The Royal Navy have many purposes. If all of these were to be listed then the list would be never ending as they do not only have purposes in the United Kingdom, but also abroad in other coutries.
These are the four main purposes which the Royal Navy have:
1. To protect the shores of the UK.
2. To protect the shipping of the UK.
3. To enable the British Army to move from one area to another.
4. To protect the interests of the British government abroad.
Yes there is in fact a female Commodore in the Royal Navy.
There are many rules governing the use of these ensigns under different circumstances and by ships of varying size, actions such as leaving harbour etc. Check the Related Links for more info. Red British ship receiving a signal by a British naval vessel, entering or leaving a foreign port, and if over 50 tons entering or leaving a British port Blue merchantman commanded by a Naval Reservist Officer etc White Only vessels of the Royal Navy or the Royal Yacht Squadron (plus the Trinity House vessel "Patricia" when escorting the Sovereign) are allowed to fly the white ensign at sea or in harbour. During times of war, R.N. vessels fly the Union Jack, and when going into battle, strike the jack and hoist the White Ensign, also known as "The Battle Flag ". Afterwards, the White Ensign is flown until the ship returns to her home port, when the Union Jack is re-hoisted as she enters harbour. Royal The Royal Ensign is ONLY flown when the Monarch is aboard a vessel.
The English navy was created by King Alfred The Great in 9th century in order to engage with Danish longships which were attacking the English coast. King Harold also had a navy which engaged and did much damage to an pre 1066 invasion Norman flotilla of ships that sailed into the channel. We know about King Henry V's navy. Henry VIII and also that of Queen Elizabeth. We can safely say that the Royal Navy is English in its origins.
Historically from that time onwards, the English Navy was The Senior Service and naturally flew the cross of St George. It was not until 1707 that the union jack was added.
in the royal navy... and you probably get them for free... sign up !
Try one of the many Army Navy Stores scattered around Britain, they specialise in surplus in order to bring back the money spent on them originally and short of armaments you can buy just about any thing related to the two including Royal Navy uniforms. If you live outside of the UK though I think they operate online otherwise try a certain online auction house!
I doubt that the bodies have been found let alone looked for. I think the families would want them to be left to rest where they are instead of risking more peoples lives to recover them. the families have most likely had the funeral services and will move on with their lives
One of the most important reasons that Parliament won is the royal navy. Parliament had control of the royal navy, who guarded the isle of Britain, so that the king couldn�t get any supplies from the rest of Europe across the sea, or even from Ireland. He also couldn�t recruit any troops from across the sea. This was a huge advantage to Parliament.
Gunboat Diplomacy is when a country intimidates another by way of military action. Gunboat Diplomacy is often used in reference to Theodore Roosevelt because he used gunboat diplomacy to intimidate the Chinese to open trade with the United States.
The Royal Navy was founded during the reign of King Henry VIII in the 16th century, so it is over 400 years old.
The royal navy's first shore establishment was in 1939 at butlins holiday camp and was commissioned a training camp which served during the second world war.
This stands for the rating of "Stoker" and goes back to the days when ships' boilers were coal-fired and thus "stoked" by stokers. In the Royal Navy they are now known as Marine Engineering Mechanics, further divided into Mechanical and Electrical sub branches. Jack
It was started in the 16th century and is the UKs oldest serving branch of the British military. The exact date is unknown though.
According to www.naval-history.net Vessel No 537 was a LCI(S) ie a Landing Craft Infantry (Small) and was damaged beyond repair in June 1944.
God knows, i doesn't make any sense, the two new CLV future carriers of the royal navy individually cost more than a typical nimitz class supercarrier, and yet they have no nuclear power and carry half as many planes. Maybe things are just more expensive to build in the U.K. Idea!!, scrap the CLV and buy two nimitz class carriers new or old.
Designing and building new aircraft carriers is expensive. That's why few countries build them. The design costs are spread among two UK carriers but among many Nimitz class carriers making the UK ones appear more expensive. We could buy a couple of US carriers instead but then we would lose carrier building capabilities in our own shipyards. That's a strategically bad idea. In addition, the Government gets much of the money back anyway via taxes, both personal and corporate.
The airwing may be a lot smaller, but would the RN have the money for 200 aircraft anyway? Or even need that many? Not to mention the additional pilots, crew numbers etc etc.
The new carriers are not nuclear powered because we don't need them to be. With bases throughout the world fuel supply is not an issue. The expense is not justified. The existing carriers are conventionally powered and that's never been an problem. The only time it would matter is if the bases fall. In those circumstances, it would be a world war and likely go nuclear rendering the carriers pointless in any case.
