An anonymous reader (please, people, include a username at
the end your comments so I can offer proper credit!) offered an interesting
thought regarding lessons that could be learned from the Royal Navy (RN). He observed,
I understand this to mean that he believes that a citizenry will direct their resources (taxes and popular opinion) to those endeavors and organizations that it sees the greatest benefit from. This is not terribly surprising, it’s just basic human nature and quite reasonable. In this specific case, the population of the UK sees value in ‘things’ other than the RN or, at least, the RN ranks fairly low on the priority list in the minds of the citizens.
Most of the readers of this blog, almost by definition,
would see a great value in a navy for their country, whatever country that
is. You wouldn’t be reading the blog if
you didn’t, right? So, how is it that
the citizenry of the UK sees so little value in the RN? Does the Royal Navy really offer no value to
the people?
There are two factors at play, here.
1. True value
2. Perceived value
Among other purposes, a navy, any navy, ensures the security
of its country’s shipping, provides persistent surveillance, presence, and
confrontation against unfriendly encroachments, and stands as a ready force
against enemy attack. This ensures
unhindered trade and enhanced economic fortune for the population. This is the true value.
How could any population not see that as valuable and gladly
provide resources for the establishment and maintenance of a naval force?
Well, that brings us to the perceived value. There’s an old saying: perception is reality. That
means that whatever someone believes to be real is what’s real to them.
If you believe that your navy isn’t doing anything worthwhile then
that’s your reality regardless of the true reality.
Where does perception come from, if not from reality? How is someone’s perception formed? Well, it comes from many sources: one’s own
experiences, media news sources (you can instantly see, here, the danger posed
by a biased media that presents an altered reality as true reality, but, I
digress), social networks, etc. If those
various sources are not constantly presenting and explaining the true value of
a navy then the perception quickly becomes that the navy has no value.
I can’t address the UK situation specifically but I can note
that the US Navy makes almost no effort to talk to the citizenry and present
its accomplishments and value in terms that the average person can understand
and relate to. Instead, the Navy resorts
to blocking the media, circling the wagons, hiding behind bogus classification
labels, misleading Congress and, generally, looking down at the general
population.
The Navy’s actions off Yemen involving missile attacks and
defense should be made into near-movie type adventures to be presented to the
public. The exploits of our fearless
sailors, fighting off relentless missile attacks so that Americans can get
their oil and goods should be the stuff of growing legend. It almost doesn’t matter how precisely true
the accounts are. That’s not the
point. The point is to present the
Navy’s value to the public.
Once upon a time, moviegoers were routinely treated to
newsreel highlights of our armed forces.
We need to bring back the updated version of that on TV, streaming
channels, social media, podcasts, influencers, etc. We need to continuously show the public the
value of the Navy. If we do that, the
Navy won’t have to beg Congress for ships, the people will do it for them. If we do that, the recruiting problem will
solve itself.
On the other hand, if we persist in hiding information, the
people will have no idea what the value of the Navy is and the people’s attention
and resources will be directed elsewhere … which is exactly what’s been happening
for years, now.
On a related note, if the US is providing the security for global
shipping, then what true value does the RN offer? Why should the UK citizenry pay for a navy
when the US is providing their security for free? One could see this as a powerful argument for
the US to stop providing global security which would, in turn force other
countries to increase their naval forces to fill the gap and result in an
increase in their true (and perceived?) value.
Thus, one could make the argument, it is in the UK’s best interest for
the US to stop providing international shipping security. Interesting perspective, huh?
______________________________
… once naval forces stop generating usefulness and relevance to the countries [sic] population.... you soon stop having a navy big enough to matter..[1]
I understand this to mean that he believes that a citizenry will direct their resources (taxes and popular opinion) to those endeavors and organizations that it sees the greatest benefit from. This is not terribly surprising, it’s just basic human nature and quite reasonable. In this specific case, the population of the UK sees value in ‘things’ other than the RN or, at least, the RN ranks fairly low on the priority list in the minds of the citizens.
2. Perceived value
“ How could any population not see that as valuable and gladly provide resources for the establishment and maintenance of a naval force?”
