Royal Navy pulls out of Nato commitments


War Hero
Book Reviewer
"small Nordic states have been living with similar risks for decades" precisely because they were provided with a security umbrella by the United States AND THE UNITED KINGDOM.

Not to be able to put up a ship permanently for STANAVFORLANT is incredible. And shaming.
How embarrassing. Thought they said at the time of the cuts and all that the ability of the RN, at its current capacity, to meet all its previous commitments would be unaffected.
the Royal Navy maintains a strong relationship with Nato through the Nato maritime headquarters, based in the UK, which is permanently commanded by a Royal Navy vice-admiral.”
So that's all right then; but how long for? You can't expect to be the mechanic if somebody else owns all the kit in your tool box.
Not sure why not having a Frigate or Destroyer permanently in a NATO TG that does a bit of anti-piracy from time to time, or not having a Mine Countermeasures Vessel in a similar group is considered shocking when we have had 2 DD/FF permanently in the Arabian Gulf protecting our vital sea lanes for years and have 4 MCMs permanently on standby to keep the straights of Hormuz open. These people would be better off reading the first couple of pages of Navy News every month and finding out what their hard earned taxes are actually being spent on, rather than whinging about what they think might be a nice idea. As for commitment to NATO, how many troops have the nations that are contributing permanently to SMNG 1 and 2 been putting into the NATO led force Afghanistan? Apart from the US, not as many as the UK. When NATO decides to conduct a proper Maritime Operation they know who will turn up. In the meantime our ships will be employed where they best contribute to our own National interest.


War Hero
So the Maritime Command run from Northwood is not commanded and supported by the RN then????

The staff work through important working groups like, say, MC3Cat is not Chaired by the RN or key staffing of important NATO C4ISR issues not by the RN Cdr working for the C3B.......

Bunch of arse by people who have no idea about current Naval operations and should stick to trying to find some sensible policies if Independence becomes a reality.
Looks like a bean counting special, sod NATO look after the oil zones or am I being cynical?
Mentioned in anther thread constant cuts, in vessels and man power will end up over stretching what’s left.


Lantern Swinger
The thing that gets me is that Salmond gets away with ignoring the entire submarine fleet being based in Scotland, in terms of defending Scottish waters that's pretty useful.

I'm also slightly worried about the Icelandic academics:
An independent Scotland would be “at a deep strategic disadvantage” to Russia in the conflict that is expected to emerge from climate change, according to Icelandic academics.
Do they know something we don't, or is Red Storm Rising being reissued in a climate change edition?

Similar threads

Latest Threads