Talk:Royal Navy/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Second largest navy?

"The Royal Navy is the second-largest navy in the world in terms of the combined displacement of its fleet after the U.S. Navy." I think this information is not valid. I have collected some information and made calculations by reffering to links in wikipedia itself:

Royal Navy:

  • 2x Invincible class CV(20700 tons)
  • 9x Type 42 DDG (5350 tons, I have taken all as batch 3 having max displacement)
  • 13x Type 23 FFG (4200 tons)
  • 11x Type 22 FFG (4900 tons, again I have taken all as batch 3 having max displacement)
  • 1x Ocean LPH(21578 tons)
  • 2x Albion LPD(21500 tons)

This makes 262628 tons for major surface ships.

Now take Russian Navy

  • 1x Admiral Kuznetsov CVG(67000 tons)
  • 2x Kirov BCGN(28000 tons)
  • 1x Kara CG(9900 tons)
  • 3x Slava CG(11490 tons)
  • 10x Sovremenny DDG (7940 tons)
  • 8x Udaloy DDG (7900 tons)
  • 32x Krivak FFG (3575 tons)*
  • 1x Neustrashimny FFG(4400 tons)
  • 1x Tartarstan FFG(1940 tons)

This makes 430710 tons for major surface ships. (I excluded landing ships of Russian Navy while I included them in Royal Navy list).

I may have made mistakes in active units(thats why I excluded landing ships), but few ships are negligable becouse difference is nearly 200000 tons.

In wikipedia the active number of Krivaks is not written, even if I assume no krivaks are in active duty(which is impossible) total fleet displacement becomes 316310 tons, still considerably larger than Royal Navy.

For submarines the situation gets worse, Royal navy has 4 SSBN with 15680 tons displacement and 9 SSNs, Russian navy has 15 SSBNs, with displacements between 18200 tons and 33800 tons. If you noticed total displacement of Russian SSBNs are almost three times bigger than entire submarine fleet of the Royal navy(288600 tons Russian SSBNs alone vs 108920 Royal Navy SSBNs+ SSNs). Have to mention Russian Navy has 7x SSGN (18300 tons) and ~20 SSN and ~16 SS.

I have taken maximum displacements for ships, and dived displacements for submarines. I have taken active ships only. I have excluded ships which are laid up, in reserve, in refit or under construction.

If reserves are taken into account, Russian Navy probably displaces greater than the sum of entire Navies of the Europe.

I have made this calculations for Russia only becouse Russian Navy doubles Royal Navy in numbers and I was almost certain it would have greater combined displacement, proving "second largest navy" statement wrong. China and French navies are also very large, same calculations should also be made to determine the place of the Royal navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.65.84 (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

At some point the statement got changed from saying second-largest in NATO, which is what the document noted after the statement actually says, so second-largest in the world. I've reworded. David Underdown (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You have missed in your calculations the RFA fleet which not only holds all of the support ships but also some of our amphibious assets (a number of these ships are above 20000 tonnes)and the survey and minesweepers. when measureing gross tonnage you must include every ship in commision. also the status and numbers of active russian ships is still in question. the kirov aviation cruisers are no longer in service ( one is being rebuilt for the indian navy.) regards kieran locke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.225.23 (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Kirov class is not an aviation cruiser, I think you are talking about Kiev class whose last unit is being rebuilt. Two Kirovs are still active, two in reserve, if you like to, I can write google earth coordinates for all four units. For Russian Navy, I listed ships only if its actually known to be active. Add suspicious ones, these numbers will increase by 50%. Add reserves, these numbers will be doubled if not tripled. For support ships I haven't included for Russian navy either. However its logical to assume a navy with more warships would likely to have more support ships. Before support ships, I would consider adding corvettes and patrol boats, Russians outnumber in any case. The situation gets even worse for submarines. For amphibious ships, I have included LPH and LPDs in the Royal Navy which are actually big (as much as >20000 tons). However I didn't include smaller ones. I also didn't include any russian amphibious ships, including Ivan Rogov(>14000 tons). I think these are unnecessary and these numbers are enough to support my opinion. Note that I havent said fleet tonnage, I wrote "major surface units"

The Soviet Navy always inflated its numbers by including elderly vessels little more than wrecks such as the F class and W class submarines, and NATO commanders would pretend to believe tham in order to ask for extra funding. Is the Russian Navy doing the same? Smome of theses ships must be almost geriatric by now. Are these the Kirov class big gun cruisers of my childhood ? Perhaps the Andrew should include HMS Belfast. Even the Krivaks and Kara class must be getting on.--Streona (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • In the german WP we titled the RN as the second largest in NATO an "one of the biggest navies in the world". One of our collegues sais, that a lot (!) of the ships of the russan fleet, that are mentioned above, are no longer in service. And: in order to count tons, you can not exclude parts of the fleet, such as landing ships. Ships are ships and fleet is fleet - you must count everything. Sorry for my rusty english - I can not write it in better words. McKarri (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with this? The RN is actually smaller than the US Coast Guard. This is relation to the number of ships and personnel. Can anyone quote how many active personnel are currently serving in the RN, I think it is now less then 40,000. So maybe it should refernce 3rd largest navy after USN and the USCG. The USCG has been used in Combat throughout its history right up to the current Iraq war.Jacob805 (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"The Royal Navy is the second-largest navy of the NATO alliance, in terms of the combined displacement of its fleet," This statement is VERY clear, it is based on displacement and there are plenty of sources to prove this. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


I think the Nato plug about being the second largest navy is misleading. If anything it sounds like a half witted boast. As noe of the other pages on European navies, make reference to there plae in NATO. There should be a world ranking, I have just done a quick search and I think they would be about 6th, world wide by tonnage. Which is still better the UK overall military rank, now around 11th in the world. I think this will also change, as the retire the ASW carriers from service and before and IF the new carriers are built. I also think that this page should reference there current place in world navies, after noting they were the 1st for over two hundred yearsJacob805 (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

based on your actions today and past history of comments its impossible for me to assume good faith, you are simply on a little campaign. The phrase used is perfectly accepted, accurate and there are plenty of sources to back it up, there is no doubt currently the Royal navy is second largest interms of displacement within NATO. This article also shows very clearly how the size of the royal navy has radically declined over the past 50 years and does not attempt to hide the weakened position, ability and status the navy currently holds compared to a century ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

British Watcher, besides your POV, I am correct. There are no other naval pages that even suggest a ranking in NATO, I think it is a half hearted boast. Which leaves the reader thinking that the Royal Navy is some what larger then other navies. But we know this not to be true, possibly ranked 6th or 7th in the world. Furthermore my little campaign, as you put it, is to keep people like yourself from rewriting the truth. ( boasting )used to be a very un-British trait, but the more I read pages written and monitored by the bias british, I feel compelled to right your wrongs. This along with numerous other pages, have been written in such a way, they no longer resemble the actual history, leaving nothing but the British invented this and did that. Please advise if the UK is suffering from an identity problem or is it just a lack of self confidence. Note, there is nothing wrong with being proud of who you are, but I think using these pages to get your message accross is going the wrong way about it.Jacob805 (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

HMS Sutlej??

