Talk:Future of the Royal Navy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] POV

In this too POV??

"Unlikely as it sounds, a situation such as occurred in the Falklands War could happen again. How would the government respond? Basing the question on the here and now, the conclusion seems to be that it is doubtful that the Royal Navy will be able to cope, even with the (hopefully) capable systems in which the British Government has invested so much faith. Technology is a good thing, but it doesn't help when men in small boats can cause so much destruction."

Yes, I believe some parts of the 'Analysis' blurs the line in regard to POV, and in some places crosses it. Clue 07:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


I am curious why this content is here rather than in the main article on the Royal Navy? This is great detail about the current state but I would not normally expect to find it here. I personally would expect to find it in the main article. Rossami 23:16, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Proposal:

  1. Merge back into the main article on the Royal Navy
  2. Move current page to a more logical article name such as:
    1. Royal Navy (force structure)
    2. other?

Also, there is a large section under the 'Ananlysis' heading which is opinion or maybe even speculation. It needs to be more encylopedic - facts, not thinking on paper. akaDruid 13:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some of the stuff on PFI doesn't really fit with an encyclopedia.--Payo 10:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

While there are parts of this article that might benefit from clean-up, much of the article is encyclopaedic. I'm therefore replacing the -unencyclopedic- with -cleanup-. Ian Cairns 10:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Point of View

But... since the end of the Cold War, successive Chancellors have imposed the 'peace dividend'. With no recognisable threat, the defence budget has been constantly raided to provide additional funds in other areas. This has led to continuing cuts to the strength of the fleet, particularly with regard to escorts - in 1990, the destroyer and frigate force numbered 43; by 2000, it had dropped to 32. In addition to this is the continued reduction in the nuclear submarine force, which will drop to 10 boats. At present, with the current global situation, these numbers are only just sufficient. Should something like the 2003 Iraq War happen again, the fleet would be stretched. And yet, it seems likely that the numbers of new units will only replace what is already in service, thanks to the government's decision to base its strategy on systems that are adaptable to many situations; it has decided that it does not need large armed forces, despite the continuing evidence of the War on Terror and the fallout of Iraq.

Added to this is the continuing use of the Private Finance Initiative, that uses private money to pay for public works. At present, three warships in the service of the Royal Navy are owned, not by the Admiralty, but by the shipbuilder that constructed them. They are chartered by the Admiralty for five years, after which the navy can purchase them, extend the charter or return them. As it seems unlikely that such major assets would be returned, it means that the taxpayer is not only paying for the five year charter, but also for the eventual cost of purchasing the ships; in effect, they are paying for them twice. While this may be an acceptable arrangement for assets such as the new strategic lift ro-ro ships (which can be used as ordinary merchant transports when not needed by the military), the same cannot be said for actual warships.

At present, the government's procurement policy involves 2 CVF and their air groups, 8 Type 45 destroyers, 5 Astute class submarines and perhaps as many as 17 FSCs. Assuming 8 Type 45s are built, this will provide a major fleet of 25 escorts, 2 carriers and 10 SSNs, with a sizeable amphibious force and significant (though not numerous) other assets. Will this be enough? Even now, the fleet is stretched and the government continues to talk of further decommissionings, not to mention the number of projects that are behind schedule - Albion and Bulwark will both enter service late; the first Type 45 has only just started construction and will be late, as will the Astute class, while there are still wranglings over the size of CVF; it has also recently been discovered that the F-35 is severely overweight, which will probably lead to a slip in its in-service date. This, coupled with the early withdrawal of the Sea Harrier, will leave no capable fleet air defence aircraft in the Fleet Air Arm for five years or more. The rationale for this is that the UK 'no longer fights the sort of wars where ships need defending from enemy warplanes far out to sea; if necessary, we can rely on coalition forces to provide the outer air defences for surface ships' (Armed Forces Minister, Adam Ingram, 28/02/02). But, who can say what the global situation will be once HMS Queen Elizabeth enters service? Who knows what will happen in the next five years? Unlikely as it sounds, a situation such as occurred in the Falklands War could happen again. How would the government respond? Basing the question on the here and now, the conclusion seems to be that it is doubtful that the Royal Navy will be able to cope, even with the (hopefully) capable systems in which the British Government has invested so much faith. Technology is a good thing, but it doesn't help when men in small boats can cause so much destruction.

When I wrote this, just after Delivering Security in a Changing World was announced, I felt very strongly that it needed to be said publically, and I still do. However, I am aware that an encyclopedia isn't the proper forum to do so, which is why I've moved the above text into the discussion page. Hammersfan 05/10/05, 15.30

[edit] Agree

I completely agree with the above comments. The early withdrawl of the Sea Harrier has been exposed for the cost cutting sham it was during the recent crisis in North Korea in October, 2006.

In particular, I take issue with this part of the article:

"Therefore, over the course of 1990s and the 2000s, the navy has begun a series of projects to enhance and rebuild its fleet, with a view to bringing its capabilities into the 21st century and allow it to turn from a North Atlantic, anti-submarine force into a true blue water navy."

How can the Navy or the authour of this article use the words "enhance" and "rebuild" while keeping a straight face is beyond me. How exactly is cutting the surface fleet to the bone compatible with the words "enhance" and (especially) "rebuild"?

That particular part of the article needs rewriting ASAP as it simply does not bear out reality. Simply regurgitating government spin is not a good way of writing an unbiased and well written article!

