‘Back to the Future’: the Royal Navy in the Twenty-First Century

  • Andrew M. Dorman

Abstract

As it enters the new millennium, the size, composition and outlook of the Royal Navy promises to be considerably different from the one which existed a mere decade ago. If the Navy is successful in getting its case accepted within the Ministry of Defence (MoD), we could, once again, see a Royal Navy containing relatively large aircraft carriers earmarked for the projection of British military power overseas,2 supported by a brigade level amphibious assault capability and nuclear-powered attack submarines equipped with conventionally armed land-attack cruise missiles (TLAM).3 What this would amount to is a return to a far more traditional defence policy than we have seen over the last fifty years with a maritime rather than continental emphasis.4 Incorporated within this would be a defence policy that utilizes available technology to project power from the sea to a far greater distance and far more accurately than has previouslybeen possible.

Keywords

Military Power Defence Policy Aircraft Carrier Defence Estimate Peace Dividend 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    See Martin Edmonds (ed.), ‘British Naval Aviation in the 21st Century’, Bailrigg Memorandum 25 (Lancaster: Centre for Defence and International Security Studies, 1997).Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Christopher Bellamy, ‘Gunboat Diplomacy for the 21st Century’, Independent, 24 July 1997, p. 19.Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    It is interesting to note the inaugural conference at the new Joint Services Command and staff College in June 1997 was entitled `Jointery in an Expeditionary Era’. See Andrew Dorman, ‘Western Europe and Military Intervention’, in Military Intervention in the Post-Cold War World: From Gunboat Diplomacy to Humanitarian Intervention, eds Andrew Dorman and Thomas Otte (Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing, 1995), pp. 114–17.Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    Christopher Bellamy, op. cit., p. 19.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    Douglas Hurd, ‘Foreign Policy and International Security’, RUSI Journal, vol. 138, no. 2, Apri11993, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    For an indication of current deployment levels see Tim Butcher, ‘Duty Comes First for Forces at Christmas’, Daily Telegraph, 26 December 1997, p. 6.Google Scholar
  7. 11.
    House of Commons Defence Committee, Seventh Report — Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1996, HC. 215, Session 1995–96 (London: HMSO, 1996), pp. xxi—xxii; Bruce George and Nick Ryan, ‘Options for Change: A Political Critique’, Brasseys Defence Yearbook, 1993, ed. Centre for Defence Studies (London: Brassey’s, 1993), p. 44.Google Scholar
  8. 12.
    Stuart Croft and Phil Williams, ‘The United Kingdom’, in Regina Cowen Karp (ed.), Security with Nuclear Weapons? Different Perspectives on National Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press for SIPRI, 1991), p. 147.Google Scholar
  9. 13.
    See Thomas G. Otte, ‘Military Intervention: Conclusions and Reflections’, in Military Intervention in the Post-Cold War World, op. cit., pp. 193–209; Colin S. Gray, The Navy in the Post-Cold War World (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University, 1994); Eric Grove, The Future of Sea Power (London: Routledge, 1990).Google Scholar
  10. 14.
    Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1996, op. cit., p. 3; Douglas Hurd, ‘Foreign Policy and International Security’, op. cit., pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  11. 16.
    For a fuller explanation of this argument see John Roberts, ‘Oil, the Military and the Gulf War of 1981’, RUSI Journal, vol. 136, no. 1, Spring 1991, pp. 11–16.Google Scholar
  12. 17.
    Dilip Hiro, Desert Shield to Desert Storm: The Second Gulf War (London: Harper Collins, 1992).Google Scholar
  13. 20.
    Michael Evans and Michael Theodoulou, ‘British Carrier to Aid US Against Saddam’, The Times, 17 January 1998, p. 17.Google Scholar
  14. 21.
    In bold in original. House of Commons Defence Committee, Fourth Report — United Kingdom Peacekeeping and Intervention Forces: Report together with the Proceedings of the Committee Relating to the Report, Minutes of Evidence and Memoranda, HC. 188, Session 1992–93 (London, HMSO, 1993), p. xxvi.Google Scholar
  15. 22.
    Douglas Hurd, op. cit., pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  16. 23.
    George Robertson, Speech to the Labour Party Conference, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 28.
    Joris Janssen Lok, ‘New Challenges Force Change on Royal Navy’, Janes Defence Weekly, 3 September 1997, p. 41.Google Scholar
  18. 29.
