The "primary function" of a navy...

**DPrime** · 24 Jun 10,, 01:28

Alright, I need some advice/references to settle an argument with an infantry officer, who believes that the primary function of the navy is to support land operations, and thus ultimately the infantry on the ground. Whereas this is certainly true in specific contexts, I am trying to explain that this is but one aspect of naval operations and not its overarching primary raison d'etre. However my debating skills need a bit of help from those more learned than I...

**zraver** · 24 Jun 10,, 03:03

Originally Posted by DPrime

Alright, I need some advice/references to settle an argument with an infantry officer, who believes that the primary function of the navy is to support land operations, and thus ultimately the infantry on the ground. Whereas this is certainly true in specific contexts, I am trying to explain that this is but one aspect of naval operations and not its overarching primary raison d'etre. However my debating skills need a bit of help from those more learned than I...

Armies win battles, navies win wars. WWI was won the Royal Navy. The lack of supplies and foods brought about by the blockade caused the November Revolution in Germany. In WWII, the failure of the German U-boats to choke off British or Soviet LL supplies and its inability to keep the British Isles from becoming the worlds largest unsinkable air craft carrier doomed Hitler's third Reich. In the Pacific, the US didn't really have to invade, the massive US fleet and the submarine blockade would have starved Japan out of the war no matter how willing to die the Japanese army was. In Korea the landings at Inchon doomed any hope of a unified communist Korea. This is all within living memory. If we look backwards in time we see that if Admiral DeGrasse had failed to beat the British in the Caribbean and thus been prevented from forming the Yorktown blockade, would there be a USA?

Would the world have had the British Empire if the lobster backs had not the sails of the Royal navy? let us not forget Rome, Octavian remade the word, but only after he and Agrippa defeated Antony at Actium. The massive Persian Army overran Greece and sacked Athens, but the defeat of its navy ended the Persian threat to Europe forever. The Battle of Lepanto greatly reduced the threat of the Ottoman Empire.

The history is clear, to be a true power requires a navy able to project force where its nation needs it.

**Pacfanweb** · 24 Jun 10,, 03:57

From Wikipedia:

The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.
—Mission statement of the United States Navy

From the New Recruits Handbook:
The mission of the United States Navy is to protect and defend the right of the United States and our allies to move freely on the oceans and to protect our country against her enemies.

The United States Navy serves as a seaborne branch of the Military of the United States. 10 U.S.C. § 5062 prescribes the navy's three primary areas of responsibility:

"The preparation of naval forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war"

"The maintenance of naval aviation, including land-based naval aviation, air transport essential for naval operations and all air weapons and air techniques involved in the operations and activities of the Navy"

"The development of aircraft, weapons, tactics, technique, organization, and equipment of naval combat and service elements".

U.S. Navy training manuals state the mission of the U.S armed forces is "to prepare and conduct prompt and sustained combat operations in support of the national interest". As part of that establishment, the U.S. Navy's functions comprise sea control, power projection and nuclear deterrence, in addition to "sealift" duties.

If all that is accurate, I'd say you win your argument.

**RustyBattleship** · 24 Jun 10,, 06:15

The Primary Function of a Navy (a well equipped Navy) is to do --- well ---everything.

It is the most multi-tasked military organization of any nation. It provides surface sea power to attack enemy ships whether they be combat ships or logistic supply ships.

It can attack them from underwater even (using Submarines as nobody has built anything to travel through Rocky Mountain Granite yet at speed and accuracy).

It can attack from the air, with Aircraft Carriers of course. Air attacks can be ordered for either support of ground troops or attacking enemy ships.

It has massive and highly accurate missile weaponry that can be dispersed over 70% of the Earth's surface. Accurate enough to take out a wayward satellite, without even using an explosive warhead.

It can provide thousands of tons of supplies for either troop support or mercy missions such as the Indonesian Tsunami where there were no airfields left to land C-5 airplanes.

In the case of the U.S. Navy, it has its own ground force unit -- The United States Marine Corps. The Navy can deliver them either by ship or by air.

Besides being a formidible fighting force, a well equipped and well trained Navy can be a fast response emergency disaster relief team to provide supplies, medical facilities, air transport, ship evacuation, methodical search and rescue operations and just about anything else you would need from a military unit that floats, flies, parachutes, rolls on wheels or tracks all the way down to plain old boot steps.