I don't mean HMS Sutlej (1899) but the earlier one, present in the Pacific Northwest in the 1850s and 1860s. I'd like to start it but don't know its date of building; unless it was the first one by that name - ?? - in which case I gather it wouldn't need a date disambig. Please see this discussion for more.Skookum1 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Would this link be a help http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/converted_frigates.htm It has the following information HMS Sutlej (launched?) 17th April 1855 Scrapped 1869 Dabbler (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Title POV

Not sure why this page isn't "Royal Navy of the United Kingdom" like all the other country's Royal Navy pages. The word "Royal" implies any sort of kingdom, the title needs to say which one to avoid excessive inclusiveness. (Much the way "Revolutionary War" must include "American" to be appropriate to the British (English?) POV.) Digitect (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it is British! American terms must be disambiguated so as not to imply superiority over any one else, especially the British. The British are already in that position, so no DABbing is necessary, or it would imply they are not superior, especially to the Americans. Remember, all English speakers are equal on WP, but some are more equal that others. ;) - BillCJ (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Even the americans refer to it as the Royal Navy as does the Royal Netherlands Navy which you can see by there title is also a Royal Navy Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Americans generally don't use the term "Royal Navy". We say "British Navy" just as we say "U.S. Navy". No American would refer to the British Navy as "Royal" except in humorous deference to English preference. (We find the pomp and circumstance of a monarchy funny in a limited, Monte Python sort of way.)
Digitect (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
No American would refer to, exept perhaps one that knows what he/ she is on about...
Given that many USN documents do refer to the RN as the RN, I'd suggest that yours may not be a universally held opinion.
ALR (talk)
"many USN documents" has nothing to do with common and understood usage. (For example, a N.Y. Times search for "British Navy" yields 101,000 results, but "Royal Navy" only 40,200. Interestingly, if you investigate the latter term's references they are nearly always by British correspondents or those actually in the British Navy.)
The bottom line is that the article title shows obvious bias to the British POV. It is confusing to anyone else because it isn't at all clear to the monarchy to which it refers. I linked to this article by American Revolutionary War and frankly was not certain that it meant Britain or English. (Granted, a separate issue entirely, and presently still unresolved at that article.) But it clarifies the issue--there are too many nationalities and peoples involved in and referenced by WP for an article about a specific one's navy to omit it... especially when every single other one uses it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitect (talkcontribs) 16:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd hesitate to dismiss a very large state body of the US, and also one of the most significant operational partners of the RN in many aspects of naval and military activities. Personally I'd take their view over the NYT, particularly if we consider that The Economist tends to use RN, and the readership of that newspaper is disproportionately USian.
As to the specific point about potential ambiguity, you note yourself that all others declare the Royal x Navy in their english language usage. Clearly some of those are derived from the RN in the first place; the Aussis, Kiwis and Canuks all referring to the same Monarch anyway, as did the pre-partition Royal Indian Navy which spawned the Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indian forces. Common usage is already disambiguated in this sense.
ALR (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, "Royal Navy" is the navy's full name, and it is very common. WP naming conventions allow ambiguous names for common;y accepted terms. Even foreign language terms are allowed if they are well known, such as Luftwaffe for the German Air Force of various periods. The other navies within the Commonwealth that use the term "Royal" have always appended the national name to the title, as in RAN and RNZN, and RAAF nd RNZAF; this is not a WP convention. Given that the UK is is one of the largest English-speaking nations in the world, deference has usually been given to their titles, as also in Royal Air Force and many others. Given that deference, I do find it obnoxious that many WP users, some of which are from the UK, cannot sem to extend that deference to the United States, but seem hell-bent on adding "United States" to the beginning or "(United States)" to the end of every title or name of US origin, even for unique or unambiguous titles, usually with some snide comments about Americans and WP:EN being "international". I can only say if this trend is not abated, tolerance for the same deference to UK titles may well come to an end, just to make things "equal". (That, by the way, was the point of my tongue-in-cheek comments above.) PS, I did actually succeed in getting the Army Air Corps article, originally an the British Army air arm, changed to a DAB page, and the original article is now at [[Army Air Corps (United Kingdom), after my original move to British Army Air Corps. To my surprise, the change was met with no resistance at all, other than to tweak the title! - BillCJ (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with BillCJ and add that in the English speaking world (outside of the USA) Royal Navy refers to Navy of the United Kingdom. To answer Digitect's confusion over British/English the Royal Navy has been the British Navy since 1707 and the union with Scotland, before that the Royal Navy was the Navy of England. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this helpful clarification. Digitect (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The Reader doesn't care how neutral it looks, they want to be able to find the article they came for. None of the other Royal XYZ Navies are referred to as the "Royal Navy", so there is no problem. ninety:one 19:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
By this argument, "American" should not be have been added to "Revolutionary War"! ;) Digitect (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
BillCJ has properly described the two conflicting (as I see them) issues that started this thread, both seen in the American Revolutionary War article: 1) That it's title had to be preceded by "American", indeed, "Revolutionary War" automatically forwards to it anyway. 2) That somehow "Royal Navy" is equally acceptable without the modifier. Both are are biased to the British POV. (Granted, those with military backgrounds may better understand "Royal Navy" to mean British, but an historical article on the Revolutionary War should not require the Reader to understand military naming conventions to be clear. Do we even know this was the conventional name during the War? Not "His Majesty's Navy"?) Digitect (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, "Royal Navy" unambiguously identifies the British navy in all English-language contexts, as all other "Royal Navies" are qualified as "Royal something Navy" e.g. Royal Norwegian Navy, Royal Malaysian Navy, Royal Thai Navy, Royal Netherlands Navy. In many cases the local name is also "Royal something Navy" e.g. Brunei, Denmark, Malaysia, Norway; in the case of the Netherlands and Sweden it just translates as "Royal Navy". -- Arwel (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Digitect: I'm not quite sure where you're coming from here? The comparison to American Revolutionary War is frankly irrelevant. Revolutionary War is a redirect, go move the article or argue for the article to be moved if you want. The page was created before the oldest archive save in 2001 as 'American Revolutionary War' (probably by an American. "American" was never 'added') Revolutionary War wasn't created until 2003. The proper name for the United States Navy is United States Navy they even commonly use the initials USN. The proper name for the United States Marine Corps is United States Marine Corps and they commonly use the initials USMC. The proper name for the British Navy is the Royal Navy, they commonly use the initials RN, the proper name for the British Marines is the Royal Marines, the commonly use the initials RM. "Do we even know this was the conventional name during the War?" - Er.. yes of course, for starters the name of the service would have to change if a female monarch took the throne. Secondly as stated earlier the initials RN a commonly used to denote the Royal Navy and these initials are commonly suffixed the names of officers in the Royal Navy, there are copious contemporary records that can be found online using the initials RN in this context. There is only one service of an English speaking nation that uses the term Royal Navy without qualification, and the overwhelming majority of references to that phrase refer to this particular navy. As for the Navy of England or the Navy of Britain confusion, there is a direct continuation from one body to the other. The 1707 act of union subsumed the Royal Scots Navy into the Royal Navy. The Scots navy was tiny, consisting of a grand total of 3 ships of the line compared to a Royal Navy total of 227. There's no ambiguity here except to the completely ignorant. Jooler (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

RN is NOT the 2nd largest!!!

The French navy is the largest in Europe, and is larger than the RN (and France is part of NATO) so please remove this sentence. Britain had a very powerfull navy during the 18th and 19th but now it's FINISH.