On an additional note, the Royal Navy has suffered in recent years from cutbacks in funding from the MoD. While the UK's new CLV carriers will be second in the world only to the US Nimitz class, the RN's funding shortages make the uneconomical cost of building these new carriers evenmore unfeasable. Also, since they cost such a significant amount of government money, why not shell out the extra money and make the carriers nuclear powered anyway? After all, the Royal Navy already has other nuclear powered vessels in its fleet.
Comparing these new carriers with the Nimitz class of carrier is not a valid comparison. The Nimitz was laid down in 1968 and commissioned in 1975. Yes they have been upgraded to an extent, as new ones have been built, but because of the original design there are limitations to the extent of upgrading possible or practical. Comparing these two very different classes of carrier is like comparing a slingshot to a rifle.
A more accurate comparison would be the class of carrier being developed and built at the moment, like ours, to eventually replace the Nimitz class, the first of which will enter service in 2015 to replace the Enterprise. The Gerald R. Ford class of carrier was estimated in the last report to cost $14 billion. Just over twice the last estimate for ours.
As for the nuclear question: In addition to that which was written above about our not needing a nuclear powered surface fleet there is a great saving involved. The first of the Nimitz class will be replaced by the 2nd Gerald R. Ford class in 2025. At which point the Nimitz will be de-commissioned and is estimated to cost from $750 to $900 million to do so. This compares with an estimate of $53 million for a conventionally powered carrier.
The value of air supremacy in a defensive or offensive role over land or at sea, for which these wings would contribute to all four roles cannot be over-emphasised, and I believe, despite the cost, represent good value for money. I believe the security these carriers could provide outweighs for example the comparible money being spent for the Olympics. For the first time in over half a century we may have new carriers that could afford to send an effective flight forward while leaving enough behind for defence, very unlike how our current class of carrier, along with Hermes operated in the Falklands conflict.
After the Revolutionary War it became apparent that the United States needed to protect its own mercantile fleet and commercial interests. Great Britain had the largest and most powerful navy and was prone to seizing American ships. In order to protect itelf the United States Congress enacted legislation for the construction of a navy to defend the United States from British and other interests. Henceforth the USS Constitution class battleship was the result.
It is pronounced loo-tenant.
The Royal Navy's mission statement is "to be prepared to deploy rapidly world-wide, in order to save life, sustain and support all ranks and equipment of 3 Cdo Bde RM and attached units, in peace, war and on operations other than war."
Only a list of casualties as far as I am aware,
That is an entirely personal choice. The Royal Navy is a military service and so you would have to be comfortable with that (discipline, being told what to do, possibly being required to go into danger). They operate globally with people working in a variety of roles, not all of which are at sea.
The merchant navy is a civilian organisation with, in many ways, better working conditions and more flexibility in shaping your own career path. There is less unpredicatability, and planning your life can be easier.
As a middle ground, the Royal Fleet Auxilliary (FRA) is a government service which supports and works alongside (but is not part of) the Royal Navy. They operate tankers and support ships and often sail with the RN on longer deployments. They work under Merchant Navy terms and conditions but within a framework similar to the RN.
You need to talk to both the RN careers service and the Merchant Navy service, both of which are easily found through google.
If you want an opinion, I'd suggest the RN.
Rates and ranks of the Royal Navy in ascending order: * Able Seaman * Leading Rate ---- * Petty Officer * Chief Petty Officer ---- * Warrant Officer 2 * Warrant Officer 1 ---- * Officer Cadet * Midshipman ---- * Sub-Lieutenant * Lieutenant * Lieutenant-Commander ---- * Commander * Captain * Commodore ---- * Rear-Admiral * Vice-Admiral * Admiral ---- * Admiral of the Fleet
The German Navy had to resort to "Guerre de Course" warfare; commerce raiding, submarines sinking merchant vessels.
If the German Navy had strong battle fleets, then they would've fought a "Guerre de Escadre" type of naval war; FLEET ENGAGEMENTS.
Therefore, no, the Royal Navy was more powerful.
Only the US, UK, and Japanese Navies were capable of traditional surface warfare.
Up until WWII it had been the policy of successive British governments to make the Royal Navy larger than than the next TWO largest navies in the world added together. Because so much of Britain's trade depended on control of the sea the Royal Navy was intended to be capable of fighting two major opponents at the same time.
Yes however they must be removed for firefighting and gas training exercises.
There is no particular patron of the Royal Navy.
As far as I can tell the Queen Elizabeth class battleships (commissioned in 1915) were the first warships the RN had that were all-oil-fuelled (it had been promulgated by Fisher and Churchill, and the conversion to an all-oil fleet was largely completed by the end of WW1 (1918).
It's just called the Royal Navy.
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Asked By Wiki User
Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.