US, Royal Navy Hone Battle Skills

In the midst of a full-fledged multinational exercise off the coast of the United Kingdom this May, U.S. Navy and Royal Navy leadership are collaborating with one another to form a stronger joint, allied force for current and future operations at sea.

With seven countries participating in the Joint Warrior 09-1 exercise to hone the battle skills and readiness of allied forces, the American and Royal fleet are learning and drawing from one another's expertise and skill sets.

"We want to help as much as we can, because that strengthens the bond between the U.S. and the Royal Navy, which is historically already unbelievably strong," said Capt. John Kersh, commodore, Commander, Destroyer Squadron 24. "We are teaming with some of our strongest allies and partners so that we can all draw upon these good feelings when we get in theater. It's a very, very positive relationship."

As Joint Warrior takes place in the U.K., Royal Navy officials are visiting the States to learn more about the U.S. Navy's expertise in aircraft carrier-centric operations at Commander, Strike Force Training Atlantic (CSFTL). With the Royal Navy making preparations to add two more aircraft carriers to their fleet, senior leadership is drawing upon U.S. expertise and example in training carriers and associated staffs to successfully fulfill missions abroad.

"Our organization stateside is set up to train an entire strike group and staff, whereas theirs is geared toward training individual ships at higher levels", said Kersh. They can take what they learn from us and apply it to carrier strike group organization, and we learn their individual ship ops expertise and communication styles, in addition to near-land procedures and NATO rules of engagement."

With so much partnered alignment between U.S. and Royal Navy leadership, sharing relative strengths to provide ready, allied maritime forces for global assignment will play a pivotal role in the execution of the American maritime strategy. Multiplatform coalition exercises like Joint Warrior only strengthen the existing teamwork and operational efficiency between the partnered nations.

"It takes a lot of resources to put this coalition-intensive exercise together, sequenced correctly and with so many intricacies involved," said Kersh. "But it's so important because in a real-life, in-theater situation, things could get complicated very quickly if we don't thoroughly understand how our allies operate. Working together so closely beforehand helps to side-step a learning curve; we need to be fully battle-ready together now, not when we get over in theater and it's time to perform."

Joint Warrior is a two-week, multinational training evolution incorporating five U.S. Navy units and a host of allied forces, focusing heavily on strategic training evolutions and strengthening partnerships between NATO members. The exercise also integrates Fleet Irregular Warfare Training (FIWT), placing emphasis on more non-traditional warfare areas like counter-piracy and theater security, in addition to calculated responses to some of the newer emergent threats around the globe.

"Opportunities for us to work with our allies during exercises like JW are vital," said Lt. Cmdr. Dave Jones, weapon engineer officer for the Royal Navy frigate HMS Argyll (F231). "They allow us to practice common procedures at all levels of warfare, from humanitarian aid and enforcing embargoes to high-intensity warfighting. We can meet face to face, talk as one professional mariner to another, and gain a better understanding of each other's cultures and ways of life, strengthening at an individual level the common interests our two nations share."

Does America Need a Navy? Hey this sounds Familiar?

Picked this up in my IN box this morning. So it's a global problem and everyone seems to be out bashing their own Navy. Interesting how the Americans actually use as the prime example of a Good Navy. I hope that this message can get across in the UK. The article was written by Mike Bishop and dated 17th December 2008. Does no one realize throughout the World that the Marines is part of the Navy. The clue is in the name.....

To coin a phrase, what's the point of having this magnificent Navy if we never use it? Having not fought even a minor naval war against a peer enemy since World War 2, and totally uninterested in attacking the threat of piracy which is challenging free trade in the Middle East, it shouldn't be surprising that some might question”why have a navy”?

Of course every country with a significant coastline and dependent on nautical commerce needs some type of sea going force. The question should not be does America need a navy but what type does she need. Is it necessary for her to spend billions on an unmatched global force able to handle multiple threats anywhere on short notice, or might a smaller and historically traditional coastal and commerce protection fleet be adequate.

The USA currently possess a fleet that is really three navies in one. There is the aircraft carrier fleet consisting of 11 large supercarriers with up to 90 planes each, and backed by a surface combatant force of over 120 including missile and ASW escorts. Then there is the submarine force which includes 2 types, ballistic missile and nuclear attack submarines, a total of 71 in service which often perform solo clandestine missions. Finally there is the 30+ strong amphibious fleet used to ferry Marine Expeditionary Units and equipped with its own mini-carriers that can launch Marine Harrier vertol planes.

Rather than possessing this enormously expensive fleet geared for offensive warfare, perhaps America could return to its pre-world power days and build a fleet less aggressive, more defensive, and radically smaller than it now possesses. In fact the USN seems headed in this direction anyway, with its new Maritime Strategy released in 2007 that emphasis preventing rather than preparing for war, itself a very radical change from its 20th Century Mahanian strategy of dominating the sealanes and seeking a "decisive battle" with her foes. Likewise is it also looking to more international cooperation as its own operating forces consistently linger below 300 ships,with plans for deploying a "1000 ship navy" in cooperation with the international community.

Why not go the extra step and allow her allies to protect her maritime interests? America has traditionally relied on the British Navy as her first line of defense from aggressive continental powers. Now that the Royal Navy seems to be wavering on building her own expeditionary forces in the form of 2 large and very costly supercarriers, America should freely give her naval expertise, loan her spacious shipyards, perhaps offer monetary support, or whatever it takes to keep the very experienced Royal Navy in fighting trim for decades to come.

The world might regret the loss of the Royal Navy far more than the demise of the US Fleet. It is the British who have used their fleet the most aggressively since World War 2, fighting one of the few major naval wars of the missile age in the Falklands and also conducting more amphibious assaults than the US, against Egypt in 1956, and in the aforementioned South Atlantic War of 1982. Some also forget that it was Royal Marines backed by US Navy Seals which led the assault on Saddam's port of Umm Qasr in the 2003 Iraq Invasion. Currently a British commander is also leading the European Unions anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden while the mighty US Navy sits out the fight.

Traditionally a land power anyway, America might do well to continue funding her magnificent Army which is performing so well in our Middle Eastern wars. The US Navy could be downsized dramatically into a smaller and cheaper cruiser navy, backed by surface gunboats which could aid the Coast Guard in fighting drug runners and stopping illegal aliens. Then, about 12 large destroyers could be kept in service as a token surface fleet to show the flag around the world and to support our allies in wartime.

For the record, in no way do I support such a smaller and defensive-minded US Navy. As long as we can afford one, I believe the USA should lead the world on the high seas. No other nation on earth has ever done so with such selflessness, and with a goal of a more prosperous and peaceful world. Only the USA has any interest or ability to maintain freedom of the seas around the world, or can prop up our current global economy in which its benefits all nations, even those who hate us. The point of this analysis has only been to remind our naval leaders of the responsibility they hold towards keeping this peace. A stand-off passive fleet uninterested in today's problems, or seeking to avoid challenges when it is thrust upon them as in the outbreak of piracy in recent years, is a luxury we can no longer afford. Use it or lose it.