Talk:Royal Navy

Archives (Index)
up to July 2006 August 2006 to November 2006 December 2006 to November 2007 Talk:Royal Navy/Archive 4

Blue water navy?

"The Royal Navy is a blue water navy and the second-largest navy of the NATO alliance" this is no longer true as the RN has no longer any aircraft carrier. The Royal Navy has been superceded in importance in the NATO alliance by the French Navy an is no longer a blue water navy. Maybe the whole paragraph should be rewritten by the original author to fit present situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.0.134 (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There are still two aircraft carriers in service HMS Ocean (L12), HMS Illustrious (R06) with HMS Queen Elizabeth (CVF) and HMS Prince of Wales (CVF) being constructed. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

HMS Illustrious, if kept, will only be used as an helicopter carrier, HMS Ocean is only an helicopter carrier, both the CVF are not built yet. With the retirement of the harrier, the Royal Navy has no carrier borne aviation and will not have until F35 and CVF are operational, which they are not.

Thus, it is not a blue water navy anymore nor is it the second-largest navy of the NATO alliance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.4.41 (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Blue Water is the ability to deliver military effect at extended range and for a sustained period. The ability to support that with fixed wing fighter aircraft is only one component of delivering that effect. The harrier force has been optimised for other aviation activities for some time, and those activities can be delivered using other assets, potentially including UAVs launched from the deck of Illustrious, Ocean, Albion, Bulwark or the Bay class.

Given that the RN has sustained operations at range from the UK mainland, and will continue to do so, therefore is clearly a Blue Water Navy.

If, on the other hand, you can offer up a credible, reliable source that's written by someone who knows what they're on about then feel free to present an alternative wording for the article.

ALR (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ALR. The number of aircraft carriers that a navy has is not the only measure of its strength. A good example of this was the cold war, when the RN didn't have a snowball in hell's chance of having a a surface fleet of the type operated by the Americans. However, the RN contributed to the defence of NATO by stopping any Russian nuclear subs that were trying to get into the Atlantic. This resulted in a small navy with high quality subs and small ships. This is an area of Naval warfare which is often ignored, but just as important as any other. I would recommend that whoever you are, you find out what you are talking about before complaining too loudly. 81.187.148.35 (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Royal Navy reduced to a tiny escort fleet, no carriers, small SSN fleet and nothing but a name to give it any respect around the world. Pathetic!! A blue water navy must be able to operate in any ocean anywhere in the world, delivering military power over long periods of time. Also a blue water navy must be able to do so while deterring aggression from rival naval powers. Fact is, with the Royal navy loosing its carriers and its reduced escort fleet, if Britain were to operate in the Indian ocean and India decided to pose a military challenge against the British task force, the Royal navy would have no option but to return to the UK with its tail between its legs. Royal Navy can no operate in any ocean and at the same time deter aggression. Now in the same situation, if Britain still had its carriers and harriers, India wouldn't dare openly pose a military threat to any British task force. I'm using India as an example of a somewhat capable regional military power, and know full well that India is both our ally and would never oppose British operations in the Indian ocean. 194.46.189.197 (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Royal Navy is now on par with Spain, Germany, Australia, south Korea, Canada. None are blue water navy's. 194.46.189.197 (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

he, at least the Spanish navy has 2 Aircraft Carriers (R-11 and L-61) --84.126.10.233 (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed the Royal Navy is still a blue water navy, not to mention the ships now in development, not only the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, but also new frigates with the Future Surface Combatant programme. However good to see both the French (80.78.0.134) and Irish (194.46.189.197) so concerned over the RN, very touching. --SuperDan89 (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If the Falkland Islands were to be invaded, who would provide power projection to help retake the Islands. Would it be the French or the Spanish? The answer to this question should determine if the Royal Navy is a blue water navy. Hmmmmmmmm....

I side with with rewriting the intro. as the Royal navy is no longer 2nd is size and power. I think this is misleading and out dates. The French, China and Russian Navies are larger. This is a fact that is easily referenced. Please update the intro, to reflect the current change in the Royal navies ability to project its influence around the worldJacob805 08:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs)

The RN's ability to project power is certainly not second to the US Navy any longer. The sole remaining "aircraft carrier" has no fixed wing aircraft and there is no guarantee that either of the Queen Elizabeth class will enter service with fixed wing aircraft within the next decade. The French Navy's ability to project air power at sea is far superior to that of the Royal Navy - possessing both one nuclear powered aircraft carrier and the formidable helicopter capabilities of the three Mistral class vessels. This reference in the text should be changed since it is completely outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.227.72 (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I reckon that the three posters above have got it correct. Lloydelliot10 (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You need to go back and read the lead The Royal Navy is a prominent blue-water navy and its ability to project power globally has been considered second only to the U.S. Navy - there is no mention of aircraft carriers and its cited to this year. I can see nothing wrong with the statement. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Without air power, power projection at sea is severely limited. Not only does the UK have no fixed-wing aircraft at sea, it doesn't even possess maritime patrol aircraft operating from land. The UK's amphibious ships can only operate in permissive environments where there is limited opposition, and certainly no hostile air power - such as in Libya where the lucky presence of land bases (and primarily US air power in the initial stages and the presence of the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle) permitted air opposition to be quickly suppressed.

