The Shrunken Royal Navy

[eastglosmog]

10 hours ago, alastairq said:

The period between the two World Wars also saw an accepted possibility of war between The UK and the USA. 

It appears, the US government certainly considered the possibility, to the extent they took military precautions [aimed primarily at Canada]...and the Canadian military did likewise...albeit on a much smaller [but more effective?] scale?

I am sure I have read that somewhere but can't find the reference at the moment.  As I recall, the RN was tasked with assessing what would happen.  They concluded that such a war was not winnable.

[Mike Storey]

32 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:

I am sure I have read that somewhere but can't find the reference at the moment.  As I recall, the RN was tasked with assessing what would happen.  They concluded that such a war was not winnable.

 

There was a Channel 5 documentary about it about 8-10 years ago. Plan Red was never authorised by Congress - it was just US Army gaming. They tried to get money to buy a few border aerodromes, but they even bu88ered that up.

 

[brianusa]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< The challenge for the Special Relationship is to survive the present US Administration - an entity that is focused on inflaming the very worst tendencies of less educated Americans to hold power at the expense of the whole world.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

So much for special relationship;  the only thing really special about it was the similar language.  So why does the UK and other countries pander to such a concept.  Even mighty America is not going to nuke the rest of the world in spite of what Trump may say without any prior thought; but as has been mentioned this topic has come far from the shrunken RN of the title and to use a nautical term, we are perhaps sailing too close to the wind of moderation.  Interesting though!

     Brian.

Edited July 24, 2019 by brianusa
omission

[Mike Storey]

15 minutes ago, brianusa said:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< The challenge for the Special Relationship is to survive the present US Administration - an entity that is focused on inflaming the very worst tendencies of less educated Americans to hold power at the expense of the whole world.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

So much for special relationship;  the only thing really special about it was the similar language.  So why does the UK and other countries pander to such a concept.  Even mighty America is not going to nuke the rest of the world in spite of what Trump may say without any prior thought; but as has been mentioned this topic has come far from the shrunken RN of the title and to use a nautical term, we are perhaps sailing too close to the wind of moderation.  Interesting though!

     Brian.

 

You have a point. But the collaborations, economic, social, cultural, military and intelligence (to name a few) remain much more extensive than with any other individual country. Trump cannot undo all of that. But another imminent event might loosen or strengthen them - beyond our remit here.

 

I do not see how the desirable size and composition of the RN, or any other branch of UK diplomacy-by-other-means, can seriously be debated without due reference and discussion of applicable geo-political matters? This is not, after all, a thread about the correct number of rivets in a Type 45's funnel......We have avoided partisan invective so far on this thread, so let's hope we can stay that way!

[Ozexpatriate]

55 minutes ago, brianusa said:

So much for special relationship;  the only thing really special about it was the similar language.  So why does the UK and other countries pander to such a concept. 

I think the "Special relationship" forged by Roosevelt and Churchill which was so essential to Allied victory in 1945, and singularly important to just about every US president since then* and particularly so since 1980 is much more than overcoming two countries divided by a common language.

 

* With one exception I can think of

55 minutes ago, brianusa said:

... to use a nautical term, we are perhaps sailing too close to the wind of moderation.

You are of course quite right there.

 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Ozexpatriate

[Ozexpatriate]

1 hour ago, eastglosmog said:

I am sure I have read that somewhere but can't find the reference at the moment. 

War Plan Red

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

Plan Red was never authorised by Congress - it was just US Army gaming.

There were a whole bunch of them covering many contingencies.

 

War Plan Black was Germany.

War Plan Green was Mexico.

War Plan Orange was Japan.

 

This was more in line with being prepared for every contingency rather than an interest in attacking anyone in particular. The process of gaming out strategies for multi-front wars (the Rainbow plans) proved helpful in the end.

[pete_mcfarlane]

If you want truly unrealistic invasion plans, then this takes the biscuit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Armageddon

 

The key point to take on board with this one is how the political leadership lacked any understanding of their state's actual military capability, and expected it to be a lot more capable than it actually was. 

