Talk:Future of the Royal Navy

message: In this too POV??
"Unlikely as it sounds, a situation such as occurred in the Falklands War could happen again. How would the government respond? Basing the question on the here and now, the conclusion seems to be that it is doubtful that the Royal Navy will be able to cope, even with the (hopefully) capable systems in which the British Government has invested so much faith. Technology is a good thing, but it doesn't help when men in small boats can cause so much destruction."
:Yes, I believe some parts of the 'Analysis' blurs the line in regard to POV, and in some places crosses it.  Clue 07:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: But... since the end of the Cold War, successive Chancellors have imposed the 'peace dividend'. With no recognisable threat, the defence budget has been constantly raided to provide additional funds in other areas. This has led to continuing cuts to the strength of the fleet, particularly with regard to escorts - in 1990, the destroyer and frigate force numbered 43; by 2000, it had dropped to 32. In addition to this is the continued reduction in the nuclear submarine force, which will drop to 10 boats. At present, with the current global situation, these numbers are only just sufficient. Should something like the 2003 Iraq War happen again, the fleet would be stretched. And yet, it seems likely that the numbers of new units will only replace what is already in service, thanks to the government's decision to base its strategy on systems that are adaptable to many situations; it has decided that it does not need large armed forces, despite the continuing evidence of the War on Terror and the fallout of Iraq. 
Added to this is the continuing use of the Private Finance Initiative, that uses private money to pay for public works. At present, three warships in the service of the Royal Navy are owned, not by the Admiralty, but by the shipbuilder that constructed them. They are chartered by the Admiralty for five years, after which the navy can purchase them, extend the charter or return them. As it seems unlikely that such major assets would be returned, it means that the taxpayer is not only paying for the five year charter, but also for the eventual cost of purchasing the ships; in effect, they are paying for them twice. While this may be an acceptable arrangement for assets such as the new strategic lift ro-ro ships (which can be used as ordinary merchant transports when not needed by the military), the same cannot be said for actual warships.
At present, the government's procurement policy involves 2 CVF and their air groups, 8 Type 45 destroyers, 5 Astute class submarines and perhaps as many as 17 FSCs. Assuming 8 Type 45s are built, this will provide a major fleet of 25 escorts, 2 carriers and 10 SSNs, with a sizeable amphibious force and significant (though not numerous) other assets. Will this be enough? Even now, the fleet is stretched and the government continues to talk of further decommissionings, not to mention the number of projects that are behind schedule - Albion and Bulwark will both enter service late; the first Type 45 has only just started construction and will be late, as will the Astute class, while there are still wranglings over the size of CVF; it has also recently been discovered that the F-35 is severely overweight, which will probably lead to a slip in its in-service date. This, coupled with the early withdrawal of the Sea Harrier, will leave no capable fleet air defence aircraft in the Fleet Air Arm for five years or more. The rationale for this is that the UK 'no longer fights the sort of wars where ships need defending from enemy warplanes far out to sea; if necessary, we can rely on coalition forces to provide the outer air defences for surface ships' (Armed Forces Minister, Adam Ingram, 28/02/02). But, who can say what the global situation will be once HMS Queen Elizabeth enters service? Who knows what will happen in the next five years? Unlikely as it sounds, a situation such as occurred in the Falklands War could happen again. How would the government respond? Basing the question on the here and now, the conclusion seems to be that it is doubtful that the Royal Navy will be able to cope, even with the (hopefully) capable systems in which the British Government has invested so much faith. Technology is a good thing, but it doesn't help when men in small boats can cause so much destruction.
When I wrote this, just after Delivering Security in a Changing World was announced, I felt very strongly that it needed to be said publically, and I still do. However, I am aware that an encyclopedia isn't the proper forum to do so, which is why I've moved the above text into the discussion page. Hammersfan 05/10/05, 15.30
=== Agree ===
I completely agree with the above comments. The early withdrawl of the Sea Harrier has been exposed for the cost cutting sham it was during the recent crisis in North Korea in October, 2006.
In particular, I take issue with this part of the article:
"Therefore, over the course of 1990s and the 2000s, the navy has begun a series of projects to enhance and rebuild its fleet, with a view to bringing its capabilities into the 21st century and allow it to turn from a North Atlantic, anti-submarine force into a true blue water navy."
How can the Navy or the authour of this article use the words "enhance" and "rebuild" while keeping a straight face is beyond me. How exactly is cutting the surface fleet to the bone compatible with the words "enhance" and (especially) "rebuild"? 
That particular part of the article needs rewriting ASAP as it simply does not bear out reality. Simply regurgitating government spin is not a good way of writing an unbiased and well written article!
If this does not happen soon, I will do it myself! And will continue to change it if it is reset back to its previous (incorrect) form! --Pudduh 21:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point of View