ReplyDeleteEvery day, here in Britain, we see and interact with infrastructure which is falling apart and in desperate need of investment. Medical services and schools I won’t mention as they might be seen as political issues but our roads are a basic necessity for everything we do, particularly for trade. In our cars, we can slalom round potholes but I learned while taking a bus ride that large vehicles frequently can’t do that. If lorries can’t travel, many parts of Britain can’t earn. So, that’s why we may miss out on the value of the Royal Navy. Pressing problems closer to home..
Also, our taxes are arguably not spent well. What, for example, was the opportunity cost of buying 2 aircraft carriers? Would other vessels have been better at carrying out the functions you listed in your purposes paragraph? Before making a cynical comment about a couple of River Class OPVs being enough to protect Britain’s 9 last remaining commercial vessels, I decided to check the facts and discovered on the gov.uk website that, at 89 million tonnes deadweight, Britain’s register is the 24th biggest in the world. Crown Dependencies, which I guess also come under RN protection, are higher in the rankings with nearly twice as much registered shipping. I wonder what type of vessel would be best at protecting this shipping. Probably not an aircraft carrier. A modernised Fletcher?
Also, Britain’s EEZ is the fifth largest in the world, stretching down to Antarctica and across the Indian Ocean into the Pacific. Again, I can’t help wondering whether any of the vessels which I’ve helped to buy for the RN are well suited to protecting our EEZ.
On the Navy Lookout website, many of the commenters make contributions which seem wise and based on naval experience. Several of the comments have claimed that the RN is no longer capable of staging an operation similar to that of 1982. I think they underestimate the scale of the Royal Navy’s decline. My suspicion is that we would struggle to prevent the Russians from taking the Shetlands and would only be able to regain those islands at great American expense. Let’s hope I’m wrong.
I really enjoyed your comment. Nice to get a UK perspective every now and again.
Delete"Every day, here in Britain, we see and interact with infrastructure which is falling apart and in desperate need of investment."
DeleteIs it possible you've unknowingly illustrated the exact point of the post? You're quite aware of the roads and whatnot but are you as aware of how the various raw materials and products that those roads move, got to you? The UK's economy is ultimately highly dependent on shipping. Raw materials and finished products enter and leave the country to be shipped to various countries around the world. The Royal Navy protects and ensures the shipping of those materials and goods (or, at least, is supposed to). That would seem to be even more important than the infrastructure. Without the materials and goods, there would be no need for the roads and infrastructure. Admittedly, to an extent, this is an unproductive 'chicken or the egg' question but it illustrates that you are keenly aware of one aspect (roads) but not the other (protection of shipping).
I would also note that UK has invested heavily in social programs in recent decades, at the expense of other budget needs such as the Navy. Again, this illustrates the premise of the post.
On a related note, in 1980, the RN had 64 destroyers and frigates. Today, it has 14. Clearly, the UK has decided their priorities lie elsewhere.
Thank you for your reply. In my first paragraph, I was agreeing with you and trying to explain how we got into this mess. I also agree with what you've written in your reply although, without a functioning infrastructure, not much is getting away from our ports.
DeleteI avoided education and the NHS partly because I realise Americans see things differently but our social services are in a mess with case workers overburdened and unable to deal with problem citizens who sometimes end up creating spectacular headlines but mainly just ruin their own lives and the lives of their children. Our social services actually need more investment.
We are paying tax, including indirect taxes, at higher levels than in the past, mainly because of debt repayments eating into the government's ability to get things done but, despite the high levels of tax, we are paying less than the European norm. Theoretically, we could be funding the navy better.
And we need to. For a month last year, we had none of our attack submarines at sea and the Type 45s have also gone through similar periods. Sadly, our decision makers are drawn to the flashy and cutting edge. Building a steady stream of good enough vessels which keep our shipyards ticking over appears to be unappealing to them. To justify their focus, they have forgotten the list in your purposes paragraph -
"Among other purposes, a navy, any navy, ensures the security of its country’s shipping, provides persistent surveillance, presence, and confrontation against unfriendly encroachments, and stands as a ready force against enemy attack. This ensures unhindered trade and enhanced economic fortune for the population. This is the true value."
- and focused on one item, power projection. The result is a navy which cannot, I suspect, defend these shores.
Here is a nice short video posted today about the shrinking UK Navy that has more Admirals than ships.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po9duwvipB0
Not just navy, UK Army has more generals than tanks.