The Navy is also an excellent support system for scientific exploration. Besides the DSRV, Piccard's Bathyscaphe Trieste and Cousteau's "Saucer Sub" were actually owned and operated by the U.S. Navy.

I had a chance to go down in Cousteau's sub but other work schedules interferred. However, I was able to make a quick tour of Piccard's Bathyscaphe sphere up in Mare Island.

The Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle (DSRV) never was called for a rescue mission (much to the grief of the communist USSR Navy on several occasions) but paid for itself with extensive scientific Marine research.

So, if you are a country with a seacoast and do not have a decent Navy, you are in deep do-do both military-wise and economy-wise. Just ask Sadaam Hussein how his pitiful "Navy" of patrol boats tied up to their piers faired against full salvos from the USS Missouri.

Hmmm. Forget that last part. Sadaam hasn''t said a word since his last necktie party.

**BenRoethig** · 24 Jun 10,, 20:55

Originally Posted by DPrime

Alright, I need some advice/references to settle an argument with an infantry officer, who believes that the primary function of the navy is to support land operations, and thus ultimately the infantry on the ground. Whereas this is certainly true in specific contexts, I am trying to explain that this is but one aspect of naval operations and not its overarching primary raison d'etre. However my debating skills need a bit of help from those more learned than I...

Depends on the theater. As an army officer, he is trained to see warfare in the terms optimal to his unit's skill sets. For an infantry unit, he see air force and navy support as transport, resupply, and air support units.

**ArmchairGeneral** · 24 Jun 10,, 23:07

1) Sealanes: protect merchant traffic, stop enemy merchant traffic.
2) Amphibious warfare: transport and support amphibious landings, prevent enemy landings.
3) Power projection: Show the flag, provide air support to land operations, especially when land based air power is too far away or otherwise unavailable.
4) Nuclear deterrence: provide survivable and effective nuclear deterrent, maintain surveillance of potential enemy's sea based nuclear weapons, and the Navy's most recent assignment- ballistic missile defense.

**Blue** · 25 Jun 10,, 04:22

Originally Posted by DPrime

Alright, I need some advice/references to settle an argument with an infantry officer, who believes that the primary function of the navy is to support land operations, and thus ultimately the infantry on the ground. Whereas this is certainly true in specific contexts, I am trying to explain that this is but one aspect of naval operations and not its overarching primary raison d'etre. However my debating skills need a bit of help from those more learned than I...

The primary purpose of the Navy is to take Marines where they want to go.

The primary purpose of the Air Force is to take the Army where it needs to go.

There, that's settled.

**Officer of Engineers** · 25 Jun 10,, 05:39

Originally Posted by DPrime

Alright, I need some advice/references to settle an argument with an infantry officer, who believes that the primary function of the navy is to support land operations, and thus ultimately the infantry on the ground. Whereas this is certainly true in specific contexts, I am trying to explain that this is but one aspect of naval operations and not its overarching primary raison d'etre. However my debating skills need a bit of help from those more learned than I...

I'm assuming that you're speaking of the CF. Well, the truth there is that all our services are too small to really support each other. There is no way that we can transport a brigade anywhere without help. 80 CF-18s are really great but they're not dropping bombs on the Taliban anytime soon and despite the fact that we may or may not get cruise missiles for the VICTORIAs, simple fact is that no Canadian ship is going to provide fire support.

You know as well as I do that Maritime Command is really geared towards Coalition operations. I don't see Land Force anywhere in there but Maritime Command talks a lot to the USN. The same with Air Command.

So, I don't see how Canadian ships are really supporting our infantry. They're too busy integrating into Coalition operations.

**DPrime** · 26 Jun 10,, 00:07

Thanks to all for your responses. Well, all except 7thsfsniper!

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I'm assuming that you're speaking of the CF. Well, the truth there is that all our services are too small to really support each other. There is no way that we can transport a brigade anywhere without help. 80 CF-18s are really great but they're not dropping bombs on the Taliban anytime soon and despite the fact that we may or may not get cruise missiles for the VICTORIAs, simple fact is that no Canadian ship is going to provide fire support.

You know as well as I do that Maritime Command is really geared towards Coalition operations. I don't see Land Force anywhere in there but Maritime Command talks a lot to the USN. The same with Air Command.