But the French have always been rubbish, so don't really count.--Streona (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"But the French have always been rubbish, so don't really count"- are you kidding me ?? what kind of arguement is this?!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Less controversially, we need a reference to change it as there is a reference for the current statement (the resolution to this paradox may lie in the fact that whilst France is indeed in NATO, it withdrew from the unified command). David Underdown (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it would be good to have a reference. I don't think that the existing reference supports the existing statement. The offending sentence has changed on a number of occasions, but I'm not sure when there has been a relevant reference. Can someone more familiar with the history of this part of the article cast any light? David Biddulph (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The existing ref inclues "The United Kingdom provides the second largest share of total allied naval tonnage, after the United States," which seems fairly definite, although it could depend if only untis actually assigned to NATO are being counted. David Underdown (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I hadn't noticed that bit, and had searched for "displacement" but not for "tonnage". In that case, it definitely does need, as you say, a new reference for any revision to that statement. David Biddulph (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
They do a very nice lunch though. :)
ALR (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheese.--Streona (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything but the list of the French Navy's ships: http://www.netmarine.net/bat/listes/flot2006.htm The French Navy has 53000 personnal and more than 140 ships. France is now part of the unified command of NATO (and it never withdrew from NATO). So it's evident that this sentence is false. Do something please, over the British nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.100.39.182 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand the French forces are not integrated to the same extent that others are, they require advance/additional permission from the French government before they can be deployed, unlike other units assigned to NATO command. Simply counting numbers of vessels and personnel can be a little misleading, from the list you linked to the French Navy would appear to include coastguard vessels and so on which are not included in the Royal Navy. David Underdown (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A size of a navy is based on the total displacement of its fleet not the number of ships. if how ever you want to compare the royal navy or the French navy in total number of ships you must include the royal fleet auxiliary in your calculations otherwise its not a fair comparison. This is because French auxiliary ships are technically part of the navy while the British auxiliary ships are not. This however this is just a difference in how the two countries structure there naval services and nothing else, both of the countries auxiliaries perform the same task. Kieranlocke (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC) you would be supprised how many time the RFA is left out when these comparisions are madeKieranlocke (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the Nato plug about being the second largest navy is misleading. As there should also be a world ranking, I have just done a quick search and I think they would be about 6th, world wide by tonnage. Which is still better the UK overall military rank, now around 11th in the world. I think this will also change, as the retire the ASW carriers from service and before and IF the new carriers are built. I also think that this page should reference there current place in world navies, after noting they were the 1st for over two hundred yearsJacob805 (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Manning Division

This site [1] refers to "Manning Division :Devonport". What does this mean? Is it equivalent to a "home port"? Folks at 137 (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What was before the Royal Navy?

It seems to be that the RN was founded in 18th century. What was before that time? What was before 1707 ? How was the English Navy called? Does anybody know? McKarri (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The English Navy was also often called the Royal Navy, or back in Henry VIII of England's time the Navy Royal. At the time of the Act of Union in 1707 the Royal Scots Navy had only 3 ships (comapred to 277 English ships), so the unified Royal Navy was still fairly English. See History of the Royal Navy and Royal Scots Navy. Ot track down N. A. M. Rodger's books. David Underdown (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank your very much for the fast information. We have in German WP a problem with the HMS abbreviation. I found out that its first use was in 1789 for the HMS Phoenix and then became standard in the RN. In G-WP many articles of ships of the RN sounds like "The name HMS Victory was used by 6 ships of the RN". So: two mistakes in one sentence (maybe the number is wrong too, it´s just an example). I am not shure if it is the same over here in GB-WP - but in German WP we have to modify and rename maybe 2020 or more articles, because of that mistakes. So with your help I got another puzzle-part to get a clear sight of that theme. Thanks and sorry for the rusty English in my answer. It always gets better, if I do again a little trip to your beautiful country;-). McKarri (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know for certain, but I suspect it's now used retrospectively, i.e. it's still conventionally applied to ships that served before its introduction for the sake of clarity. User:Benea seems to be the expert on this sort of thing, so you might be better off asking them directly. David Underdown (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the RN is commonly used from the time of Alfred the Great, although it would have been called the "scipfyrd". However it was disbanded by Edward the Confessor and was intermittently organised throughout the Middle Ages, the core of it being supplied by the Cinque Ports. This was when warships & merchant ships were interchangeable but when they became more specialised in Tudor times a more organised standing force became necessary. It was again abolished under James I(VI). Charles I tried to raise Ship Money which caused the Civil War and the Commonwealth Navy was formed which became the Royal Navy once more on the Restoration of Charles ii, since when the RN (aka. "The Andrew Miller", "The Andrew" or the "Grey Funnel Line" has had a continuous existence, so technically your answer would be the Commonwealth Navy, which was organised by a number of "Generals at Sea" -usually ex-cavalry officers such as Blake, Stainer, Dean and Monck.--Streona (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


@streona+@david: Thank you for your excellent answers. The next question is: Was it possible, that a ship of the Commonwealth Navy f.e. the famous Victory in the year 1588, 1688 and 1788 had the abbreviation/prefix HMS or not? The years are hypothetical and stand only for different centuries. I did contact the Royal Naval Museum and the the Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust in order to get some informations about the HMS-abbreviation use. They said:

THE ROYAL NAVAL MUSEUM: 

"The abbreviation HMS came into common usage around 1790s. Prior to this, ships were referred to as "His Majesty's Ship" in full to indicate it belonging to the Royal Navy. The earliest example of the abbreviation being used is in 1789 when it was used for HMS Phoenix."

CHATHAM HISTORIC DOCKYARD TRUST: 

"It wasn’t until 1789 that the use of the HMS designation became standard in the Royal Navy although there were some uses of it before this".

This means on the one hand, that in 1789 all warships were renamed. But does this mean on the other hand, that there were some uses before this date? Does anybody have knowledge of these "some" ships or of the beginning at which date these "some" ships get the HMS abbreviation? In the GER-WP we generalize and title every RN-ship with the HMS-abbreviation, no matter of what time the ship is - even ships of the 17th century. Here in ENG-WP it is nearly the same - but it is better in this WP here, because many articles show f.e. the old name and the new name after a certain kind of period. But I think it is still a wrong use, when we generalize every RN-ship as a HMS-ship. So the lemma of many articles are obviously wrong and many articles have to be renamed and checked for the right use of hms. Does anybody have more information to that theme? And is the Abbreviation really part of the name ? Sorry for my bad english. I hope you can understand what I want to tell. McKarri (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to follow the gist of what you're saying and I apologise if I've misunderstood any of it.
    • The name of HMS Victory (the one now at Portsmouth) is Victory. The prefix applied to her, HMS, is not part of the name per se, but serves as an identifier, if you will.
    • The ships were not renamed in 1789, merely the use of the prefix began to be formalised and standardised.
    • The RN is right that the standardised prefix HMS comes into general use only in the late 1780s. But before that, RN ships were referred to in a number of ways. As I'm sure you're aware, the 'S' in 'HMS' stands for ship, which in those days meant a vessel with a ship rig. Other ships without a ship rig (sloops, barks, brigs, cutters, etc) would be termed accordingly, so HM sloop Victory, HM Brig Victory, etc, or similar variations, His Britannic Majesty's sloop Victory, for example. This eventually becomes largely subsumed as years went on, and HMS became applied to mean a commissioned ship of the Royal Navy, particularly as sail gave way to steam. There were later variations, HM submarine for example. But all of these were commissioned Royal Navy ships.
    • We have established on this wikipedia the working convention that commissioned RN ships from whatever era (except those already well known without the prefix, eg Mary Rose, Henri Grâce à Dieu) are titled with the prefix HMS (rather than HM sloop..., etc). This, you are right to say, is not how they would have been referred to during their time in service, but seems a reasonable compromise for accessibility reasons, rather than attempting to use the archaic versions, which are not always clear even today, as they were largely applied on the personal preference of the writer/speaker.
    • The only real exception is the period of the English Commonwealth, when the Royal Navy briefly ceased to exist, and in that case we signify this with 'English ship ...'
    • Finally, this is not really the right place to bring this concern up, as this is the talkpage specifically for the institution as a whole. WP:SHIPS draws up and maintains the naming policies for ships, and is probably the best place to raise this for discussion. Benea (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the answers. It seems to be, that the conditions concerning to the HMS-use are clear now. I will see, what me make out of this in GER-WP. It is very interesting to get knowledge of what happended in that times.
  • Yes it´s not the right place - we have a GER-WP:Ships-forum too, but the frequence in that forum is very very low - so you will not get answers over there. I was not sure if it is the same over here - so I decided to ask my questions over here, because it seems to be that here are some experts concerning to the RN theme - and I was right =;-).
  • I am very happy to get these answers over here - thanks for treating a German as one of yours - I think having history of my country in mind this treatment it is not a matter-of-course. Sincerely yours McKarri (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently between 1688 when William and MAry took power - or possibly after their cornation in 1689 until Mary's death in 1693, Royal Naval ships were designated "T.M.S." or "--Streona (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Their Majesties' Ships"