[alastairq]

WAr plan red?

 

Didn't members of the Canadian [Dominion in those days] military actually conduct recces [under the guise of tourists] of the NE USA states?  Just in case?

 

The televised what-if war games had the Royal Navy thoroughly walloping the US navy...of the time....although losses were considerable....[a war game....don't forget]

Edited July 24, 2019 by alastairq

[The Stationmaster]

We are getting a long way from the Royal Navy.  what we (i.e. the country) has to consider is potential threats and how they are likely to impact on our nation and trade and how we could or should deal with them.  That of course is patently not what defence reviews (various) have doen over the years as they have simply concentrated on saving money by, usually, in effect running a sort of inverted auction between teh three armed services.  We also of course have to consider our treaty commitments - principally NATO.

 

In an age of advanced weaponry and highly sophisticated threats needing equally sophisticated and capable response it is inevitable that costs will rise so unless defence spending is increased the impact will be one of a reduction in capability - however it is measured.  When we forever have politicians who buy their way into power at elections with expensive promises it is is equally obvious from past British history that our defences will suffer.  The only peacetime exception to that which immediately comes to my mind is the 'we want eight' campaign of 1908-09 which in effect led to a General Election but actually achieved what had been shouted for instead of spending the money on social improvements - just imagine that today!

 

So forever we will I think see what has sometimes in the past misused the phrase 'the price of Admiralty' as a price being paid in the front line for those who have suffered the dire effects of those who controlled the purse strings failing to provide teh right kit and ships (in this case) in the right numbers.   At the present the Navy in particular - but the forces in general, are being hit by a qualitative rise in needs impacting on the cost of new and replacement equipment.  In my view that is not unusual, just the numbers are bigger and more frightening at The Treasury.  There seems to be some muddled thinking about the purpose of the Navy hence it is getting an unbalanced fleet where the numbers of different types of vessel simply don't make sense - the prime example being two large aircraft carriers with insufficient escorts to both work in concert with them but at the same time cover a myriad of other duties (which don't seem to be going away).

 

Do I know the answers?  Of course I do, as does every other amateur strategist let alone those whose job it is to decide strategy and the resources we need (as well as those who know what resources we can afford).  Some things will never change particularly the need, in a dangerous world, to protect the merchant ships which service the international needs of our country (whatever flag they might display - because that is even more of an irrelevance today than it was in WWII).  So that is where I would start followed closely, and as it happens relatively cheaply, by the need to manage and protect our sea space and borders.  The first needs escort ships of two basic types and the latter needs patrol vessels, again probably of two basic types - one being very fast and the other very sea worthy with longer endurance and probably greater armament (a type which of course exists and is being built).   Plus, all too obviously to me, a major element to detail with mine detection and clearance.  If we add the NATO commitment we need some landing vessels plus, of course the escorts they need and possibly some sort of fleet airborne element - but look where I have placed that in relation to the other tasks.

[Happy Hippo]

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

n So that is where I would start followed closely, and as it happens relatively cheaply, by the need to manage and protect our sea space and borders.  The first needs escort ships of two basic types and the latter needs patrol vessels, again probably of two basic types - one being very fast and the other very sea worthy with longer endurance and probably greater armament (a type which of course exists and is being built). 

In my travels around Spanish ports I notice that there are always plenty of small and capable looking patrol boats of the Spanish Armada (No ,not that one!), what I would probably classify as corvettes.

 

I'm sure the grass roots RN would relish such a fleet, augmented by what used to be quaintly termed 'coastal forces' of MTB and MGB type vessels, instead of the rather pathetic border force fleet which we seem to be relying on at present.

 

In all honesty, the armed Forces as a whole have been punching far above their weight for years: We are not the international fire brigade, despite what successive Prime Ministers have thought.

 

Although not a RN issue, Desert Storm was a logistics nightmare, with a single Armd Div deployed and the other three shedding most of their logistic elements to support those in theatre.

 

Had the Argentinians decided to kick off again, we had nothing left to sent:  Troops yes, but spares and combat supplies were all else where.  As for ships........

