tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post2247154396488958414..comments2024-03-20T12:03:26.126+00:00Comments on Thin Pinstriped Line: Are we ‘Sea Blind’, or merely suffering from ‘Sea Myopia’?Sir Humphreyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08704774192275240783noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-34502783577439480542012-05-08T18:31:15.342+01:002012-05-08T18:31:15.342+01:00Well its a good job the navy found a way of partia...Well its a good job the navy found a way of partially reversing the frankly treasonous 1966 defense review, because every conflict we have been involved in since has required some form of carrier strike! Oh except Libya of course where it cost a ridiculous amount to contribute a lot less than the French. This is a good article and sea myopia is indeed an apt term for the problem. We as a nation had better put the glasses on a bit more often though, because one thing about the uncertain future is that things change very fast and rapidly augmenting may no longer be quick enough. The core capability needs to be a lot more flexible and adaptable than it is and we need to have a plan in place for expanding, the ability to build your own ships for example.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-72848452963030681912012-05-07T20:34:40.670+01:002012-05-07T20:34:40.670+01:00I think part of the 'sea myopia' at the mo...I think part of the 'sea myopia' at the moment is linked to Afghanistan. It is perhaps hard to explain to the public why seapower is so important when we are currently engaged in a high profile land campaign.<br />Of course the fact that the RN has been heavily involved in Herrick has often been missed, for example a lot of people don't realise that the RM is part of the navy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-4512697467394838292012-05-07T18:44:38.635+01:002012-05-07T18:44:38.635+01:00A lot of the hype re. the decline of the RN is mor...A lot of the hype re. the decline of the RN is more concerned with symbolism than real defence need. The truth is that we are no longer a colonial power and the Cold War is over. The size of the RN compared with, for example, ascendant forces like the Chinese or Indian navies, is actually pretty irrelevant. Ultimately, the only thing that really matters is that the RN is able to adequately defend our security and national interests. This is what the 1966 Defence Review was all about. The new carrier(s) were cancelled because they were hugely expensive and not essential to the RN's primary ASW role. Then as now we did not have the resources to do everything, and maintaining carrier strike was not a priority.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-77435567320552717452012-05-03T12:37:47.815+01:002012-05-03T12:37:47.815+01:00It always amazes me how many hulls from the WW2 bu...It always amazes me how many hulls from the WW2 building programmes were still around by the Falklands. <em>Hermes</em> being exhibit A (laid down in 1944, construction suspended in 1946, eventually commissioned in the mid-50s having been launched in the meantime because the yard needed the slipway for another project), <em>Bulwark</em> was still hanging about Portsmouth (having already been retired twice) and they considered recommissioning her, <em>Blake</em> was still in reserve and they looked at mobilising <em>her</em>.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17153530634675543954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-49087663457220369602012-05-01T18:37:12.555+01:002012-05-01T18:37:12.555+01:00Ajay - Thanks for your comments, but I'm afrai...Ajay - Thanks for your comments, but I'm afraid you are misinformed about just how bad the RN was during the late 1940s. <br />After the end of WW2, the RN finished the war with approximately 800,000 personnel in service. The challenge for the next few years was the rapid loss of trained 'hostilities only' manpower, coupled with an urgent need to focus limited resources on rebuilding the nation and the merchant navy. This meant the RN struggling with the reality of few ships, relatively limited resources and an ever shrinking pool of manpower, many of whom as concscripts had no interest in supporting the RN. <br />I would strongly recommend to you to read either Desmond Wetterns 'decline of British Seapower' or alternatively Eric Groves 'Vanguard to Trident' - both of which provide a first hand account of the massive reduction in the RN, the loss of trained personnel to run ships in the Home Fleet, and also the lack of funding to do anything substantial about it. <br />By 1948, I would argue (as have many far more experienced naval historians) that the RN really was at its lowest possible ebb - barely any active vessels capable of going to sea, plenty of old worn out wartime vessels desperately needing refits and repair, and not enough manpower due to the need to restart the civilian economy. It really wasnt until the start of the Korean War that a boost of funding emerged that helped save the Royal Navy.Sir Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08704774192275240783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-4772343751025078112012-05-01T11:07:11.771+01:002012-05-01T11:07:11.771+01:00"in 1945 the Royal Navy was the largest it ha..."in 1945 the Royal Navy was the largest it has ever been, or is likely to be. By 1948 the Home Fleet had about three active warships, with the rest rooting on their moorings."<br /><br />Even if "warships" means "battleships", which is a particularly egregious mistake, this still isn't true. KGV, Duke of York, Anson, Howe and Vanguard were all still in service. Not to mention all the carriers. The RN shrank after the war - of course it did - but to say that it was rotting (or even rooting) on its moorings three years later just isn't true.ajaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-88193311175155202202012-04-29T01:58:35.520+01:002012-04-29T01:58:35.520+01:00Can we start by simply mooring one of the carriers...Can we start by simply mooring one of the carriers in portsmouth until we can afford to use? Waste of time and money to get rid of it. Perhaps keep one or two ships a bit longer before they do goto the scrap yard.Paul Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01285661735017310674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6254362504495980377.post-66259772357715818762012-04-28T21:03:08.511+01:002012-04-28T21:03:08.511+01:00Although there is little public call for a "l...Although there is little public call for a "large" standing navy, there is little blogospheric call for such either.<br /><br />I ferequently bang on about out our lack of maritime focus, but I do so staunchly on the basic of fact.<br /><br />Comnpare the historical peace time navy budgets to the peace time army budgets, and 1946 onwards is simply perverse.TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.com