Which artillery-guns did the Fire Ships use?

Does anybody know: In the age of sailing warships, which guns did the fire ships use for their task? Mortars (weapon)? Carronades? Anything else? McKarri (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that fire ships were basically beat-up old ships that were deemed expendable- from the time of the Armada until HMS Campbelltown at St Nazaire in World War 2, so that any armament was not standardised and could be anything but most likely to be as varied & obsolescent as the ships themselves.--Streona (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There's certainly something to that, but a degree of standardisation did exist in fact. In theory at least most fire ships carried around 8 guns, usually of the same weight of shot, and usually either 4, 6 or 8 pounder guns, often with a similar number of 1/2 pounder swivel guns. Whilst most fireships were mercantile conversions, the purpose built Tisiphone class of the 1780s carried 12 pounder guns, and were specially designed on the theory that fast fireships used at an early stage of a fleet action could throw the enemy fleet into disarray. Benea (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your answers. Another WP-colleague was of the opinion, that the old sailing-fire ships were not able to use mortars, because the deck-planks were not strong enough for the weight and the use of mortars. I had the opposite opinion, that mortars were the better guns to shoot over the walls of harbor-fortifications/castles in order to wound the fleet in the harbor by fire. Seems to be that I might be wrong...McKarri (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
You're not neccessarily wrong, but you may be confusing fireships with bomb vessels. The latter did use mortars, and for pretty much the reason you describe. Benea (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes that might be right. Another specification, that I never heard of. Thanks for your explainations. McKarri (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"In the inter-war period the Royal Navy was stripped of much of its power. "

I thought this was a very misleading statement. Granted, the number of ships in the Royal Navy was drastically reduced (for example the number of destroyers in the fleet was cut from 443 in 1918 to 115 by 1939 and 49 battleships were scrapped, although the number of cruisers doubled [1]), but the British Admiralty welcomed the limitations on the future size of battleships as a result of strategic and economic considerations. It also served to significantly decrease the number of Britain's potential enemies, or at least their relative strength would be reduced with the 5:5:3 ratio. As far as the Admiralty were concerned this was a great deal better than what may have happened had naval construction been unrestrained by the treaty. It was the same with regard to the Japanese and Americans in the 1920s. In the US, Congressional opinion was so enthusiastic about the Washington treaty that the US Navy was never able to build up to the limits allowed. In consequence, the Royal Navy stayed far ahead of all navies (in numerical terms at least), and was certainly in a better relative position than would have been the case if the American's original ship expansions had gone ahead[2].

Of course there were disadvantages; like it made the British treasury more resistant against any funding to improving Naval strength, and Britain effectively had to reorganise their naval strategy, but overall it was still a considerable gain for the Royal Navy (at least in the short term) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickroberts (talkcontribs) 01:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Validation

Validation of article performed by WIKICHECK. WikiCheck 17:12, 09 April 2007 (UTC)

POV Statement?

The article says "However around this time, the Imperial Japanese Navy and the United States Navy began to surpass the Royal Navy in power."

Is this not something of a point of view? The three navys never directly faced each other in all their might. So while the Imperial Japanese Navy may have been locally superior in the Pacific theatre, the fact is that the Royal Navy was primarily concerned with the battle of the Atlantic and the war in the Mediterranean. Both of these theaters were dramatically different from the Pacific theatre, where the US and Japanese navys were most heavily engaged.

My point being that it is not possible to objectively state that the Royal Navy was inferior, there being no empirical evidence of such.

I therefore think the article should be modified to reflect this

Jonewer (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the IJN overtaking the RN seems to be very much a point of view without substantive evidence.

The only obvious area of IJN ship superiority over the RN in 1941 was in carriers, but the RN had a major carrier-building programme in place at that time. Post-1941 comparisons are complicated by both navies' subsequent losses.

The IJN was certainly superior to the RN in terms of overall naval aviation, because Japanese aircraft types were far better - the RN lost control of naval aviation in 1918 and, by the time that organic air was restored in 1939, aircraft development had suffered from severe neglect. In 1941, British naval aircraft were far outclassed by Japanese types. Whether this made the IJN a match for the RN as a whole has to be simply a point of view.--Vvmodel (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about your first statement but agree totally with the second. IIRC, the RN had 7 aircraft carriers at the outbreak of war and five more building - I dont know the exact numbers but I dont think there a massive difference in numbers there. However the IJN and USN had aircraft that utterly outclassed the RN aircraft. Therefore although RN carriers were numerous and and often very modern and well designed - this didnt really matter when the aircraft were pants.

I think though its important to recognize that WWII naval warfare wasnt just about large fleet carrier actions. Convoys and submarine warfare dominated in the Atlantic and Mediteranean - and played a significant role in the pacific too, although this is sometimes overshadowed by the glamour of fleet actions. The IJN's signal failure to develop counter-submarine warfare contrasting nicely with the RN's (and RCN's)very succesful campaign to keep supplied and island homeland.