Recent updates

Seems you don't like some edit that i made. Put it here. If you need we can discuss it.Latestnewsupdate (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There were good bits and bad in the edits you made. We spell defense as "defence" on a UK article, and it's better not to wholesale remove stuff without explaining what you are doing. On review there is more good than bad in what you were doing. There was some outdated info and some sloppy writing there that needs to be tightened. Well done for your edits and for bringing it up here. --John (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Good and bad are something that's not for discussion. Updates are not done based on what's good news and what's bad news.Latestnewsupdate (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no carrier in the RN nowadays, right? --John (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong there are two Ocean and Illustrious with Queen Elizabeth is under construction. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Whilst from a professional perspective Helos are aircraft the average reader isn't going to agree that OCEA and LUST are aircraft carriers. There is also a degree of subtlety about the debate inasmuch as LUST remains an aircraft carrier, but the Fox decreed that the aircraft had to be deleted from the ORBAT. Whilst there is an aircraft carrier, there are no airframes to fly off of it.

fwiw the updates that Latestnewsupdate offered up were somewhat simplistic, trying to make an assessment based on news media rather than anything authoritative. I'm hoping that I captured the substance; the current government raped the RN, in my subsequent entry.

ALR (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was a bit tongue in cheek, but have we not purchased two F-35B's? Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "under construction" qualifies as "nowadays" though. --John (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It was the Labour that started this disastrous cutback, to be followed by the present Govt. It's all based on Economy. A nation who's economy is in bad shape cannot field a strong armed force. The cutbacks are to save money. More will follow.Latestnewsupdate (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of discussing whether U.K got aircraft carrier or not, one must not have reverted my whole edits, including the Libyan operation, lack of warships, defense cuts and reduction of fleet, Bay class, Icebreaker info etc. the reversal of updates were totally uncalled for and a violation of rules.Latestnewsupdate (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with your edits, notwithstanding the fact that they can be condensed into a couple of sentences. The general guideline that you need to review is bold, revert, discuss. You were bold, three people have concerns about your edits and have reverted them, now we're trying to discuss them.

To consider your points in the round, my own discomfort is that you're synthesising a conclusion based on an incomplete review of tertiary sources and in the absence of any clear knowledge of either the policy framework of UK Defence or maritime strategy.

To discuss a couple of the contributions in particular, the sale of an almost brand new LSDA to the Aussies is worthy of mention. They're a very new capability and given their utility in littoral and amphibious operations the reduction in capacity says quite a lot about the current governments commitment to defence. The Lybia point on the other hand is completely specious. To understand the use of the Fleet Ready Escort one must understand the boundaries oin employment. The fact that it wasn't stooging about off the UK coast is neither unusual nor important. Worrying about having a DD/FF off the coast is the preserve of blustering red faced UKIP supporters in the Shires.

Incidentally, it's already been pointed out that the UK spelling of Defence is Defence...

ALR (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Next great thing to look out for is the war with Iran.Latestnewsupdate (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Latestnewsupdate please gain wp:consensus for your proposed changes and do not engage in wp:edit warring. I for one oppose your proposed changes as you propose the removal of large portions of informative and long standing material. In addition, your proposed changes seem charged with POV and your account's behaviour is suspiciously similar to the blocked sock accounts of banned user:Chanakyathegreat. Quite vivid blur (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the long standing introduction to the article as basic errors, such claiming the Royal Navy no longer has an aircraft carrier in service despite HMS Illustrious still being in service, were made. As I said in my edit summary, please check facts before making such edits. A note to some here, an aircraft carrier is still categorised as an aircraft carrier regardless of whether it is carrying fixed wing aircraft. Quite vivid blur (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Illustrious qualifies as an aircraft carrier nowadays since the demise of the Harrier force. What do others think? --John (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Its a dedicated helicopter carrier, not an aircraft carrier. Aircraft carrier indicates its main asset it utilises is fixed wing aircraft which the Royal Navy no longer has. With regards to you removing my update you really don't need reverences for the changes i made. The Royal navy lacks the capability to project air power from the sea a formidable asset that even the Spanish possess let alone the mid size carriers of the Russian and French Navies. It in no way shape or form has the capabilities of the French and Russian navies. They both possess a dedicated fixed wing carrier and even nuclear in regards to the CdG. They both possess super sonic aircraft on these carriers which the Royal Navy lacked even when they did have dedicated carriers. To say its power is second to the US really has no credibility. They possess a formidable reputation but not actual capability of the second most Navy in the world. Regards - Ahmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.150.37 (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A helicopter is still an aircraft, and the UK projected air power from the sea as recently as October 2011 in Operation Ellamy. But I would agree their capability has been seriously degraded until the second Queen Elizabeth class is available. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking that is true it possesses air assets in the way of helicopters and a carrier in the form of a helicopter carrier. But you won't hear the US Navy saying they have 20 carriers if you include their helicopter carriers would you? Thats because they arent aircraft carriers. Really this whole arguement is based on the fact that the British resent the fact they no longer have an aircraft carrier so they call a helicopter carrier an aircraft carrier to bring back the credabilty of the ability of the Royal Navy. With regards to attack helicopters, yes they are technically air power but put it this way, if you are projecting air power it won't be in the way of a bunch of helicopters they are a support asset it will be in the way of fixed wing fighter aircraft. Pulling at straws here mate, the whole notion that the Royal Navy is still #2 in the world in regards to naval assets has no basis. At present time until the arrival of HMS Elizabeth and Prince of Wales it severely lacking in capability. Regards Ahmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.137.105 (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

