Subscribe
Notify of
guest
10 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Don

Totally agree . This article hits the nail on the head.
Also Good article in the Mail today by Max Hastings on Standing up to Putin.
The Powers that be need to dust of the cheque book and start investing in the Military – manpower and equipment .
We have been warned by various commentators on the risks of becoming a hollow force .
Yes Money is tight but we don’t have the luxury of not investing in the military because the costs if we don’t will be far higher .
“Speak softly but carry a big stick”
Goes a long way in preventing conflicts.
If you loose your big stick you’re more likely to be bullied, then end up fighting in a conflict .
Prevention is better than conflict.

Gerry

B!!!!!!ks. There’s no money for Willie waving.

Tony Rosier

This is all absolutely True however we are at a Dreadnought time I believe in the history of the Navy on that unmanned drone ships will soon become the norm perhaps with regional mAnne mother ships controlling swarms of drones. This will most likely make all current ships redundant and everyone will be starting again from scratch. Imagine a nuclear submarine controlling 10 drones each armed with a multi warhead missile or a carrier controlling swarms of drones. Perhaps better we take the Fisher route and invest in the future now and get ahead instead of trailing behind the other’s.

Chris

We certainly are approaching a new era, but I don’t believe drones will render all other forms of combatant obsolete. Like aircraft before them they will be revolutionary, but as a means of enhancing existing capabilities and broadening the scope of combat. The frigates and destroyers of the future will be just as important, but with more weapons to counter drone threats, for example. We should be investing in this technology (and certainly not losing the Navy’s drone abilities) but not at the expense of the tried and tested: drones can’t conduct maritime relief operations or boarding parties, and we would be remiss to neglect our duties in order to finance technologies the impact of which are yet unknown.

Bloke down the pub

The last great success of British sea power that was fully understood by the public was the Falklands campaign
I don’t believe it was understood by the public. Teenagers polled on their impressions in the wake of the conflict thought that it was won by Vulcan bombers and the Paras. It’s one thing to enjoy the soubriquet of ‘the silent service’ but in this day and age if the Navy doesn’t shout its achievements from the roof tops, like the RAF does, it will not get the public support it requires to fund its rebuilding.

Chris Kirk

I thibk that the term Admiral West used was ‘wilie waving’, the Royal Navy used to do a lot of that in my day.

4thwatch

Its also a fact that in order to exercise seapower we need the tools.
We can’t have half seapower we need comprehensive seapower. Seapower is a weapon that if tested must be substantially complete or it will get found out.
Three times in the 20th century Great Britain was nearly found out, in both wars by the Submarine, in the second by Airpower and by special operations against our bases.
We really do need to do everything in our power to ensure the safety of our carriers. We need a 99% certainty that they will not be easily taken out. I am unconvinced we have really faced up to any of these threats. We seem deficient.
One thing is for certain, whatever is needed to fill the gaps is going to cost money. Not colossal sums but nevertheless more than is currently being provided. We could start with actually fitting with… rather than leaving empty spaces on the decks of our ships for……
Any future conflict is likely to be upon us with appalling suddenness; it may come midweek on a sunny day when we are fully manned and on full alert on the other hand it probably wont.

Anton Deque

I completely agree with these views and have been in favour of the U.K. (or r.U.K.) returning to being a maritime power for some time. Budgets are going to have to be an issue, therefore the multiplier effect of a navy is essential for this country, placed as it is on major sea lanes and next to a great trading ocean. A Navy fits with our national interest like no other branch of the armed services, important as air and land operations are. Prof. Anthony King has expressed the view that the U.K. ought to base its defence posture on something like a formation equivalent to the U.S. Marine Corps. I wholly agreed with this suggestion. I also feel our acquisition planning needs complete revision. It lacks a certain quality of innovation and adaptation and is painfully protracted – and expensive of itself.

Gerry

Get real more people follow the x factor than this blog. We don’t need RN for the 60’s we need a force for the the real world crewed. By warriors not uniformed kidults!

AR

is the navy’s techno snobbery ‘we want this system’raised costs of new ships to the point where thy become too expensive because of all the ‘bells and whisles’?