Why Do We Need a Navy?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Passed-over_Loggie, Aug 27, 2008.

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. Sorry, I've been away, so I'm maybe a bit late with this; http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ifs_news/hi/newsid_7418000/7418723.stm

    So far, so good. The next logical stage, of course, is;

    This would include South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

    This would come to fruition at just the time when the centre of gravity of our national defence will have been skewed towards an expeditionary Land force with supporting Maritime and Air components.

    Add to this a newly inspired and confident Russia occupying the attention of NATO in Europe and the Arctic Circle and we could have interesting times ahead.

    Unless, of course, we cede our interests to the EU for the greater good!
  2. Whoops almost ignored that one 'cos I thought that " Why Do We Need a Navy?" was a rhetorical question. [Simple answer is that we need RN to man the ships to drive RM around :bball: ].

    Seriously though we had better crack on and build something on Rockall now that I realise that it's a serious post - The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea states, “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.â€

    Build a house on Rockall, fill it full of Chavs, protect it with Matelots = gain access to lots and lots of seabed for oil-drilling :thumright:

    Interesting article in the Rockall Times; which everyone knows is the best newspaper in Rockall > http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2006/08/28/terror-suspect.html

    EDITED TO ADD > In true RN fashion there is already a plan in place to assault land on Rockall from the Invincible http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/rockall-ho/assault-plan.html

  3. The Russians will definately Veto that. They veto anything from any country in the west irrespective of what the subject is.
    Of course they take no notice themselves of any vetos by other countries on them.
  4. Surely as everybody knows the RN is the Master of the Seas and thereby defends Neptune's vast watery realm, surely we should lay claim to all the oceans and seas and what lies within and beneath them? ;)
  5. Try and think outside the box a little; Russia is the one country that could almost be guaranteed to support any Law of the Sea claim by the UK on Rockall.

    It would do so to reinforce it's own claims to Arctic seabed resources because International law does not presently recognize Russia’s right to the entire Arctic seabed north of the Russian coastline.

    Russia will probably attempt to use the 1982 International Convention on the Law of the Sea as a vehicle for Arctic seabed claims. Russia claims that the entire area of Arctic seabed in a triangle with an apex at the North Pole is Russian.

    In order to legally make this claim, Russia has to present scientific evidence showing that the Arctic Ocean’s sea shelf to the north of Russian shores is a continuation of the Siberian continental platform. In 2001, Russia submitted documents to the UN commission on the limits of the continental shelf seeking to push Russia's maritime borders beyond the 200 mile zone. It failed.

    Now Russian scientists assert there is new evidence that Russia’s northern Arctic region is directly linked to the North Pole via the Lomonosov Ridge. They claimed the ridge is linked to Russian territory, reinforcing Russia's claim over the oil- and gas-rich region.

    Russia is likely to lodge another bid at the UN and if no-one challenges Russia’s claim, it will likely succeed.

  6. Once again, I think Bergen puts the position very well in relation to Russia. The intended question in this Thread was, is our current and intended Force balance suitable for defending our legitimate territorial and economic interests overseas? Russia is becoming a large part of the equation, again, but is just simply a part. In the South Atlantic, so is Argentina. Who even knows if our interests may, at some stage, conflict with Chile's?

    My point is, we have optimised ourselves for fighting expeditionary wars in other peoples territory. Arguably, that would serve as well for retaking our territory, should we have lost it. Given the nature and location of our interests, will the future composition and size of our Navy suit the task? How robust will the Government be in asserting and defending our interests?

    The Russian "threat" is, arguably for us, a Continental Europe and Arctic Circle one. We have plenty of friends and allies in the region to provide mutual support. That will still oblige us to contribute to that support. Where, though, will be the mutual support for our exclusively British interests away from that region? I don't think it is covered within the NATO Charter.
  7. Sod the chavs, I will live on it rent free, and a supply of good food with Pussers Rum,
    Enough to supply all crew on Ships company visits, When delivering said supplies

    Wind powered electricity generator and SKY.COM broadband access

    A monthly conjugual visit by Glenda Jackson (or current lust after bird) would not go amiss

    Jack McH (The things I will put up with for Britain :)
  8. Bergs and Jack McMc come to you from their new home on Rockall.....