She's still categorised in Janes as an Aircraft Carrier, hence remains an aircraft carrier. The non-availability of an associated strike capability is the issue. She could still operate US VSTOL aircraft though.

ALR (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What it says on Janes is irrelevant. By international standards it is NOT an aircraft carrier it is a helicopter carrier. If its dedicated aircraft were fixed wing aircraft then it would be but it isn't. Your argument has no basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.137.105 (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a cite for it not being an aircraft carrier? Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"and its ability to project power globally has been considered second only to the U.S. Navy." There are many forms of naval power and many ways to project that power. This statement does not in any way claim the Royal Navy "#2 in the world", only that the ability of the Royal Navy to project naval power has been considered second only to the U.S. Navy.

Currently the Royal Navy has considerable naval assets that most navy's do not. Such as the Royal Marines and their associated amphibious ships. A good sized and highly capable SSN force, an anti-submarine capability (Type 23 and Merlin) that rivals that of the US-Navy, and an air-defence fleet of destroyers that are considered the most powerful in the world. Therefore the Royal Navy is still left with significant capabilities and the ability to project naval power more effectivley than the French, Russians and especially the Chinese. (POV warning) In my opinion, two squadrons of Rafale on CDG doesn't negate the Royal Navys superiority over the French Navy.

Carrier strike will be re-generated by 2020 anyway. — Woe^(eoW) 15:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes very true there are many ways to project naval power but the greatest naval asset to project power other than SLBMs is an aircraft carrier. This is a major force multiplier that the Royal Navy no longer possesses. Yes like you have stated, they do have a lot of capability but not on par with the Russian and French and very soon also the Chinese navies. The very capabilities you have listed the French and Russian navies also possess but with the ADDITION of a mid sized aircraft carrier. If you still argue that with the conversion of HMS Illustrious to a dedicated helicopter carrier it is still a aircraft carrier then by your own definition the French with their Mistral class helicopter carriers are now aircraft carriers so the French navy has a fleet of 4 aircraft carriers! Your whole argument is utterly flawed there is no argument to make here do you see the Tarawa and Wasp class of the US Navy, Mistral class of the French Navy, Dokdo class of the ROK Navy or the Hyuga class of the Japanese Navy being called aircraft carriers? They aren't called aircraft carriers because they aren't. To be called an aircraft carrier is to be a dedicated fixed wing carrier like that of the Charles de Gaulle of the French Navy, Sao Paulo of the Brazilian Navy, INS Viraat of the Indian Navy, Giuseppe Garibaldi and Cavour of the Italian Navy, Kuznetsov of the Russian Navy, Principe De Asturias of the Spanish Navy and the USS Enterprise and Nimitz class super carriers of the US Navy. Now you could argue that the Tarawa class and their successor America class helicopter carriers are aircraft carriers because they carry fixed wing aircraft and are sometimes utilised as light aircraft carriers, however their primary role is to transport helicopters and troops and for them to be used offensively from the sea not that of a fixed wing carrier . The HMS Illustrious doesn't even have a fixed wing capability as a secondary role. In regards to its capability when they did even have the Harriers it is a subsonic aircraft that is in no way shape or form close to the capabilities of the Russian and Indian Navies MiG-29K, Rafale M of the French Navy and the F/A-18E/F of the US Navy. These are all multirole supersonic aircraft of the 4.5 generation of fighter aircraft. I am no longer going to continue this argument because I have clearly demonstrated the flaws in this article and my arguments are based on facts and the international standards of ship designations. I have also clearly demonstrated that the Royal Navy does not have the 2nd greatest power projection in the world because it is clearly lacking in capability. This won't be the case when HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales come into service in 2020-2024 but until then this article should reflect reality of present time and not that of the past and future.