Jonewer (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To go with all of the above, the word "power" is a bit problematic, so perhaps the word "strength" should be used instead; when it comes to military, it's a vastly more used and unambiguous term. In such cases, though, I question the POV of the article when it states that it was the world's "most powerful navy" to the mid-20th century, especially when the cited source says merely "well into the 20th century." When you go by strength, it really ceased to be able to hold that claim well the very moment the Washington Naval Treaty came into effect; remember, during it, the British agreed to accept mere parity with the US navy. There might be some discrepancies in terms of bigger ships (like the HMS Hood) but the total tonnage limits for their navies were equal. So at the very least, I'm editing the line there.
Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised to see if this article fails to have a neutral POV. (in fact, I operate under that assumption) It is a strongly nationally-tied article, and presumably, the bulk of the editing was done by British Wikipedians. There's a lot that's left open to interpretation, and naturally, I'd figure that a nation's own citizens would interpret these in a consistent manner. For instance, again, when it comes to talk of ship numbers, the main argument for the RN's dominance until WW2 hinges on the idea that they had invested more into their carrier force at a time when other navies did not value the ships so much. However, this ignores the non-capital ships, such as submarines, destroyers, and cruisers, where there is much less information to make it clear on the RN's size, though I'm inclined to think that the USN had more ships (As well as perhaps tonnage and sailors embarked) overall at the time, particularly as the US's larger economy could afford the construction of the non-capital warships. Nottheking (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Alfred

Whilst it commonl;y accepted that Alfred founded the Navy as a standing force, the first English naval victory, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was in 851CE the reign of his father Athelwulf under the command of Alfred's elder brother, Athelstan, who died a year after. I am not sure at which point we can say a force of ships is or is not a navy. Any thoughts?--Streona (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


"Alfreds more recent reputation on which so much national myth is based, of the kind identifying him as the founder of the royal navy... is an eighteenth-century perception" Anglo-Saxon England, ed. M. Lapidge, M. R. Godden and S. Keynes, (Cambridge,2000), p. 22. I think Alfred the Great by Alfred P. Smyth also has a lengthy discussion of the matter but can't remember the exact reference. Alfred may have re-organized how ships were 'recruited' but this represents a reorganization of the resources and methods involved in constructing a fleet not an outright establishment of a so called 'royal navy'. As pointed out the 851 entry shows a fleet in existence pre-dating his reign therefor can't have founded it now can he. Should really remove this reference to founding. (86.43.221.101 (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

George Fowler Hastings

Not sure where to post a Royal Navy-related article requsst, hope this is OK...came across G.F. Hastings while doing Geographic articles in BC's North Coast area; see here for a basic bio, by his rank and office as described there must be quite a bit more on him.Skookum1 (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Might be better at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/British military history task force or WP:SHIPS. There's an ODNB article on him, but it's not actually much longer than what you link to above. His original service record is also online on The National Archives website (for a fee). David Underdown (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm willing to take him on if you like. I haven't got ODNB access at the moment though, if you could copy and email it to me I could see about working up an article. Theres a little more info on his services in China, etc scattered about, as well as titbits such as marriage announcements, award citations, etc. Benea (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Drop me an email, and I should be able to send you a link staright to the ODNB article which will give you free access for five days. I can access the service records too (they're not particualrly easy to read it has to be said) but it should be able to work out which dates he posted to waht ship etc at least. David Underdown (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

i think that the suprimacy begins in the 18th century to the middle of 20th century —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.59.59 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying the Second largest Navy statement in the introduction.

There seems to be some confusion over the statement in the introduction which states The Royal Navy is the second-largest navy of the NATO alliance, in terms of the combined displacement of its fleet, after the United States Navy.

This is exactly right. It does not state the Royal Navy is the second largest navy in the world, which is the Russian Navy. It does not state the Royal Navy is the second largest navy of the NATO alliance in terms of number of ships. It states the Royal Navy is the second largest navy of the NATO alliance, in terms of the combined displacement of its fleet, which is exactly right.

May I also point out the source which makes this statement is a US military website so is considered a reliable enough source to be deemed correct.

I hope this clarifies this statement for those who displayed confusion over its meaning. Usergreatpower (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the Nato plug about being the second largest navy is misleading. As there should also be a world ranking, I have just done a quick search and I think they would be about 6th, world wide by tonnage. Which is still better the UK overall military rank, now around 11th in the world. I think this will also change, as the retire the ASW carriers from service and before and IF the new carriers are built. I also think that this page should reference there current place in world navies, after noting they were the 1st for over two hundred years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Do all 192 sovereign states in the United Nations say what rank their navies are in the introduction of their articles? BritishWatcher (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
In the introduction of the articles on their navies or of the country itself? I can't imagen Switzerland does. Jolly Ω Janner 01:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry i meant on their main naval article not country page. The vast majority do not rank themselves by any terms (expenditure on naval defense, personel , displacement, fleet size etc). in the introduction or else where in the rest of the article either. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Ranks below tenth are probably not as notable. Some of the higher ranking navies should mention their size in the lead. Jolly Ω Janner 16:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Britishwatcher, if you are stating that other pages don't mention a ranking , THAT IS MY POINT, WHY IS IT THEN STATED ON THIS PAGE, NATO OR OTHERWISE83.64.176.178 (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Royal Navy's size rank in NATO is stated in the introduction because being the second largest navy in NATO is a notable fact. A navy who is 24th largest is not a notable fact. Besides, going by your contribution history I think it's clear you have an extreme anti-British POV and your edits are little more than vandalism considering your last edit was Discussing British English and England on the asshole page is fitting. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asshole&diff=prev&oldid=281561343
This is just one example of the constant flow of so many anti-British editors making anti-British edits and comments on British related articles when and wherever they can. Veteran serious editors should be wise to these editors whose edits are veiled vandalism. 79.79.168.77 (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Salzburg IP + cretinous anti-RN rant in broken English = Jacob805. Lachrie (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Interestingly, the Royal Navy - reported weekend of 31 October 1 November in the 'daily telegraph' - had on a particular day in 2007 - a mere 4000 personnel at sea. Little Autochthony. 86.161.195.115 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Royal Navy ranks, specialisms and insignia

Hello, I was wondering if there could be a grid made up of images for ranks etc much like on the page for the British Army, I personally find them informative and add that extra flair of detail to the page, thanks. SuperDan89 (talk) 17:59, 06 April 2009 (UTC)

Royal Navy surrender in 2007 in Iran and avoidance of conflict with Somali pirates in 2009

I attempted to insert the following:

The reputation of the Royal Navy has been negatively impacted in recent years due to a perceived policy of avoiding risk. This is evidenced by the surrender of Royal Navy forces off the cost of Iran in 2007 where they offered no resistance in comparison to a Royal Australian Navy incident where they resisted the Iranian Navy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_seizure_of_Royal_Navy_personnel). More recently, the Royal Navy stood by and allowed Somali pirates to capture two British citizens and even tried to cover up the incident (see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-navy-witnessed-somali-pirates-kidnap-british-couple-1820543.html); though the circumstances are different, this is in contrast to the US approach earlier in the year where they rescued their citizen and shot dead the pirates (see http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE53A1LP20090412). The criticism of this perceived cowardly attitude is more prevalent within the UK Army and UK Air Force and less so by the general public.