    Scott C. Truver, ‘Budget Squeeze Blurs the Long-Range Vision’, Janes Navy International, vol. 101, no. 5, June 1996, pp. 28–39; The Future of Seapower’, Janes Navy International, January/February 1996, pp. 22–32; Richard Scott, ‘Which Course will Russia’s Navy Steer’, Janes Navy International, October 1996, pp. 18–21.Google Scholar
  19. 30.
    Sam Bateman, ‘Sea Change in Asia-Pacific’, Janes Navy International, October 1996, pp. 24–35; Richard Scott and Kathleen Bunten, ‘Stretching to Keep a Global Reach’, Janes Navy International, March 1997, pp. 34–49; Richard Scott and Mike Wells, ‘Flexing Joint Muscle: Mixed Air Groups Aboard Carriers’, Janes Navy International, December 1997, pp. 14–22.Google Scholar
  20. 31.
    Colin McInnes, Trident: The Only Option? (London: Brassey’s, 1986); Robert H. Paterson, Britains Strategic Nuclear Deterrent From before the V-Bomberto Beyond Trident (London: Frank Cass,1997), chapter 4.Google Scholar
  21. 40.
    See Norman Friedman, The US Maritime Strategy (London: Jane’s, 1988).Google Scholar
  22. 44.
    David White, ‘Strategy Outlined for Blitz on Defence Costs’, Financial Times, 6 July 1993; Christopher Bellamy and Colin Brown, ‘Rifkind Squeezes Budget as Peace Dividend Falls Short’, Independent, 8 July 1994, p. 2.Google Scholar
  23. 45.
    Bruce George and Nick Ryan, ‘Options for Change: a Political Critique’, Brasseys Defence Yearbook, 1993, ed. Centre for Defence Studies (London: Brassey’s, 1993), p. 44.Google Scholar
  24. 46.
    For an elaboration of this argument see Keith Hartley, ‘Jointery: Just Another Panacea? An Economist’s View’, in A. Dorman, M. Smith and M. Uttley (eds), Defense Analysis Special Edition, vol. 14, no. 1, April 1998.Google Scholar
  25. 47.
    Eric Grove, Vanguard to Trident: British Naval Policy since World War II (London: The Bodley Head, 1987), p. 212.Google Scholar
  26. 48.
    Bernhard Gray, ‘Forces Dig in to Debate their Role in the World’, Financial Times, 10 March 1997, p. 7.Google Scholar
  27. 49.
    Michael Evans and Michael Theodoulou, ‘British Carrier to Aid US Against Saddam’, Times,17 January 1998, p. 17.Google Scholar
  28. 50.
    Bernhard Gray, ‘Forces Dig in to Debate their Role in the World’, op. cit., P. 7.Google Scholar
  29. 51.
    Joris Janssen Lok, ‘New Challenges Force Change on Royal Navy, Janes Defence Weekly, 3 September 1997, p. 42.Google Scholar
  30. 52.
    David Brown, The Royal Navy and the Falklands War: The Epic, True Story (London: Arrow, 1989), p. 358.Google Scholar
  31. 53.
    Anton Hanney, ‘Sizing-up the Next Carriers’, Navy News, October 1997, p. 2; ‘UK Navy SAMs to Make Way for More Aircraft’, Janes Defence Weekly,17 September 1997, p. 5.Google Scholar
  32. 54.
    Anton Hanney, ‘Sizing-up the Next Carriers’, op. cit., p. 1.Google Scholar
  33. 55.
    Rear-Admiral Richard T. R. Philips, `Naval Aviation in a Changed Strategic Environment’ in ‘British Naval Aviation in the 21st Century’, op. cit., p. 17.Google Scholar
  34. 57.
    Martin Edmonds, ‘Navy Procurement, Industrial Strategy and the Future Carrier’, in ‘British Naval Aviation in the 21st Century’, op. cit., p. 51.Google Scholar
  35. 59.
    Rear-Admiral Richard T. R. Philips, ‘Naval Aviation in a Changed Strategic Environment’, op. cit., p. 19.Google Scholar
  36. 60.
    Martin Edmonds, ‘Navy Procurement, Industrial Strategy and the Future Carrier’, op. cit., p. 29.Google Scholar
  37. 61.
    Richard Scott and Nick Cook, ‘UK Air, Naval Forces Sign on Joint Future Aircraft’, Janes Defence Weekly, 7 January 1998, p. 3.Google Scholar
  38. 62.
    Rear-Admiral Richard T. R. Philips, ‘Naval Aviation in a Changed Strategic Environment’, op. cit., p. 17.Google Scholar
  39. 63.
    Vincent Grimes, Richard Scott and Mike Wells, ‘Amphibious Advancement’, Janes Navy Intemational, September 1998, p. 28.Google Scholar
  40. 64.
    Andrew Pierce, Worn-out Warships Must Limp On to 2002’, Times, 15 August 1997, p. 4.Google Scholar
  41. 69.
    ‘Amphibious Advancement’, op. cit., p. 28.Google Scholar
  42. 70.
    Richard Scott, ‘Alternative LSLs Put Paid to SLEP’, Janes Navy International, December 1997,p. 4.Google Scholar
  43. 73.
    IISS, The Military Balance, 1989–90 (London, IISS, 1989), p. 79.Google Scholar
  44. 74.
    Joris Janssen Lok, ‘New Challenges Force Change on Royal Navy’, op. cit.Google Scholar
  45. 75.
    David Brown, The Royal Navy and the Falklands War, op. cit., p. 360.Google Scholar
  46. 77.
    Joris Janssen Lok, ‘New Challenges Force Change on Royal Navy’, op. cit., p. 42.Google Scholar
  47. 79.
    Tim Butcher, ‘Royal Navy Proves It Is Still a World Force’, Daily Telegraph, 20 March 1997, p. 13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Andrew Dorman 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew M. Dorman
    • 1
  1. 1.Defence Studies DepartmentJoint Services Command and Staff CollegeBracknellUK

Personalised recommendations