If this does not happen soon, I will do it myself! And will continue to change it if it is reset back to its previous (incorrect) form! --Pudduh 21:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The comments above are all just agenda driven rubbish and the article is now both wrong and biased to the negative. For example " the comment about the type 42s being replaced by half the number of type 45s" last I checked there were 8 type 42s and there are 8 type 45s planned (6 ordered). You accuse the original author of speculation and comment but then are guilty of it yourselves by speculating that the last two type 45s will not be ordered when there is no real evidence that they will (tabloid newspapers are not reliable sources of information as they are themselves politically biased) Lets wait until they are cancelled before we bleat on about it otherwise we just look stupid. To be blunt the article has been turned from a interesting if maybe over positive article into what is effectively a load of labour bashing waffle!!! -- Kieran Locke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.225.23 (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, this comment "many of these have been cut or cancelled" any examples of these many cancelled and cut programs? Or is the editor again over exaggerating in order to further his or hers agenda.


In fairness, I think the reference to 8 Type 42s in service is after some earlier reductions in numbers from 12 ships. So 6 Type 45s would indeed only replace (numerically) half of the T42 strength as at the time of the SDR. There has been a steady reduction in the size of the RN since SDR, and this trend is continuing. This seems to me a matter of fact. On the other hand, describing this as a bad (or for that matter a good) thing strays into POV, I think. --Vvmodel (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


yes but this was a trend long before SDR to. People have short memories and don’t seem to remember the large defence cuts of the 1990s and before that. This article indicates that everything was all fine and dandy until the current administration came in. anybody who’s studied modern British military history knows that that is not true. I am not suggesting for a second that everything’s great at the moment there are problems and issues to be addressed but there has always been problems and issues and there always will be. The two editors who have changed this page seem biased and naive. Perhaps this article should be about the navy’s plans rather than what it is at the moment. I am sorry I really don’t like this article I don’t think its encyclopaedic but I will now shut up- Regards kieran Locke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.225.23 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update: No response

As there has been no response to either my or Hammersfan's arguments, I have decided to go nuclear and change the article to better reflect the reality faced by an ever crippled and impotent Royal Navy. The current reaction to the North Korean crisis and the fact that we can barely offer one frigate due to fleet and budget cutbacks only add to the avalanche of evidence that whoever wrote this wikipedia article does not have any perception of reality.

I shall endeavour to maintain this legitimate edit if it is returned to it's original and incorrect form. --Pudduh 16:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I find this sort of article "dangerous" as rather than an encyclopaedic analysis of assets and capabilities it can quickly degenerate into conjecture and personal opinion. I would advise editors to tread carefully here. Emoscopes Talk 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Granted, I only wished to edit that specific part of the article as it was politically biased from the outset and bore no relation to reality. It is better to have a balanced article that recognises that the Navy is evolving and bringing in new ships and other assets, but that it has to do this within the constraints of a shrinking budget and cuts in the surface fleet. The notion that the Royal Navy is expanding is frankly absurd and living in the clouds. --Pudduh 14:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Im afraid as I said earlier all you have done is change the article to suit your own particular opinion which is no more close to reality as you put it as the original article. You say the navy is impotent and incapable because it couldn’t send a single frigate to a fictitious blockade of north Korea (again coming from the tabloids), but conveniently fail to mention the evacuation of British nationals from Lebanon by the royal navy just last summer and the 12 ship task force sent on the vela deployment to sierra Leone this year. --- Kieran Locke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.165.225.23 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Initial "the" in pagename

The naming conventions would seem to indicate that this article should be at Royal Navy in the 21st Century. Unless there are any objections, I'd propose to move it there. Alai 20:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admiralty and main article

In discussing the changes there seems to be no mention of the privatisation of what tends here to be called "the Armiralty". I've added mention to the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service page which seemed well out of date.

Also, since this page can be a useful expansion on the topic, why isn't it linked on the Royal Navy section about this with a see main? ..dave souza, talk 08:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I have just finished a major cleanup of this article.

  • General quality "no decision has yet been decided"
  • Removed major redundancy, i.e. the use of six or seven words when two will do.
  • Removed dreadful POV
  • Removed unsourced statements/pure speculation: "Also, it is possible that a mixture of all three types could be procured, in a "family" of warship classes, but no decision regarding these projects has been announced. It is thought that there will be a minimum of 12 7,000 tonne + frigates and 5 3,000 tonne smaller variants, but no decision has yet been decided. " and "It is thought that if the government funds a higher budget for the Royal Navy ( because of mounting pressure by the media and the public ). Then other ships may be built, maybe even a third batch of type 45 destroyers,"
  • Removed entire analysis section - not only did it simply repeat what was said elsewhere but it had terrible POV and speculation, "However today, there are still difficult decisions to be taken, some have already been made, and indeed for the better." and "should re-assert the Royal Navy's position as a true Blue water navy and see it retain its position as the second most powerful naval force in the world for the forseeable future."
  • Removed some description of what was the case 20 or 30 yrs ago. This article's title suggests a forward looking description. I've also removed some triviality, e.g. HMS Clyde being the first ship built at VT's new facility. That's maybe worthy of mention at the Clyde article, not on every single page where it's mentioned. Mark83 14:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Fair dinkum on the POV, looks much better now. --Pudduh 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg

Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This image is on wikipedia under the fair use guidelines. Under these guidelines the image cannot be reasonably used in this article. As such it has been removed from this article. Do not re-add it here without discussion. Thanks. Woodym555 22:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)