Also on a side note, if the Argentinians decide to invade the Falklands I wish the so called '2nd most projectionable Navy' the best of luck! They will have to go the supposed inferior French Navy and ask for the use of their nuclear aircraft carrier and their fighters to establish air superiority of the Falkland Islands because they lack the capability, even though they are superior. What a joke honestly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.137.105 (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out this isn't a forum. G.R. Allison (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

FAA

Im not sure if the FAA is even mentioned in this article. I cannot find it. 194.46.230.25 (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Weapons Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier

Hi anyone know what 30mm guns are being fitted to the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier? I have been tryinng to improve the article to at least B Class, but can not find anything that give a make or model for the guns. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Rum Sodomy & the Lash

But it only made the top 100 gay list in 2012?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/01/mil-120113-ukmod02.htm

Do we have a source that explains this discrepancy? Hcobb (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What discrepancy? Is the Pogues link intentional, tongue in cheek, or something else? This is a very mysterious post, and the summary 'Rum Sodomy & the Lash does not appear in this article? Swiming away from the sinking history or what?' only makes it more so... Benea (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I would just ignore it, check the contributions for Hcobb, and the responses on other talk pages.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead

At the start of World War II in 1939, the Royal Navy was still the largest in the world, consisting of 15 battleships and battlecruisers with 5 under construction, 7 aircraft carriers, 66 cruisers with 23 more under construction, 184 destroyers with 52 under construction, 45 escort and patrol vessels with 9 under construction and 1 on order, and 60 submarines with 9 under construction. This is cited in the article. If you want to change the lead can it be discussed first. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Reading the actual source, it makes no mention of the Royal Navy being 'superseded by the U.S. Navy as the world's foremost naval power'. The actual term used is the surrendering of the previously unchallenged superiority over all other naval powers (the Two power standard) for the parity negotiated at the Washington Naval Treaty in 1922, which specifically set the British and American navies on an equal footing. More details on this parity (which was seen by naval figures like Cunningham and Wemyss as a disastrous reduction in the navy's capabilities, hence Cunningham's dismayed quote) can be found in work's like van der Vat's Standard of Power: The Royal Navy in the Twentieth Century and Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery. Benea (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Good catch the editor can discuss the change here or self revert. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have made some tweaks to the text. Firstly I have removed the quote, as quotes are not generally regarded as appropriate for article leads (unless, say the article is about a speech). I have also removed the detailed list of fleet strength at the start of the second world war, as in my view this is excessive detail for the lead. All of this is very interesting content which I would support being including elsewhere in the article. I have also added reference to the Soviet Navy, which I do think is relevant as it became a very significant force during the Cold War.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding reference to the soviets unnecessarily adds more complication to an already lengthy section of the lead. The soviets had no role in superseding the RN as the worlds foremost global power, so why mention them? It was more than satisfactory before these recent changes.Talk^Woe90i 20:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It adds a small number of words but a lot of context for readers, the Soviet Navy pushed the RN into third and became a major threat (unlike the US Navy, which has always been an ally). That is very reason why the entire force was reconfigured during the Cold War into an anti-submarine force.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not just whose is bigger. By the start of WW-II the RN was around second or perhaps even third in capability. See for example the ten month career of HMS Prince of Wales (53). Hcobb (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I do see your point, however the emergence of the Soviet navy should be placed in context when mentioning the cold war and not a direct follow-on from the US Navy. This is how I would re-write the lead, improving readability:

"Victory after the First World War saw the Royal Navy significantly reduced in size,[4] although at the onset of the Second World War it was still the largest in the world. By the end of the Second World War the U.S. Navy had emerged as the world's largest. During the course of Cold War and the emergence of the Soviet submarine threat, the Royal Navy transformed into a primarily anti-submarine force, hunting for Soviet submarines, mostly active in the GIUK gap. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, its role for the 21st century has returned to focus on global expeditionary operations."Talk^Woe90i 21:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I can support that as a compromise, with the following tweak to the first sentence, as victory did not necessarily cause reduction: '::::::"Following victory in the First World War, the Royal Navy was significantly reduced in size....' Rangoon11 (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The wording above seems fine, though the link to the Washington Naval Treaty piped as 'reduced in size' seems a bit WP:EASTEREGGY. Given that the process and motivations for naval drawdown in this period are so complex and multifaceted (internal war weariness, the 10 Year Plan, Geddes Axe, etc, etc) I think it would be better just to have the bare factual 'reduced in size' in the lead, and go into details and explanations in the relevant part of the main body. Benea (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Our family lost a lot of young men on Prince of Wales.Talk^Woe90i 22:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)