It was removed because it was unsourced yet there are links to articles in the paragraph. While I agree "reputation" and internal armed forces banter is hard to cite, at least the fact that the Royal Navy surrendered to Iranians without a fight and stood by while two civilians were taken hostage by Somali pirates should be included. Whoever reverted it, are you agreeable to the two incidents being included and compared to the actions of the Australian Navy and US Navy ? 86.153.71.219 (talk) 14:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No-one doubts the events happened, what needs referencing is the "spin" you are putting on this, that it amoutns to an institutional culture, and those references would also need to make the comaprison to the events you cite. To do otherwise would be original research. David Underdown (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The notability of the above also has to be measured against the 300-odd years history and should equal weight be put on all such incidents since the 15th century. MilborneOne (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Its clear the proposed wording is biased and original research. The comparisons are also rather misleading. The American hostage was freed after the actual hijacking clearly rather different to taking action during a hijacking. According to that independent article it was an RFA vessel nearby rather than a Royal Navy warship which might have responded in a different way but your wording did not highlight this fact. Its also complete POV to claim they were trying to "cover up" the incident and to suggest perceived cowardly attitude. Such content should not be added to this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Notwithstanding all of the previous comments, putting things in the context of maritime law, coalition doctrine and operational discretion by a well informed and knowledgeable author isn't what Wikipedia is for. Anyone who actually understands the issue isn't going to try. fwiw counter-piracy is a policing activity, not a combat action.
ALR (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


Royal Navy Updated Personel

as of October 2009 the regular navy personel stands at 39,100, the Voulnteer reserves number 3,500 personel giving a total of 42,600 active personel.

link to regular personel http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/apps/publications/pubViewFile.php?content=170.121&date=2009-11-26&type=html&PublishTime=09:30:01

Agreed? if not please express your concern.Bro5990 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Need a further source for the volunteer reserve. David Underdown (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


OK, http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/index.php?page=48&thiscontent=70&pubType=1&date=2009-11-23&disText=01 Apr 2009&from=historic&topDate=2009-11-23&PublishTime=09:30:00


then Click the "PDF 90 KB" to open the document. Its current from 1st of April 2009, and gives a number of 3,630.

is that Ok? tell me if the link dosent work and ill try another. Bro5990 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Quote in this article

“ Quote: ..sea power has never led to despotism. The nations that have enjoyed sea power even for a brief period - Athens, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, England, the United States - are those that have preserved freedom for themselves and have given it to others.”

Whilst I agree with that, in part, it could be argued that at the height of their naval power, some of those ‘nations’ were also involved in slavery. The Netherlands and England were in the early years of their naval ascendency. Spain and the Ottoman Empire, at their naval height in the 16th century, also were involved in slavery (and were not free at home). As for ‘Scandinavia’ (not a nation), if that is a reference to the Vikings, they too were also involved in slavery. Not giving freedom to others, but taking it away. Anyway, my point is, I don’t think a subjective quote like that has a place on this article. Would be better placed in a debate on sea power, power projection and/or slavery. Chwyatt (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Despotism cannot be viewed with current connotations as far as this reference is concerned. Yes, most of the nations that enjoyed sea power did indulge in slavery, but relatively were much more liberal compared to their contemperory counterparts, or at least, that is the general idea. Civilisation has been getting more liberal and humane, and controversially evangelic over time, and we cannot use our present ideas of human-rights to judge past ways of thought, that would be very unfair on their part. Although, I do agree, to a certain extent, that observations as subjective as that do deviate from the overall encyclopaedic tone of the article and is not necessary as an inclusion, but it is not entirely incorrect.

The reserve personnel figure

The infobox includes a reserve personnel figure of 39k, this significantly overstates the strength of the reserve force since it conflates the regular reserve and the "volunteer reserve". I'd suggest that we restrict the figure to the volunteer reserve, at c3k since this is really the available manpower for deployment. Members of the regular reserve can volunteer for deployment but they're not in the main going to be recalled and outside the instance of total war are in a pretty fair position to appeal a recall in most cases.

The regular reserve is those ex-regulars still liable to a recall commitment; all former officers and ratings/ marines up to 5 years after leaving.

Grateful for thoughts?

ALR (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's important to keep this in line with figures given for other navies, so that they are still comparable. I'm not aware of how this is dealt with elsewhere though. Having said that, it may just be better to have two figures for volounteers, rather than just omitting the contributions of some. Jhbuk (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Royal NavyBritish Royal Navy — Royal Navy should be a disambiguation page. The British Royal Navy could be moved to either British Royal Navy or Royal British Navy. Why does Wikipedia have to be either Amerocentric or Eurocentric? -Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Royal Navy" is what the organisation is called, and what it is referred to in a wide range and quantity of sources. ([Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names]]). Because of this, it should stay at this title. -- saberwyn 00:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This was discussed in 2005, in 2006, and in 2008. The main reason for keeping it here is that most other Royal Navies - including all the English-speaking ones - actually call themselves the Royal X Navy (eg the Royal Australian Navy, the Royal Malaysian Navy), whilst even those whose name literally translates simply as "Royal Navy" tend to refer to themselves as the "Royal X Navy" when writing in English.
As a result, almost every use of "Royal Navy" in English, without some form of modifier or a quite unusual context, refers to this one. It seems a pretty clear-cut case of using the most common name. Shimgray | talk | 01:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It's neither. It's Factocentric. There is, as pointed out above, no such thing as the "Royal British Navy". It is, and has always been, the Royal Navy, full stop. - The Bushranger (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that the term "Royal Navy" applies or has applied to many more navies than just Britain's.. the purely logical treatment is to have Royal Navy as a disambiguation page, with this article renamed "Royal Navy (British)"... However, commons sense says that anybody on the planet with an interest in navies knows that "Royal Navy" means the British version, and also that there are an awful lot of links to Royal Navy that would need to then be disambiguated. So, common sense dictates thatr renaming this article is not necessary and would in fact cause more confisuin than than it allegedly currently does. A simple otheruses template at the head of the article srves cto redirict people to other "Royal Navies". Rcbutcher (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not, it is the only only navy with the title; just google "Royal Navy" and you will not be directed to the Thai or Norwegian or Swedish Navy. Check out their websites & see whether they refer to themselves- it has always been called that the only exceptions being during the Commonwealth of Oliver Cromwell and in Mutiny on The Bounty in Charles Laughton's memorable phrae "I'll have yer hung from the highest yard arm in the British Navay!" (or was it keelhauled?) or Scipfyrd of course--Streona (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - due to thte historical dominance of the Royal Navy, that is simply how it is known when writing in English. Many navies of the Commonwealth of Nations have their origins in the Royal Navy, and so their names are of the form Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Australian Navy etc., and there is long established usage that when writing in English, even the navies of non-English speaking countries (such as those of Scandinavia) whose navies' names in their own language could literally be tranlsated into English simply as Royal Navy, similarly use forms such as Royal Norwegian Navy etc. David Underdown (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as above, no need to use made up names when the organisation is clearly the Royal Navy per common name. MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for all the reasons stated above and to quote Cunningham "It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition". --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:PRECISION. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for the reasons already discussed. Benea (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Standard English-language usage by non-British sources, so meets common name and primary topic guidelines. Perhaps one can the Royal Naviy itself Anglo-centric for allowning such a name to remain in our "enlightened" times, but WP generally bends over backwards quite a bit to be neutral on such matters. - BilCat (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for reasons above. Aside from anything else, Google returns 3,530,000 hits for "Royal Navy" and only 162,000 hits for "British Royal Navy". --Epipelagic (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Royal Navy is its official title and it hardly seems Amerocentric or Eurocentric to continue to use it. 62.68.71.86 (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per all the above "Opposes". Someone snowball close this nonsense ASAP. – ukexpat (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose - This is standard; "British Royal Navy" is essentially a neologism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is the original and still used name, Any other term with British inserted is just made up and not the real name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Royal Navy is the common term. We don't need to invent titles when something is as clearcut as this. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would not comment, except to answer the central complaint. We should not be anglocentric, but our function is to be anglophone. Speakers of all dialects of English mean the British fleet when they say "Royal Navy"; so should we. For more see WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vegaswikian (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)}}

Removal of "To this day, Admiralty charts are maintained by the Royal Navy."