DeleteOf interest, the USS Ford is due for deployment soon and may not be ready.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.twz.com/sea/uss-gerald-r-ford-was-still-struggling-with-its-dual-band-radar-prior-to-deployment
Another damning article... while the radar is an issue, it's not nearly the crisis that the other newfangled gadgets, which still don't work up to baselines are. At this point, it sure seems like the future carriers named after President's(maybe the Miller as well) ought to have alternate blueprints that retrofit Nimitz class systems into them...
DeleteAnd we might consider keeping all the Fords in 2nd/6th Fleet where fully functional carriers aren't as important...
-Jjabatie
Certainly agree- the Red Sea/Israeli defense operations are a PR windfall for the Navy, but they don't seem to be using them. From influencing Congress, to helping recruiting, to building overall support, the potential is being wasted. Ads showing current events, and mixing in the Navys long history, and adding brief lessons about the importance of sea power to a maritime nation- they could be absolutely epic- something rivaling the Marine ads of the 80s and 90s...
ReplyDeleteA shame it's seemingly never occurred to them.
The UK suffers from a near fatal lack of awareness about it's own history and the pivotal role of the Royal and Merchant navies. Sea blindness is rife. Weirdly though, that history shows that we have been here before. The navy has been seriously neglected in the past only to be saved by some uncanny twists of fate which have enabled it to go on and save the nation and shape the modern world. I know that you despair of the state of the US Navy as we do of the RN, but I feel that those same almost supernatural forces will once again ride to the rescue. Or maybe the Chinese will just go ahead and invade Taiwan and we will learn to love our navies once again.
ReplyDeleteThere is another key factor - affordability. If you cannot afford to sustain a big navy, any short-term funding boost ends in disaster. As Elon Musk said that US spends more and more money to buy less and less weapons, UK cannot even spend more money.
ReplyDeleteIf you cannot afford a big navy, first rationale choice is to avoid entangling into geo-political conflicts. It is time to give up your pride (past honor has gone, gone with wind, period).
"There is another key factor - affordability."
DeleteYes and no. National survival is not a question of affordability. You pay whatever the cost required to survive.
The UK was able to afford 64 destroyers and frigates in 1980. The UK now has 14. Did the UK's overall budget suddenly decrease by 78%? Of course not! The UK GDP was $564B in 1980 and is now $3,300B !!! What's changed is the UK's priorities. They now value programs other than the Navy.
The UK can most certainly afford a much larger fleet IF THEY REDUCE OTHER PROGRAMS (such as social programs).
It's not affordability, it's priorities and the UK has lost their way and their values.
Just like Elon Musk said on US - spend more and money to buy less and less weapons. This is a losing game. Just like insurance, you have to buy but not too much so insurance premium bankrupt you first.
DeleteUK can think alternatively - abandon military alliance with US and be neutral to international conflicts. Focus its defense on defending England.
The way I see it, the value of a modern navy is a bit abstract, so it's hard to present it to the public in a simple way. it's not like the old days where you could parade a captured prize in port.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest value is prevention. The best navy is a navy that doesn't even need to fight, because no one dares to challenge it. If people are regularly picking fights with your ships, that's a bad sign, even if you're still winning.
The second value is "ifs." A navy takes decades to build up, or arguably centuries if you take into account things like naval tradition and morale. So you have to plan for things that might happen decades in the future. To be honest, I don't really care much about houthis in Somalia. I care a lot more about the possibility that some future terrorist group might shut down global shipping in a bigger way, but again it's hard to show that kind of abstract hypothetical in a way that persuades the general public. The "doomsday clock" tries to do that with the threat of nuclear war, showing how every single bad event brings that risk closer. Perhaps the navy needs something similar.
"the value of a modern navy is a bit abstract"
DeleteNO IT'S NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's easy to show. Of course, that assumes that your navy HAS any value. Ours currently has little.
For example, we should be showing photos/videos of US ships escorting merchants carrying, say, cell phones to America. That's value that any citizen can understand and appreciate.
For example, we should be showing the Navy sinking every Iranian swarm boat that presents itself as a hazard to navigation. Of course, we'd have to actually do that and we seem to want to appease instead of confront.
For example, we should be showing the Houthis being wiped out in a matter of days by the full force of the US military with merchant shipping proceeding blissfully in the background. Of course, we don't seem to want to actually do that.
