians, the initial Tomahawk attacks and of course sustainment via the sea bridge, without which the operation would grind to a halt. A recent MC winner was I believe a RN medic.
A quick look at the components of Task Force Helmand shows the tri service nature of the deployment.
As for Iraq, do the words Umm Qasr and the Al Faw peninsula mean anything to him.
Yet it must share some of the blame for its decline in the military rankings, given its less than impressive showing on those rare occasions when its expertise has been called upon
Although we might give the Andrew a bit of stick about iPods and running aground this is plain insulting.
Prior to the September 11 attacks, one of our most successful overseas interventions was in Sierra Leone. The aircraft carrier Illustrious made a crucial contribution: with its Harrier jets providing vital air cover for the Paras fighting on the ground. The carrier’s presence also allowed helicopters to fly troops and supplies to and from the combat zone
Mr Coughlin needs to read a bit of history, the Royal navy harrier force arrived on the scene 5 days after Lunghi Airport had been secured by 1 Para, who arrived via C130 flown by the RAF via Senegal. The Harriers did some training, a few shows of force and recce missions but were hardly instrumental in securing success. The coercive effect of the Sea Harriers might be argued as considerable but then was a show of precision and combat power from the 105mm Light Guns of 8 battery 29 Commando Royal Artillery.
Whilst the central theme of wanting a strong navy is fine the rest of the article I am afraid is complete dog toffee
I think part of the problem is MSM articles are just that Mainstream aimed at the normal person not people like us who have not yet been brainwashed by the media and government so go looking for the truth. I think what he was getting at is the fact that the Royal Navy, the actual maritime part, is not really that visible to the average person unlike the Falkland’s etc where it was a high visibility Royal Navy operation. Most people don’t connect the Royal Navy with either Afghanistan or Iraq they connect the Army and RAF to them, some people think if it flies it’s the RAF and if it’s a bloke with boots and a gun it’s Army (I would say most but that would be me being unkind). When people think ‘navy’ they think of grey boats and submarines they don’t really think about Royal Marines or the Air Arm.
Anyhow grumble over with I agree with this “Whilst the central theme of wanting a strong navy is fine the rest of the article I am afraid is complete dog toffee”
Hi, the Royal Navy is mostly patrolling, exercising, training students and other nations a little, mine counter-measure, occasionally doing amphib exercises and ops, public relation activities, nuclear deterrance, humanitarian, SBS, surveying and many more things less so. The Royal Navy service personnel operating in and out of and adjacent to A’stan at the moment is a huge fraction of our force there.
Do any of you follow the whole LCS capability problems and the importance of new smaller ships in a navy as is forwarded by sites and people like http://newwars.wordpress.com/. This site is mentioned a lot in the naval web community. Perhaps we should seriously think about developing the C3 variant of the Future Surface Combatant/ frigate programme sooner. Perhaps it could be built in it’s own set of yard facilities while the C1 and C2 are built. Do you think we should order a couple OPVs or a larger multi-role patrol/support ship for pirate/waterway patrolling? Also will Ocean and Argus be replaced in the 2020s or will a new type(s) of ship be proposed.
Will we or anyone do motherships in the next couple decades? Not just a small unmanned system, RIB, raider, interceptor, and insertion boat capability, but also patrol boats, fast ucav jets and landing craft. Are we going to increase the amount of training we give to african and asian armed forces? Will the new carriers go and train/exercise their F-35s with south american and asian fighter forces?
Will the quality of the food in the services improve? Will we stop closing bases?
Will the EU get more offensive with their armed forces around the world, and spend more on them?
What rotary uav/ucav will we use soon?
The F-35 won’t die, nor the v-22 osprey or it’s derivatives, nor the 5.56mm nato firearms, nor the type 26 frigate.
We won’t be getting a good increase anytime soon in MPs and Lords with professional military experience. We are hi-tech and will buy more innovative equipment. But we won’t go energy smart soon like the US military is doing It’s planning to use 50-percent alternative fuel in all planes, vehicles, and ships by the next decade, invested $2.7 billion in fiscal 2010 to improve energy efficiency, set 50% renewable energy target goal of fielding a “Great Green Fleet” by 2016. It’s reducing its energy consumption on military bases and plan to by 34 percent by 2020, also to have 25 percent of its energy come from renewable sources by 2025, renewable energy studies, and more.
I’m still frustrated with the size implications of our new carriers, but only a little now which is a big change for me. If Ocean is not replaced in the mid-late 2020s then the carriers could have a lot of work. I guess they’ll have good successful useful long lives though, I mean relative to other military equipment/platforms.
We won’t do catobar until the new merlin MASC/AEW retire and/or their radar platform capability becomes redundant, and/or we want to operate a variety of different sized fixed wing planes from them. We will need EMALS electro-magnetic catapults to do this probably, which have just been ordered for the 3 new $5 billion US carriers.
Will we buy more from BAE and British companies? The variety of people’s knowledge of our armed forces out there is enormous like most things. Not that I’m saying you’re wrong Euan, it’s just very hard to have a good (correct) idea.
Thanks everyone.
this is a strange about-face from Con, he has previously been very pro-army……………..?