I have removed the line "To this day, Admiralty charts are maintained by the Royal Navy." because:

  • Chart maintenance is the function of correcting individual charts in accordance with Notices to Mariners, not surveying
  • Admiralty charts are produced by the UK Hydrographic Office (an executive agency of the Ministry of Defence), not by the Royal Navy
  • While the Royal Navy do conduct survey for UKHO, they do not do so exclusively (much of the survey work is conducted by contractors), and much of the survey they do conduct is Military Data Gathering, which does not end up on an Admiralty chart.

I thought the best thing to do was remove the sentence altogether.

Shem (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Improvements

I don't have much (well, any) experience at creating articles here, but I'd like to put in some effort to improving/expanding this article, but I don't know where to start really. I don't think this is a "featured" article, so there must be some room for improvement. Cortical (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What would be required for it to become a "good article"? Cortical (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

First, your contributions would be appreciated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Royal Navy. Then those thoughts, along with others, are used to improve the article. Then the article can be reviewed for good article and A-class status. Further suggested comments are incorporated, and then it can be listed for FAC review. If it passes, it becomes a FA. 203.97.106.191 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

I see user:Buckshot06 has made a lot of substantial changes to the article, which appear to have been somewhat resisted by such users as user:BilCat. I was wondering why Buckshot06 had not sought consensus on the talk page before making such large changes to the article? I for one oppose users making substantive changes to the article without first attaining consensus. Yattum (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice my note to the new user above, and the comments in the earlier edit summaries about the changes being in accordance with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Royal Navy? We'd welcome your comments and suggestions there.
Now, I did make a unwise change, as commentary on the CVF page indicates that not every reported possibility for the carrier programme should be reported. Then I tried to accurately reflect the current situation, added a source (Daily Telegraph, [2], 30 May 2010), and this was reverted. This has resulted in the ludicrous situation that we have not-very-well-sourced reporting that only one carrier is to operate fixedwing aircraft on the page at the moment, without a source, because my previous attempts to reflect the upcoming Strategic Defence Review changes have been reverted.
However, my concern is the entire article, so I'm coming to the conclusion that I shouldn't try to improve that section for the moment, as people are reverting first without considering what actual text is left. It would be much better if people carefully considered their changes to the text, instead of simply only reverting. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem is you made a large number of changes without first discussing those changes with other editors, hence many editors may take fault with those changes and revert them accordingly. The article may or may not have needed changing, but required or desired changes should have been discussed at length with others before being implemented to ensure consensus and avert edit conflict. Yattum (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to be civil here but I sense you believe in unilateral large scale changes to an article so long as supporting citations are provided. Citations are important but they are only half the argument. Consensus is the other half. Yattum (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
What I am asking is that people slow down, compare the comparative merit of the new changes with the old, and amend, edit, rather than simply revert.
The thing is that this article's state is frankly horrible. Not a single editor changed/altered anything until I updated the section on the hotbutton current issue, the carriers. I alerted people at the talkpage and filed a peer review, as is standard practice. Yes, I believe in WP:Bold; I find nobody usually notices, but this is my first crack at a really high traffic article (usually have been working on thing like Iraqi Armed Forces and Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo). However, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle has worked in this case - I don't see that my changes really even bent any rules. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The point that's disputed, about the TAG configuration I'm not convinced is all that useful in this article, although the point about the SDSR is well made. The SDSR is considering everything except, unfortunately, the deterrent. The fact that we've ordered two hulls is part of that, although I'd be extremely surprised if as a result of the review we reduce that.
Beyond having two hulls, almost everything else is reconfigurable. At the moment the Naval Strike Wing, when it's not in Afghanistan, has enough aircraft to make up one TAG which is then deployed to one or other of the decks, subject to the operational requirement. The other deck is used for rotary operations. As all the fuel infrastructure is generic, and increasingly workshops can be pretty generic the makeup of the TAG isn't really that significant. The issue that would be found would be accommodating a substantial Embarked Military Force. The present flat-tops have not really got enough space for a Cdo company group once a TAG and battle-staff are embarked, they can just get an SF Squadron and that's about it.
The Times, as ever, manages to pay people to write statements of the bleeding obvious and people buy it thinking it's news.
ALR (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
ALR, first, would you mind please contributing your thoughts on the peer review? Your expertise would be very welcome. Also any thought on the modern sub-articles - Future of the Royal Navy, Standing Royal Navy deployments etc; any further comments on those, which you could put at the peer review, would be very welcome.
Second, we're actually not supposed to discuss the subject of the article on the talkpage. However, your comments on the NSW represent the current situation as I understand it exactly. (In essence, 'Naval Strike Wing' is a euphemism for a squadron sized force - yes?) Thus a clarifying question - previous to the announced 2009 cuts in the JSF numbers to be bought, would there have been enough JSFs for the NSW/800/801/etc to form two air groups and still leave the RAF with two full squadrons on land? Appreciate this is a complicated issue but your thoughts would be very welcome. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I was merely attempting to illustrate why the Times article can't really be taken at face value. My issues with the Wikipedia reliability guideline is well exercised, but the Times is pretty well recognised as having good sources in Land Forces, weak sources in the RAF and virtually no sources in the RN/ RM. Essentially Max Hastings has left them with a long legacy of animosity after he leaked Int in the Falklands.
I'll take a look at the Peer Review, but I am a bit pushed for time at the moment, hence no really substantive contributions for some time.
With respect to the force numbers, I'm not sighted on current doctrine, my last involvement with the CVF was about 4 years ago and my focus was EMF and J6. My understanding of the numbers is that NSW is about 1.5 Sqn strength and the crabs will have 2 Sqns. That will give NSW the ability to deliver one Fixed Wing TAG. However doctrinally the RAF Harriers have been deploying afloat for some time so I'd say that it's likely that the RAF Sqns will also continue to do that, there is then the potential to generate two FW TAGs, one RN heavy and one RAF heavy, or indeed a mix of expertise in each. The driver for having one CVF FW heavy and the other being Rotary heavy is the airframe availability.
ALR (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
ALR (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Women's Royal Naval Service

This article needs to incorporate, or at least mention the Wrens branch, and link to its wiki page (Women's Royal Naval Service).

Section inserted. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier/Future Section

I was wondering if a picture of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier be used in the article as it will be a large addition to the RN. Plus like the RAF page, maybe there could be a future section for the RN page to put all the collective future developments for the Royal Navy in one section. SuperDan89 (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Royal Navy's defeats

Why doesn't explains that article some defeats of RN during 18th century? e.g.: Spanish victory in the War of Jenkin's ear at "Cartagena de Indias" (1741); this battle involved 186 British ships, 50 of them were destroyed. The magnitude of battle drove government to censure the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.55.116 (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The above anon has a very good point. This article is a bit rosy on the RN in general. Catagena des Indies needs to be mentioned. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Royal_Navy/Archive_3#Battle_of_Cartagena. Woody (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I was aware of the debate on the talk page when I made the insert. User:Nick-D properly says that the article has a trend to be positive, and thus mentioning the largest defeat seems appropriate. However, if any of the exact numbers etc need changing, please anyone sing out!! Buckshot06 (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why the sentence on the Battle of Cartagena de Indias was removed, but this issue involved much research and an ardous discussion some time ago, not to mention the obvious historical importance of the event. I wish new editors would respect previous work by others. This was the consensus sentence agreed earlier [3]:

As the wording of the paragraph has changed, I have inserted the sentence starting with "In the latter war, the British deployed a very large force..." JCRB (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Royal Navy's Supremacy

The article claims the Royal Navy was the most powerful navy in the world from the nineteenth century to the middle of the twentieth century. But wasn't the Royal Navy the most powerful navy from the middle of the 18th century itself? If I remember right, their supremacy was never challenged by any other navy till WW1 after Britain won the seven years' war. They emerged the dominant colonial power by 1763 and that almost literally translates to naval dominance. Undoubtedly, it only became more powerful by 1815, but it still was the most powerful navy 1763 onwards, correct me if I'm wrong.