 

The RN would be far better employed and deployed Around the UK and as a rule go no further than the Caribbean to the west and the Mediterranean to the south. 

 

Many years ago, we had a major run down of our military East of Suez, as the defence of Malaysia and Singapore was prohibitively costly.

 

Current posturing with a big aircraft carrier, still without air frames to operate from it, and a horrific shortage of the ships needed to make up a plausible carrier escort group shows how short sighted strategic defence planning has become.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kingzance]

In response to the comments of the honourable members for Henley & Horton, I can only agree with your summaries. It does seem that we have too many officers of significant ranks in all three disciplines in relation to rank and file numbers. I repeat my proposal that this country cannot afford three military arms which in total amount to less than the US Marine Corps - either in manpower or in budget. I also repeat that the learning experience for diplomats, senior civil servants and many politicians is based upon far too narrow a pool of educational establishments. Continued mischief from Vlad's poisoners impalers, Ali Al Khemeni and his IRG, Xi Jinping and his inscrutibles or even that nice Kim Jong Un and his missiles can be expected as the UK has continually demonstrated it is all bluster and no substance. Other than protecting our trade routes and borders, we should perhaps walk away from the myriad of tasks our politicos think they can involve us in.

[brianusa]

<<<<<<<The only peacetime exception to that which immediately comes to my mind is the 'we want eight' campaign of 1908-09 which in effect led to a General Election but actually achieved what had been shouted for instead of spending the money on social improvements - just imagine that today!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Just imagine indeed!  The RN was awash with ships leading up to WW1 but there also was a lot of suffering as well as Edwardian magnificence.  The government at the time didn't have to contend with the homeless on the scale it is today which were conveniently described as tramps nor was there immigration problems to worry about.  The UK was about as lilywhite as it could get and all was as God intended except for the Old Queens grandson who had designs of his own, hence 'we want eight' and other incentives to spend money on.  Certainly most peoples lot has improved over the years but it will never be Eden or the demi paradise of Shakespeare no matter where we spend the money.

[Mike Storey]

11 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

We are getting a long way from the Royal Navy.  what we (i.e. the country) has to consider is potential threats and how they are likely to impact on our nation and trade and how we could or should deal with them.  That of course is patently not what defence reviews (various) have doen over the years as they have simply concentrated on saving money by, usually, in effect running a sort of inverted auction between teh three armed services.  We also of course have to consider our treaty commitments - principally NATO.

 

In an age of advanced weaponry and highly sophisticated threats needing equally sophisticated and capable response it is inevitable that costs will rise so unless defence spending is increased the impact will be one of a reduction in capability - however it is measured.  When we forever have politicians who buy their way into power at elections with expensive promises it is is equally obvious from past British history that our defences will suffer.  The only peacetime exception to that which immediately comes to my mind is the 'we want eight' campaign of 1908-09 which in effect led to a General Election but actually achieved what had been shouted for instead of spending the money on social improvements - just imagine that today!

 

So forever we will I think see what has sometimes in the past misused the phrase 'the price of Admiralty' as a price being paid in the front line for those who have suffered the dire effects of those who controlled the purse strings failing to provide teh right kit and ships (in this case) in the right numbers.   At the present the Navy in particular - but the forces in general, are being hit by a qualitative rise in needs impacting on the cost of new and replacement equipment.  In my view that is not unusual, just the numbers are bigger and more frightening at The Treasury.  There seems to be some muddled thinking about the purpose of the Navy hence it is getting an unbalanced fleet where the numbers of different types of vessel simply don't make sense - the prime example being two large aircraft carriers with insufficient escorts to both work in concert with them but at the same time cover a myriad of other duties (which don't seem to be going away).

 

Do I know the answers?  Of course I do, as does every other amateur strategist let alone those whose job it is to decide strategy and the resources we need (as well as those who know what resources we can afford).  Some things will never change particularly the need, in a dangerous world, to protect the merchant ships which service the international needs of our country (whatever flag they might display - because that is even more of an irrelevance today than it was in WWII).  So that is where I would start followed closely, and as it happens relatively cheaply, by the need to manage and protect our sea space and borders.  The first needs escort ships of two basic types and the latter needs patrol vessels, again probably of two basic types - one being very fast and the other very sea worthy with longer endurance and probably greater armament (a type which of course exists and is being built).   Plus, all too obviously to me, a major element to detail with mine detection and clearance.  If we add the NATO commitment we need some landing vessels plus, of course the escorts they need and possibly some sort of fleet airborne element - but look where I have placed that in relation to the other tasks.

 

Well, we can debate all that until the cows come home, but on two points:

 

We want 8 - gave us more big boats, but apparently no-one had bothered training our sailors how to shoot, as at Jutland, or had thought about making the ships capable of taking battleship punishment. So what use were they really? Volume does not necessarily equal survivability, nor does it, of itself, equal capability to fight a shooting war. The Great Game required the RN to have twice the number of ships as any other two great powers combined. We can now barely match the combined might of Norway and Denmark (leaving the ballistic boats aside), and are very unlikely to be able to afford to do much better, without the great but unacceptable sacrifices to many other aspects of nationhood you mention.

 

On your amateur's strategy, of course we all know the right answer. But you make one assumption there, which aligns apparently with HMG, that we should act as policeman "where in our international interests". That could mean anything, anywhere, but it also suggests it is also in the international interest of our allies. Where are they? The French pull their weight around Africa, the Nordic NATO countries around the Baltic, North Atlantic and North Sea (where they provide considerable support and assistance to our fleet). and they and a few others send a few boats to the odd far flung exercise. Canada does punch above its weight in many conflicts, but rarely is Oz or NZ in the frame, except when they need help against China. The UK, with a similar or lower GDP to many, seems to have decided that it historically played and must therefore retain this world wide role, second to the US, because........???? One news report suggests it is just to maintain the number of UK registered (but foreign owned and foreign crewed) ships. Eh?

 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Mike Storey

[Mike Storey]

4 hours ago, Kingzance said:

Other than protecting our trade routes and borders, we should perhaps walk away from the myriad of tasks our politicos think they can involve us in.

 

But our trade routes are all around the world now, and how do you protect them, really? As per my answer to Mike SM, surely they are also a lot of other people's trade routes?

[Kingzance]

8 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

But our trade routes are all around the world now, and how do you protect them, really? As per my answer to Mike SM, surely they are also a lot of other people's trade routes?

Fair point Mike, the only suggestion that I can make is to attempt to reverse the impacts of globalisation by returning critical production home. That, of course, is not in the best interests of global businesses whose only focus is greater profit. We also have almost destroyed the skills base necessary to achieve that. That we do not manufacture several of the basic medications generally dispensed by the NHS or that we (apparently) now import 70% of our food show the impact of half a century’s changes, let alone the contribution to rising temperatures and CO2 levels.

I’ll now get back to tending my grow-bags, bean-frames and alternative therapies .

[alastairq]

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/deterrence-theory-and-the-royal-navy/

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

But our trade routes are all around the world now, and how do you protect them, really? As per my answer to Mike SM, surely they are also a lot of other people's trade routes?

I very carefully said   'to protect the merchant ships which service the international needs of our country'.   Which is nowhere near the same as as protecting 'our' (or anybody else's) 'trade routes all around the world'.  

 

The ships which service the international needs of  our country are basically no more than those bringing in food, fuel, and essential raw materials.  Very little of that come from anywhere east of the Persian Gulf, south of the major West African ports, or west of the US East Coast and Caribbean . That's still awful of ocean over which to convoy and otherwise protect groups of merchant ships but it omits an extremely large chunk of the world where very little actually comes from to give us food or fuel and in which we cannot really claim any sort of interest at all (excepy perhaps g for the importation of tea).

[alastairq]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

That's still awful of ocean over which to convoy and otherwise protect groups of merchant ships but it omits an extremely large chunk of the world where very little actually comes from to give us food or fuel and in which we cannot really claim any sort of interest at all (except perhaps g for the importation of tea).

 For now?

[Ozexpatriate]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The ships which service the international needs of  our country are basically no more than those bringing in food, fuel, and essential raw materials.  Very little of that come from anywhere east of the Persian Gulf, south of the major West African ports, or west of the US East Coast and Caribbean

Little goes to the UK from China, South Korea or Japan? (Is that what you are saying here Mike?) That would surprise me.

 

Certainly the US is different. the trans-Pacific trade is enormous. All the large North American west coast ports (Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, LA) handle trans-Pacific trade. Lots of automobiles from South Korea and Japan. Everything from China. Mineral and grain traffic goes west. The port in San Diego handles a lot of Central/South American fruit.

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Ozexpatriate

[Mike Storey]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I very carefully said   'to protect the merchant ships which service the international needs of our country'.   Which is nowhere near the same as as protecting 'our' (or anybody else's) 'trade routes all around the world'.  

 

The ships which service the international needs of  our country are basically no more than those bringing in food, fuel, and essential raw materials.  Very little of that come from anywhere east of the Persian Gulf, south of the major West African ports, or west of the US East Coast and Caribbean . That's still awful of ocean over which to convoy and otherwise protect groups of merchant ships but it omits an extremely large chunk of the world where very little actually comes from to give us food or fuel and in which we cannot really claim any sort of interest at all (excepy perhaps g for the importation of tea).

 

Very little of that comes from the Persian Gulf now, so what are we doing there?

[Mike Storey]

2 hours ago, Ozexpatriate said:

Little goes to the UK from China, South Korea or Japan? (Is that what you are saying here Mike?) That would surprise me.

 

Certainly the US is different. the trans-Pacific trade is enormous. All the large North American west coast ports (Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, LA) handle trans-Pacific trade. Lots of automobiles from South Korea and Japan. Everything from China. Mineral and grain traffic goes west. The port in San Diego handles a lot of Central/South American fruit.

 

 

I think Mike will argue that none of those things that do make that journey, are essential raw materials, food or fuel. We would then be debating as to how much we need to defend the trade routes proving us with cheap phones, computers, fridges, model trains etc on the frivolous, but to a large extent now, chemicals, medicines and so on, that we no longer make because they can make it much more economically. In other words, we are defending the ability of China to make stuff that we no longer make, and to send it to us, at great expense.

 

Even HMG are not arguing that. It seems to be more about "principles" of freedom of navigation, which means we are trying to be part of the World Police.

 

Personally, if it takes an extra 12 Type 45's and a couple more squadrons of FB35's on our floating aerodromes, to ensure my 2 HAPs get to the UK in one piece, I am all for an increase in the Defence Budget.............

 

Or DC Kits could re-start production, and offers a deal for someone to paint the damn thing.

 

I am easy - if Mr Blobby offers me one solution, but Mr Beardy offers me the other,

 I will go with the most plausible (depending on what bloke down the pub told me, courtesy of his Russia Today news feed via Fox, via the Dailygetsmuchworse, obviously).

[Mike Storey]

6 hours ago, alastairq said:

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/deterrence-theory-and-the-royal-navy/

 

Very stimulating, and the article encourages further thought about "grey-area conflicts", exactly where we are now with Iran and China, because conventional theories surrounding deterrence are obviously, not working.

[Ohmisterporter]

A US viewpoint of our current woes is in Defense News. 

 

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/07/25/in-a-naval-confrontation-with-iran-great-britain-can-find-neither-ships-nor-friends/

Edited July 26, 2019 by Ohmisterporter

[Fat Controller]

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Very little of that comes from the Persian Gulf now, so what are we doing there?

Oil?

[Barry O]

If we had all of the ships people reckon we neee where would the crew members come from?

 

There is no special relationship with the USA. We seem to be the only "friends" to pay for Lend Lease. We get US equipment at excessive price..then it isn't what it is cracked up to be.  Latest example is F35 where UK content has reduced with time, and delivery rates are slow because we can't really afford these aircraft.

 

The latest "over to you lads" regarding the tanker and Iran shows what the powers that be in the USA think of the UK.

Baz