For example, we should be showing videos of the US Navy forcefully removing Chinese fishing/Coast Guard ships for other countries' territorial waters. Of course, we don't seem to want to do that. Instead, we're happy with appeasement.
And so on.
Value is easy to show IF YOU ACTUALLY OFFER ANY VALUE. At the moment, the US Navy offers no value. That's why you may find it hard to present the value.
Showing those kinds of pictures would require actual reasons for missions, rather than 8-10 month deployments that we do for... well, I'm not really sure why we do them. The picture the public has of the navy, if they have any picture, is that they basically just cruise around and perhaps they'll be in position if something happens. It's really difficult to sell that as a valuable mission (because it isn't) and thus the perception of the Navy suffers.
Delete-Huskers1995
The central thesis of this (excellent) article is the mission statement of the Navy League of the United States. I am a member. I, unfortunately , do not see the kind of proactive image building activity needed, though many of its programs (Sea Cadets e.g.) are very positive. Navy needs to get on side with this effort. The justified lamentations about the decline of the RN could well be about the USN in the not too distant future.
ReplyDelete"lamentations about the decline of the RN could well be about the USN in the not too distant future."
DeleteThe future is now! The fleet is hollow. Readiness is in the toilet. Maintenance is nearly non-existent. Ships are literally rusting away. Crews can't perform basic maneuvering and anchoring. Aircraft readiness is on the order of 25%. The number of ships and aircraft are steadily shrinking. And so on.
The future is now.
Agreed!
Delete"Whoever promotes the meme"
ReplyDeleteComment deleted. I have no idea what point you were trying to make, if any, and it had nothing to do with any military matter as best I could tell.
I can check in with USNI News, The War Zone or
ReplyDeletethis blog if want to know what the Navy is up to.
When some talked about joining the Marines, I sent
them to this blog, great stuff, thanks.
No more going to the main library read the latest Janes
Defence Weekly like the olden times.
"the US Navy makes almost no effort to talk to the citizenry and present its accomplishments and value in terms that the average person can understand and relate to" This is true of our modern navy, but irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteEverytime Hollywood makes a Midway or Topgun or Greyhound movie, the navy benefits greatly in the eyes of our citizens and in its recruiting numbers.
Maybe the Brits should invest in a few good war movies.
????? You say presentation is irrelevant and then you say the navy benefits greatly from presentation. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
DeleteReread what he wrote, he's responding to your point that the Navy doesn't do presentation. His retort is that the Navy's lack of self-driven presentation is irrelevant because Hollywood makes pro-Navy movies.
DeleteI don't really agree with him, because Navy-centric media isn't really that prominent. The only two forms of media that can be said to be Navy-centric in recent memory were Top Gun in cinemas, and SEAL Team, which concluded its series run on Paramount Plus last year, after starting on CBS. It's hard to say that there was much impact from either form of media, particularly SEAL Team, which presented life as a Navy SEAL in DEVGRU as something of a drudgery: you get to do a lot of cool guy shit, but you also pay a heavy price to do so. I suspect it turned off quite a lot of people from the Navy life.
"Hollywood makes pro-Navy movies."
DeleteTwo problems with that:
1. A movie once a decade is not the daily presentation that is needed.
2. A naval movie appeals to ... wait for it ... naval enthusiasts who already have a positive view of the navy. We want to present to people who do not already have a positive view. When you're running a failing business, you don't survey the few people who use your service, you survey the people who DON'T to find out why not. As I mentioned in the post, we want to present the navy's story using TV, streaming channels, social media, podcasts, influencers, etc., not just a once a decade movie.
Movies are also limited in that they are fiction (even it "based on a true story") and, as Comnavops points out, have naval enthusiasts as a target audience.
DeleteThe Navy is out there, right now, doing real live combat stuff. Where is that in any commercial? Or how about embedding a few military-savvy influencers aboard a deployed ship, work the social media angle? Really, anything more than what the Navy is doing now would be helpful.
On this topic, I thought the PBS series "Carrier" some years back did an outstanding job of showing real-life Navy work, challenges and all. Even if it was (obviously) focused on carrier and its air wing.
Exactly... where are the Navy PR people who look at the Houthi/Israel action and scream, "this is GOLD!!"???
Delete-JJAbatie