Until Trafalgar, though usually the dominan naval power, there were other navies that at times achieved local successes (and even after Trafalgar the USN achieved some single-ship victories during the War of 1812). With the Franco-Spanish fleet broken, there was no longer any realistic challenger to naval supremacy, particularly once the War of 1812 was resolved. David Underdown (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Royal Navy was indeed the most powerful navy in the world scince the mid 1700s, but it wasent until Trafalgar in the first decade of the 1800s that the Royal navy enjoyed total naval supremacy (1806-1913). During this time obviously some other naval powers had acheived minor ship to ship combat, but nothing that could actualy threaten British naval power. Come 1914 after a decade of a german naval arms race germany finaly challenged the Royal navy. Thus ended a centuary of total british supremacy at sea. However the Royal navy as we know still ruled the seas and the worlds most powerful navy right up to 1942.

Basicly look at it like this, late 1760s - 1940s Royal navy most powerful on earth, during this time 1806-1913, Royal navy enjoyed a massive gap of naval supremacy over its other naval rivals. In other words 1806-1913 was the Royal navys golden age. It is also said the Royal navy was arguably the most powerful or atleast most well placed and prosporus navy in the world prior to the 1760s. eg 1710-1760s. Recon.Army (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The phrase used is not "total naval supremacy", it's "most powerful navy in the world". If you want to add a sentence to the intro about the period of total naval supremacy go ahead, but that's not what's under discussion here. It was already the most powerful navy in the world by 1700, following a period of alternating pre-eminence with the French, who last held pole position in the 1690s. After 1700 that situation prevailed without interruption until around the start of the Second World War (see tables in N. A. M. Rodger, The Command of the Ocean, pp. 607-8 for an impression of the fluctuations in relative fleet strength in the later 17th and 18th centuries). Zburh (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"the dominant world power from 1815 until arguably 1954" Who put that line in there? It appears to have been 41.220.68.1, an IP that's currently blocked, for destructive/vandalizing edits. On that subject, though, It's kind of hard to concieve of the UK being the world's superpower at the end of WW2; by which most British forces were, on the field, subordinate to a US theater commander. (such as Operation Overlord commanded by Dwight Eisenhower) Even before WW2, the USA had already become the world's dominant economic power, and likewise held globe-spanning posessions. And let's also not forget that the Royal Navy technically and officially ceased to be supreme in 1922, with the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty, agreeing to parity with the USA. Overall, at best, Britain was ONE of the dominant world powers from that point onward; more likely, its unquestioned supremacy evaporated prior to World War I, where it found itself allied as equals with France and Russia in the Triple Entente. Once the UK could no longer maintain its Splendid isolation, it was clear it wasn't the dominant world power any more; the world would be without a clear superpower until 1945.

Thus as we can see, that period extended only from 1815 (Waterloo) to 1907. (Triple Entente) Royal Navy supremacy of the seas had a bit bigger range; from 1805 (Trafalgar) to no later than 1922. (Washington Naval Treaty) Just because there was no one else to be unquestionably supreme didn't mean the British Empire continued to be so. The pre-WW2 era showed strong evidence of being Multipolar in nature. Nottheking (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to muddy the waters any further, but I would like to point out that the RN wasn't the most powerful navy until after Trafalgar. I had been the most effective since the middle of the 18th century, but it didn't have any advantage in terms of number of ships, ship design, etc. It was the quality of English seamanship (and gunnery) that made it so important, not raw power. 81.187.148.35 (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Very nice article

Well-written, clear and well assembled, kudos to whoever had a hand in this! Huw Powell (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft Carriers

-Can anyone tell me why the article claims that the last RN Aircraft Carrier was HMS Ark Royal? HMS Hermes served as the flagship during the Falklands war. After the war she was converted to a commando carrier before finally being sold to the Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.159.145 (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Only two are still in service, Invincible has been out of commission and mothballed for several years. There is a position that she's in reserve but she's at 18 months notice for sea.
ALR (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


The current flagship is Ark Royal, Illustrious is still in service but as I recall currently in maintenance.
ALR (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The article doesn't say "last RN Aircraft Carrier"; it says "last fleet carrier". The question, I suppose, comes in the interpretation of the term. I'll add a link to fleet carrier. David Biddulph (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

why are reserve ships included in the size

in reviewing other navies on wiki, no one list reserves of mothball fleets, it appears that the author of this page wants us to believe that the RN is actually larger then it is.... ? current deploy-able ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.226.178 (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the current active fleet is less then 80, but the contributor to statement of 133, should correct it?


You cant change to size of the fleet based on what you think. if you provide reliable references stating that the fleet is 80 then by all means but its has to be referenced. the current fleet size is around that 130 mark that includes royal fleet auxilary. there is no way of knowing what readyness states each ship is at. (same as every other navy)

B.R.5 Manual of Navel Cookery. Vol 1 and 2

Having recently found a copy of a B.R.5 and being an ex Navel cook, would like to Know more about the Manual, My found copy is dated 17th April 1961 and superseded the B.R.5 dated 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.112.165 (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I doubt anyone will be able to answer this here. This talkpage is for discussing how to improve the Wikipedia's article on the Royal Navy, not for general discussion on the subject. I suggest rumration is the best place to ask about this. Regards, Woody (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Graphs

Perhaps a graph showing the numbers of ships in the RN through time could be compiled? Or one by displacement? This could help show the decreasing size of the RN over time, due to whatever reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carf1 (talkcontribs) 15:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Ashes

Although the term "Ashes" is seemingly being used in various other sporting contexts, other than the original one (national rather than naval cricket teams), and the main other (rugby league), it might be worth pointing out that some (I would guess many) international readers will be misled by the article's present language into misunderstanding the Ashes as something that arose de novo from a naval tradition. If the term is arguably now to apply to every England against Australia contest, it seems superfluous to make reference to it herein, and conversely, if it is arguably restricted to national cricket or rugby league, it should also go. "On the third hand," the best way from a WP viewpoint would be a citation for the term, "Ashes" in a naval context: that is, does the RN and/or RAN themselves, or their members, or written game reports officially or colloquially name these naval cricket games that way? Any such citation? If so, might a consideration be, "called the Ashes in reference to the famous national cricket team rivalry of that name."FeatherPluma (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Royal Navy (disambiguation) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 18:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Latest Bridge card

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/sitecore/content/home/news-and-events/reference-library/~/media/Files/Navy-PDFs/News-and-Events/Naval%20Publications/Fleet%20Bridge%20Card.pdf

Phd8511 (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs)

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)
  1. ^ S. Roskill, Naval Policy between the Wars, 2 vols. (London 1968 and 1976) i. 71
  2. ^ P.P O'Brien, 'British and American Naval Power: Politics and Policy, 1900-1936, Westport, Connecticut London (1963)
  3. ^ Meisel, Adolfo. "Subsidy-led-growth in a fortified port:Cartagena de Indias and the Situado 1751-1810" (PDF). Stanford University. Retrieved 2007-09-05.