message: I completely agree with the above comments. The early withdrawl of the Sea Harrier has been exposed for the cost cutting sham it was during the recent crisis in North Korea in October, 2006.
In particular, I take issue with this part of the article:
"Therefore, over the course of 1990s and the 2000s, the navy has begun a series of projects to enhance and rebuild its fleet, with a view to bringing its capabilities into the 21st century and allow it to turn from a North Atlantic, anti-submarine force into a true blue water navy."
How can the Navy or the authour of this article use the words "enhance" and "rebuild" while keeping a straight face is beyond me. How exactly is cutting the surface fleet to the bone compatible with the words "enhance" and (especially) "rebuild"? 
That particular part of the article needs rewriting ASAP as it simply does not bear out reality. Simply regurgitating government spin is not a good way of writing an unbiased and well written article!
If this does not happen soon, I will do it myself! And will continue to change it if it is reset back to its previous (incorrect) form! --Pudduh 21:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree 

message: As there has been no response to either my or Hammersfan's arguments, I have decided to go nuclear and change the article to better reflect the reality faced by an ever crippled and impotent Royal Navy. The current reaction to the North Korean crisis and the fact that we can barely offer one frigate due to fleet and budget cutbacks only add to the avalanche of evidence that whoever wrote this wikipedia article does not have any perception of reality.
I shall endeavour to maintain this legitimate edit if it is returned to it's original and incorrect form. --Pudduh 16:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find this sort of article "dangerous" as rather than an encyclopaedic analysis of assets and capabilities it can quickly degenerate into conjecture and personal opinion. I would advise editors to tread carefully here. Emoscopes Talk 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Granted, I only wished to edit that specific part of the article as it was politically biased from the outset and bore no relation to reality. It is better to have a balanced article that recognises that the Navy is evolving and bringing in new ships and other assets, but that it has to do this within the constraints of a shrinking budget and cuts in the surface fleet. The notion that the Royal Navy is expanding is frankly absurd and living in the clouds. --Pudduh 14:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update: No response 

message: The naming conventions would seem to indicate that this article should be at Royal Navy in the 21st Century.  Unless there are any objections, I'd propose to move it there.  Alai 20:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial "the" in pagename 

message: In discussing the changes there seems to be no mention of the privatisation of what tends here to be called "the Armiralty". I've added mention to the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service page which seemed well out of date.
Also, since this page can be a useful expansion on the topic, why isn't it linked on the Royal Navy section about this with a see main? ..dave souza, talk 08:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Admiralty and main article

