carr wrote:
Admiral John Byng wrote:
We should do one of two things:
a) getting rid of the navy
b) fund the ships and aircraft and personnel needed
An observation and then a third option:
Observation: From far across the sea, it appears that the UK has prioritized social programs over defense. I suspect you would have enough funds for the Navy you want if you cut back on social programs.
Third Option: Accept being too small (too poorly funded) to establish and operate a full featured, full capability navy and, instead, become a niche navy for the US. For example, the US Navy lacks MCM and ASW. The UK could concentrate on filling those gaps as its contribution to a joint naval force. This would be an insult to the pride of many citizens (see the observation if you don't like feeling this way) but would allow Britain to remain a useful, contributing naval force. The drawback, of course, is that you then become dependent on the US to take the lead in fighting your wars, however, the US has always stood with Britain and always will so, pride aside, it's not much of a risk.
As Maxim says the RN was de facto the ASW arm of NATO in the GIUK gap. That was partly the reason that so many ships were lost in the Falklands war as they were ill equipped to deal with air attacks.
The problem with being a "niche" navy is the same: fewer ships which would be able to undertake general patrol and war fighting duties.
I suspect that politicians have no interest in how wars are fought and they just imagine that if they decide to act the the navy can do what is asked of it. In the past this was the case and that is why Admiral Lewin pressed Margaret Thatcher to send a task force in 1982.
Today such an operation would be much more difficult - impossible probably. Even when the F-35s arrive and the carriers are operational, the navy will probably have so few ships that the UK will be unable to act independently.
While Russia is committing blatant acts of murder and conducting chemical warfare on our soil, the government does not see the need to provide more money for the security of the UK, (a duty that is always the first priority it claims!).
As for the US, it would be better if the UK kept on friendly terms but slightly apart. The US is not always as wise or as benign as we would like. Brexit seems to be pushing us away from Europe and towards the US, but the US has a history of using us when it suits them and otherwise ignoring us. I don't blame them, it is natural that such a large and important nation should behave in this way but it is not in our best interests to get too cosy with it.
In response to your comment that "the US has always stood with Britain" I would point out that we decided to go to war in 1939, the US was FORCED into war in 1941.