RN to return to number 1 within the UK

[Batman]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/defence-and-security-blog/2013/sep/18/military-operations-army-navy

 

damn right too. island nation after all

[buctootim]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/defence-and-security-blog/2013/sep/18/military-operations-army-navy

 

damn right too. island nation after all

 

But if you arent going to get involved in every national dispute and scale back the army then it mostly makes the need for the carriers redundant. Carriers are for projecting force overseas, not for home defence. With a shrunken army they are largely pointless - unless our foreign policy will be to simply stand offshore and bomb people from a distance.

[Batman]

But if you arent going to get involved in every national dispute and scale back the army then it mostly makes the need for the carriers redundant. Carriers are for projecting force overseas, not for home defence. With a shrunken army they are largely pointless - unless our foreign policy will be to simply stand offshore and bomb people from a distance.

not so projecting force. but protect british interests world wide

[buctootim]

not so projecting force. but protect british interests world wide

 

Which are what? Shipping lanes? -better off with Frigates / destroyers. Island dependencies like the Falklands, better off with a bigger garrison.

[Batman]

Which are what? Shipping lanes? -better off with Frigates. Island dependencies like the Falklands, better off with a bigger garrison.

 

yes, what if we have to evacuate british nationals and we have no airbases (or use of) in the region.

Cyprus wont be around for ever.

what if we we need to provide air support in counter piracy ops. where will this come from?

what if we are carrying out humanitarian ops and need decent amount of helicopters for airlifts. where will this come from

 

there are many many reasons to have aircraft carriers that side step the need to kill as many people as possible

[Micky]

The article is actually a very sad inditement of how the government have shafted the Army. But as someone who has recently served over 25 years I would actually be quite pleased if the lads were bought out of the forces front line. They have been there for far too long and now its beginning to take its toll. Operational deployments have been at an all time high, yet massive cuts have been made. Get them all home I say, they deserve a break.

 

Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk 4

[Batman]

HMS Artful is officially named today

 

As for the point about the army above. It is sad but the Army have been by far the top dogs in the defence pecking order for some time. Seem the shift of influence is heading towards the RN

[alpine_saint]

HMS Artful is officially named today

 

As for the point about the army above. It is sad but the Army have been by far the top dogs in the defence pecking order for some time. Seem the shift of influence is heading towards the RN

 

As it should be.

 

As you rightly said, we are an island nation. We also have a small number of dependencies. The main goal of our Armed Forces is to protect them. If you look at our stand-alone activites of the past 40 years or so (British Honduras and the Falklands), either a naval and air presence deterred invasion or would have deterred invasion. At the end of Phoenix Squadron by Rowland White, which describes the deterrence of Guatemala in 1972, there are a couple of footnotes about Argentina would never have invaded if Ark Royal were still in commission, and Thatcher asked folornly about her status when the Task Force decision were made. As for our NATO committments, its up to the organisation to come up with integrated plans dependent on the individual nations ability (and willingness) to contribute; we can easily tell NATOs command strucutre that our future contribution when we are out of Germany is naval- and air-only.

 

Much as I regret the loss of cap badges, we dont need a big army equipped for offensive operations. We need a defensive force for the UK, and the ability to deploy rapidly to our overseas interests.

 

I think cost savings can be found by investigating the co-existence of the Army Air Corps, Fleet Air Arm and RAF, and also the light infantry regiments and the Royal Marines. I personally question the long-term viability of the RAF.

 

Basically, the RN is an all-arms service and should always be top dog. The Army has provide most of the Chief of defence Staffs for the past 20 years, and due to Irag and Afghanistan has had more than its share of political support and resources.

 

Time for the natural order to re-exert itself....

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/defence-and-security-blog/2013/sep/18/military-operations-army-navy

 

damn right too. island nation after all

 

Didn't have you down as a Grauniad reader, boody cardigan wearing hippy

[Micky]

Tri-service operations have nothing to do with who is 'Top Dog' with soldiers on the ground (although I am aware that such snobbery exist at certain Command levels). NI was seen by some as a 'training arena' for the Army to hone it's operational tactics. I believe the RAF look similarly at the garrison on Mount Pleasant - they all want their slice of the pie - but it actually means very little to the guy on the front line.

 

In recent operations (last 30 years) the Army has provided the majority of front line personnel - and ground warfare has been totally unavoidable. I have done NI, the FI, the Gulf and Bosnia - as was the politicians bidding. If we are now saying we can conduct the same such operations without the need for ground forces then I would be sceptical at best but bloody happy. If we are saying that we are never ever going to enter into such operational situations in the future - again I would be very sceptical.

 

As I say - the Navy can be the Top Dog - but to the soldier on the ground he really doesn't give a flying fuk, personally now I would much rather they stay at home. (Unfortunately though, I don't think it's going to work out like that for very long).