So, I don't see how Canadian ships are really supporting our infantry. They're too busy integrating into Coalition operations.

Yes sir, mainly the CF, but I suppose also the general concept as well. At least that's where the argument eventually seems to take us (total war, etc).

There seems to be a desire among some in the CF that, because we are a "unified force" rather than a separate Army, Air Force and Navy, that we're some kind of Canadian version of the USMC. I'm trying to explain to my fellow two bars (I'm in Pet at the moment so you can imagine that I don't have many fellow Navy officers for support!) that the missions of each element are actually quite distinct. However they're saying that this concept comes down from the CDS (which I've never seen and so far they haven't cited anything) and that, in the end, it comes down to the concept of "total war".

Admittedly, I'm not as brushed up on military theory as I should be (in terms of reading stuff like Mahan, von Clauswitz, etc), which is why I wanted to get some advice here, but as far as I can tell, the purpose of a navy remains the same, essentially - to fight the war at sea. While this may allow for us to then land troops and conduct invasions and other amphibious operations, that is just one of many desired end results of achieving sea control or command of the sea - not the "ultimate" one.

I think the problem here is that because we're a "CF" and not a distinct Canadian Army/RCN/RCAF anymore, there's a tendency among some members to view the Navy and Air Force as non-combat arms trades in the Army, rather than distinct war-fighters in their own elements...

**DPrime** · 26 Jun 10,, 00:10

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

Depends on the theater. As an army officer, he is trained to see warfare in the terms optimal to his unit's skill sets. For an infantry unit, he see air force and navy support as transport, resupply, and air support units.

Yeah, that's what I keep telling him - he's only looking at things from his own specific context.

It really irks me when someone who's never set foot on a ship or probably even been to a naval base is so certain what MY job is.

Good guy, otherwise, though!

**Officer of Engineers** · 26 Jun 10,, 01:08

Originally Posted by DPrime

Yes sir, mainly the CF, but I suppose also the general concept as well. At least that's where the argument eventually seems to take us (total war, etc).

I think the Captain is dreaming of owning Field Marshall batons. Think he should concentrate on getting his first company command before telling you your job.

We are a tactical force in each of our services. Air Command. Maritime Command. And Land Force. All of us are designed to fit within a coalition force. In case of the navy, to be a task group assigned to a carrier group. The AF to be part of a strike package. And the army at most is to supply a recce brigade but likely a single battle group. None of these are decisive force.

In other words, how the hell is a naval task group hunting enemy submarines are meant to be supporting our battle group 300 miles inland?

**DPrime** · 26 Jun 10,, 01:40

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

In other words, how the hell is a naval task group hunting enemy submarines are meant to be supporting our battle group 300 miles inland?

I think their answer would be that the ultimate reason for winning the battle at sea is so you can continue the battle on land...

Of course that's not at all necessarily true, but it's much easier to cite events in history where this was, to a certain degree anyway, the case (e.g. the Battle for the Atlantic or the Pacific Theatre in WWII), rather than examples in which the presence of naval power resulted in a land war being unnecessary (kind of like trying to prove a negative, I guess...), etc.

**Blue** · 28 Jun 10,, 02:54

Originally Posted by DPrime

Thanks to all for your responses. Well, all except 7thsfsniper!

Aw, yer welcome anyways!

**Officer of Engineers** · 28 Jun 10,, 03:30

Originally Posted by DPrime

I think their answer would be that the ultimate reason for winning the battle at sea is so you can continue the battle on land...

Sorry, Lieutenant, I did not see this reply.

Again, within context of the CF, Maritime Command winning at sea will have ZERO effect on Land Force operations. Yes, clearing the sea lanes will allow reinforcements to arrive from North American but it would not be a Canadian relief force. By the time, North American relief arrives in theatre, the Canadian recce bde would have been spent. We can constitute another recce bde but what's the point? The recce battle is done.

**dundonrl** · 26 Jul 10,, 07:03

Dual post

Thread: The "primary function" of a navy...

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

The "primary function" of a navy...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Any Life Left!?

INDIA’S DRIVE FOR A ‘BLUE WATER’ NAVY : Dr.David Scott

World Navies in Review

UK Drawdown?

BMD Article

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions