Does the Royal Navy have a fighting ethos?

Discussion in 'Diamond Lil's' started by darkbluebloke, Oct 11, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

?
  1. Yes - without doubt!

    100.0%
  2. Yes - but only where the real action is!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. No - we have lost our way a little.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. The current land centric operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have placed a heavy emphasis on the British Army. In the eyes of the media and the British Public, the contribution of the RN is not clear - there is a "sea blindness' - the recent hostage situation brought unqualified attention to an unfortunate incident that seems to be lingering and has caused a continious debate on the need to retain our fighting ethos. I am entirely aware of the awe inspiring efforts of our Royal Marines, Naval Harrier Squadrons and many other Naval Personnel serving on (very) dry land in CJO's OAs. I am equally aware of the vital contribution the Fleet are making to securing the maritime flanks, yet our ethos seems to be debated in every meeting/presentation/symposioum that I attend.

    What are your thoughts on the RN's ethos? Is it alive and well?
     
  2. best to recat. as a Coastguard force - with the cuts etc that's all you'll be able to do soon!
     
  3. The Royal Navy does still have a fighting ethos. It has never lost it, what it has lost is the sense of responsibility for cock ups, and that the senior management have been happy to "take on risk" far too much.
     
  4. Could do with the Argies going at the Falklands again, then we would see........

    :rambo:
     
  5. That just about sums it up, Pointless having a Royal Navy, when a British Coastguard command, would be all that is needed, with excess man power manning the arrival points of the immigrants

    The cuts are so harsh, with the answer given that one warship today is the equal fire power of several 70's ships

    They can not answer the fact that one ship can not be in several places at once

    So if one ship with super fire power can cover, why not have that ship as say a concrete battleship on the ISLE of WIGHT, Where they could fire cruise missiles all day to the requested target, much cheaper to maintain

    Transportation of troops could be done by, a couple of the multitude of cruise ships lying idle looking for business
    Then bootie and Pongo can travel in comfort and style, Without the crap of captains rounds everynight, or three cans per man
    (I suspect that now a days ROUNDS is a thing of the past, crew are respectfully requested to keep their room tidy, and rounds may be permitted by appointment only,)
    Apparently crew are not pemitted on the upper decks after nightfall now as it could be dangerous!

    Person overboard, could someone please come up from deck seven and be careful on the upper deck to man the ships hovercraft, anyone, any takers PLEASE
    This is your boss speaking would anyone wishing to work overtime please see your immediate manager and enter details on JPA, then please assist the person overboard That is all and THANK YOU MOST KINDLY

    Jack McHammocklashing RO9
     
  6. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Please elaborate or quantify that statement? :?
     
  7. Sgt Pepper:

    I refer to the Cornwall incident. British Sailors were captured for the first time since WWII. Neither the CO of the Ship or the Cdre in charge of the CTF lost their jobs.

    The boarding team would never have been given proper conduct after capture training because they don't have the right category to receive this training. We take it on risk that we only do compliant boardings - this incident shows, what has been said all along that boarding can start off compliant but turn ugly quickly.

    What was the response from on high? We need more fighting ethos, instead of tackling the problem which lies in the training.

    The RN has never lost its ethos, every time we've needed to perform we have, in spades: WWII, Korea, Malaysia, Falklands, the Gulf x2 and Beirut last year. Exactly when did we lose this ethos? How did it happen? Did we wake up one morning and find that we'd got to the main gate and forgotten it?
     
  8. I think every senior officer now knows that when you get told to do something you keep proper records, and these records are youre get out of jail free card when the sh1t hits the fan, I suspect the senior officers in this case mades ure the right people knew what their defence would be at any court martial, hence no action.

    As for training about behaviour after capture in my day every officer got that as part of his training, and some basic training in forceful interrogation and resistance to it. Does this not happen now.
     
  9. But not before the Asute boats are in service, then the sundodgers could have a real feast. :rambo:

    Oh, and the Joint Harrier Force could test its new toys.
     
  10. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    I think we have; we are certainly starting to feel the erosion of the core values - that's been demonstrated by the RN feeling the need to push out that latest Galaxy.

    I'm quite often stunned when I talk to RN people in sandy places as they complain that they didn't joint to play Ops on land. I can see why they believe they have an issue but they joined the UK military, we go where we are directed to be it sea or land.

    We get a fairly decent training package for Ops (OPTAG or FOST) and that should be enough, quibbling about not being on a pussers grey is just that quibbling.

    That people do quibble and quite openly does support the supposition that we have lost that ethos.
     
  11. Wave dodger, I've got to disagree with you. I joined the Navy to go to sea, if I wanted to sit in a tent on land I would have joined the Army.
     
  12. HMS Amethyst - Yangste River 1949
    HMS Cornwall - Gulf 2007
    Comparisons?
    Any comments?
     
  13. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    Thats fine and your opinion is valid but I think its pretty much wrong to say I'm happy to serve on a ship but not land.

    I will never ever go back to sea, there just isn't a job for me but I have now done both Ops TELIC & HERRICK and in my own little way made a contribution and actually look forward to going again (pref. HERRICK).

    So what do we do with all the people that won't have a sea draft for a few years and have to balance the increasingly scarce shore appointments? I for one would much rather do an operational job.

    I joined the military not a civvy company in full recognition I could get sent anywhere, didn't you have that same realisation?

    Being a CIS there are jobs in both theatres you could easily do - why shouldn't you?
     
  14. To some one who isnt in the RN (21oct i join) or know too much about the histories involved, i am learning alot from your debate. Since i dont know nothin', I blame the Media.
     
  15. Being a CIS there are jobs in both theatres you could easily do - why shouldn't you?

    Because I joined the Navy, not the Army.

    I joined the military not a civvy company in full recognition I could get sent anywhere, didn't you have that same realisation

    When I was 16 years old, 23 years ago, no I didn't realise that I could be sent to work in a foreign theatre in a land locked country.

    The terms and conditions of service have changed dramatically since when I joined up in 1984. All those years ago, it wasn't conceivable that a large amount of matelot's would be sent on ops to the desert.
     
  16. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    I quite agree things have changed but they've been changing for a long time. I haven't quite done 23 years like yourself but even I've seen major changes in my 16 and the biggest has been the move towards greater jointery.

    Surely at some point in these 23 years you must have looked around and wondered if you'd get a Tri-service posting - thats not a typically Navy draft and then the next extension is operating away from the water.

    I'm not trying to be intentionally rude, but anyone who is in the Navy these days just has to accept they have a liability to serve anywhere, its nieve not too.

    Maybe you're not up for it but I quite liked the challenge of working with the Army and the Air Force. They have really different ways of doing things and the three do work well together. After 16 years doing solely FLEET centric work to have a greater appreciation of Operations and to work in a real joint environment has been great. I've learned lots and had fun, fun which is rapidly diminishing in the RN.
     
  17. Agreed, tbh my joint and exchange jobs have been much more fun than pottering about in a pussers grey.
     
  18. Wave, I've had 9 months with 148 Bty. I'm currently in a Tri-Service job in the UK.

    I've also had a NATO job working with different forces of all nationallities, so my experience working with varying forces is quite extensive.

    All I'm saying is that people join the Navy to go to sea and not sit in a tent in the desert. Or should we go down the Canadian route of a combined defence force?
     
  19. Good date to join. Are you aware of the significance of this?
     
  20. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    I wasn't knocking what you've done, and as I said I'm not trying to be rude. People do join the Navy to go to sea, I did too, but for some branches/specs there is only so many opportunities and going Joint opens so many more avenues. If they are primarily land focussed these days I don't see why people should be surprised, or reluctant especially if you can be employed in your core role/trade.
     

Share This Page