    I dont know that the Russians Artic claims will go unopposed, since Canada and the US are both squabbling over the map along with Denmark who already have Greenland all to themselves... but as we dont have a piece of that pie maybe we will let it slide if it means our claims on Ascension will gain weight. Perhaps if we rent Alvin and lob a flag on the seabed? Works for Vladi...

    Interestingly enough aren't the Canucks trying to enforce their claims on the Northwest passage, in conflict with the US view that its international water.


  9. After todays report in the TIMES other than two carriers to be built??????? as a political exercise, what navy?

    Navy to Go

  10. According to the "Sunday Times" you are soon to lose more ships, at this rate there will be more ships in "Peasholm Park" Scarborough than belonging to the RN
  11. Glenda Jackson!!! I think you need to see an optician mate!!!
  12. Was going to post this a couple of days ago:


    It's a long article about American-Chinese relations, and how they are likely to change in the next 25 years, but well worth reading.

    The key point, towards the end is that:

    "Back in 2006 Chinese state television broadcast a 12-part documentary entitled The Rise of the Great Powers which charted the experience of nine empires, beginning with the Portuguese empire and including the United States. The remarkable thing about this series was that it was not a series of polemics against Western imperialism. On the contrary, an official statement that accompanied that broadcast declared: “China should study the experiences of empires it once condemned as aggressors bent on exploitation.†And the lessons were fascinating: the crucial importance of maritime power, the vital need for political unity."

    My bold. We are an island nation, entirely dependent on the use of the sea.

    Given the attitudes of other nations, potentially unfriendly nations, towards the sea, any Government policy of neglecting the RN is frankly not folly, it's downright criminal.

    It's Thursday morning and I've not had a coffee. Forgive the rant; enjoy the article.
  13. More is the point will we even have a Navy?

    Found in the same site see link but here is a taster:

    "Though all the services suffer under the MOD regime, relations between the forces are worse than ever. The Army is angriest because it is bearing the brunt of actual operations. It used to complain about the RAF. Now that so much money is being spent on maritime projects unlikely to see action, it increasingly resents the Royal Navy. This is only deepened by the arrogance and incompetence of the Navy itself, as exemplified by the Shatt-al-Arab incident last year"


  14. It's an interesting article, though I've seen it before (on ARRSE) where it got a bit of a slating.

    It's a reasonable point- relationships between the forces are strained. If my blokes were in Aghanistan and didn't have the kit they needed because the RN was getting two shiny carriers I'd be a little upset.

    In one sense this isn't the Navy's fault. The Government (rightly or wrongly) has commited the UK to two wars. Despite that it failed to provide adequate funding for those commitments, plus the others the UK already had. The competition for resources has lead the services into an internecine conflict similar to the 60s and 70s.

    The other thing the article highlights is "the arrogance and incompetence of the Navy itself, as exemplified by the Shatt-al-Arab incident last year". Jack and Jenny are, as ever, doing a good job in trying circumstances.

    The RN is abysmal at actually communicating and justifying what it does to the general public. Lots of news articles about sailors doing drugs, or a submarine getting damaged. Compare that to the RAF bragging every time a Russian Bear comes near the UK. There is no consistent or coherent attempt to shape a favourable news agenda, and until there is the RN will be running after press cuttings (or programmes like WARSHIP) without getting to influence how it is protrayed. WE know we need the navy. Most people don't.
  15. How long before the "RN, Army and RAF" are amalgamated into one service ie like the "Canadian Armed Forces". Then there would no need to be resentful of the other Services
  16. I remember the pic well.

    Taken during the Cod War from Tartars Wasp. Who incidentally winched pictured RM 'volunteers' down to Rockall.
  17. A Wardmaster, tested my sight and said I was twenty twenty
    and when I dream then Yes 1970 Glenda was a bit of alright sitting on a grating getting groped hmmn
    Maybe my brain/memory bits are better then my eyesight :)

    Jack McH

Share This Page