Comments on: Her Majesty’s Royal Coast Guard

By: Gareth Mizon

Gareth Mizon — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:10:14 +0000

i know i am coming in late on this, but i would just like to say that although our navy is smaller than it should be, it is still large enough to do what we need it to.
some stats
current commissioned ships in Royal Navy approx 90
current commissioned ships in US Navy approx 245
(america does have another 150 odd non commissioned support vessels)
Now take a minute, jump on google maps and compare the size of america to Great Britain
you will note America is approx 10 times larger, but the US navy is only 3 times bigger in combat vessells and 5 times bigger in total vessell numbers.
If we do have a Navy that is low in numbers, then this surely means that America is desparately short!?!
As we all know this is not the case for America, surely it can not be the same for the UK.
although our Navy has decreased in size, it has increased in leathality.
We could do with some major investment, some moves have been made in this direction already (new carriers being built etc etc)
But i think the one thing you can not over look, is our history of sea warfare.
We have some of, if not the best tactical planners in the Royal Navy.
Please remember we had a Navy before America was discovered.
In fact i believe im right when i say we had even developed our Marine core before Americas was discovered!!!

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:35:08 +0000

The Navy is quite capable of defeating anyone we can foreseeably see Britain being involved in some sort of conflict with in the near future. Just because it isn’t as good as the US Navy doesn’t mean it sucks! It is one of only three navies in the world with expeditionary capability (the other two being France and America) and it is one of very few with aircraft carriers. The Type 23s are not old, the last one was only finished in 2001 (HMS Argyll), hardly old. Britain does not rely on the Americans, it just so happens that most of the wars we go to these days the Americans go to too. We can still fight on our own if needed though, just look at Sierra Leone as a recent example. Oh, and for those who don’t understand the Navy, the frigates and destroyers are there to protect the aircraft carriers and amphibious assualt ships from enemy threats and in peacetime show the flag. They aren’t there to purely provide highly expensive and sophisticated yaughts promoting Britain abroad, they are, believe it or not, warships too. The problem here is that people are giving the definition of a good navy as: must be on similar lines to US Navy. This is a load of tosh, the Royal Navy is capable of defeating most countries, just not every country. The countries it can’t beat, lets be honest, it doesn’t need to.

By: Teaplease

Teaplease — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:34:15 +0000

We could quite easily afford a splendidly equipped military if only the prats in power would stop cutting the defence budget (in real terms) and give us what was promised.
And as for what do we need a navy for, you do realise we still have dependant territory all over the world, and since we’re an island we have a duty to protect all the shipping that keeps the people fed.

By: Mike the Cook

Mike the Cook — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 03:06:08 +0000

Reading the TITLE and then reading the ARTICLE it sounds to me like a “SLAP IN THE FACE” to the U.S. Coast Guard…as if the word Coast Guard is a second hand navy…
I say “SHOOT THE MESSENGER” and then change the TITLE of the story…
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD since 1790

By: greatdanzs

greatdanzs — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:27:56 +0000

Next up is the SAS in RIB’s protecting the coast!

By: Valcan

Valcan — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:36:52 +0000

My goodness revere. Such language. If only the UK had Chuck Norris. He would roundhouse kick the other navies in the face.
Posted by: WJS at March 2, 2009 01:02 PM
WJS gets best comment of the thread awared

By: WJS

WJS — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:02:58 +0000

My goodness revere. Such language. If only the UK had Chuck Norris. He would roundhouse kick the other navies in the face.

By: JSmithCSA

JSmithCSA — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:57:48 +0000

Shocking! The RN is essentially going out of business, and the UK is counting on unreliable European allies to protect her shores. More likely, she is counting on the US to do so, which is a dicey thing to do given the budget cutbacks we are going through.

By: LMB

LMB — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:29:30 +0000

I do think it is interesting to hear the comments about the Royal Navy being optimized for work with the other Navies of the European Union. While this isn’t exactly a academic quote, this Wikipedia quote is of particular interest “Member states are responsible for their own territorial defense”. Europe doesn’t seem to like to play together, a pattern you could trace back to Roman times.
While it could be said that NATO would be willing to work together, at the rate the alliance has in recent years I wouldn’t count on it. For example those pulling out of Iraq; i.e. Spain.

By: revere

revere — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:12:57 +0000

1> britain is in fact investing quite heavily in anti submarine defense (theyre choosing the wrong aircraft but they are doing it) as well as automated anti air naval capabilities
while i agree theyre going to be under represented in the sheer amount of ships they wont be the pushover you believe — and it wouldnt be the first time theyve been in a situation where theyve been low on numbers and still beat the crap out of the enemy
2> australias navy is a bigger joke than canadas and the japanese dont even have one — hell they dont even have a military, they have a homeland defense force — much like a coastguard with a few planes and apc’s.
so yeah — take your whining american ass to them and see if theyll support your illegal and immoral wars at the cost of lives and cash, good luck with that.