message: I have just finished a major cleanup of this article.
*General quality "no decision has yet been decided"
*Removed major redundancy, i.e. the use of six or seven words when two will do.
*Removed dreadful POV 
*Removed unsourced statements/pure speculation: "Also, it is possible that a mixture of all three types could be procured, in a "family" of warship classes, but no decision regarding these projects has been announced. It is thought that there will be a minimum of 12 7,000 tonne + frigates and 5 3,000 tonne smaller variants, but no decision has yet been decided. " and "It is thought that if the government funds a higher budget for the Royal Navy ( because of mounting pressure by the media and the public ). Then other ships may be built, maybe even a third batch of type 45 destroyers,"
*Removed entire analysis section - not only did it simply repeat what was said elsewhere but it had terrible POV and speculation, "However today, there are still difficult decisions to be taken, some have already been made, and indeed for the better." and "should re-assert the Royal Navy's position as a true Blue water navy and see it retain its position as the second most powerful naval force in the world for the forseeable future."
*Removed some description of what was the case 20 or 30 yrs ago. This article's title suggests a forward looking description. I've also removed some triviality, e.g. HMS Clyde being the first ship built at VT's new facility. That's maybe worthy of mention at the Clyde article, not on every single page where it's mentioned. Mark83 14:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: im sorry but isnt that just tabloid speculation. considering one paper said its canceled and another has said its beinging sold to india. you should be talking about future royal naval force structure based on current government and royal naval policy. if we included every piece of media speculation we would end up with a conflicting load of garbage. lets be fair their track record on getting things right and accurate leaves something to be desired.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.132.151 (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: prince of wales used as a helicopter carrier

message: :Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This image is on wikipedia under the fair use guidelines. Under these guidelines the image cannot be reasonably used in this article. As such it has been removed from this article. Do not re-add it here without discussion. Thanks. Woodym555 22:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:2006 CVF STOVL.jpg

message: You should update again, there are only 6 Type 45 destroyers planned with 7-8 being scrapped for money on FCS development.  Watch after the elections as it might drop even further.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.111.43.195 (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Type 45 #

message: "Eight boats were the official target until 2008, now the MOD officially plans to acquire 7 Astute class submarines: it remains to be seen if this target will be maintained and reached despite the continuously shrinking budget."
"despite the continuously shrinking budget."
Clearly very wrong when the defence budget is larger and larger every year. Defence spending rises every year, it doesnt shrink. The problem is defence equiptment becomes more expensive and the defence budget doesnt rise enough to counter defence costs. The article should read "despite a lack of defence spending." or "despite budget constraints." Recon.Army (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: In-accurate

message: The illustration for the new Elizabeth class carriers does not match the illustration that can be seen at HMS Queen Elizabeth, which shows a carrier with a skew-aligned runway as opposed to the axially-aligned runway shown on this article.  Which of these two is the actual layout of the carrier? siafu (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Elizabeth Class 

message: i would like to point out, you have not added the repercussions to the Royal Navy if Scotland succeeds in voting for independence in 2014. As Scottish tax payers have contributed at least 9% (it's actually 10% in reality) towards military funding then a independent Scotland would be entitled to  at least 9% of the military/naval hardware of the British armed forces excluding nuclear assests as Scotland is not interested in nuclear weapons or energy, which will result in the removal of the deep naval facility in faslane which will have massive implications for the "British/English" submarine fleet and the UK/English goverment in the removal of the facility from Scotland, a facility the people of Scotland never wanted on their territory, the remainder of the UK will have to pay the costs of removing the nuclear facilities from Scottish soil, the cost for ignoring the people of Scotland  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.244.9 (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, under WP:SPECULATION, such commentary would be premature. In advance of the vote however, once WP:Reliable Sources comment on the issue, sourced material may be added - and you can do this yourself. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish Independence 

message: According to an article dated 10 May 2012 the Defence Secretary Philip Hammond announced that the Royal Navy will order the STOVL 'B' variant  in preference to the carrier capable 'C' variant. His reasoning is that to convert the Queen Elizabeth class carrier to 'Cat and Trap' configuration would delay service implementation and double the cost of the carriers. He stated that the carriers will now be completed in the STOVL configuration with a ski-jump which will permit continuous carrier availability throughout the life of the ship
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/May/10/120509-F35B  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djandersonza (talk • contribs) 16:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sortof added already. The QE ships will not be angled-decked.Phd8511 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for change in F-35 Variant and cancellation of CATOBAR facility on QE Class Carrier 

message: On crowsnet.Phd8511 (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs an update 

message: "A possible replacement for Sea King ASaC7 in the Airborne Early Warning role are the spare FAA Merlins that will not be upgraded to HM2 standard. The spare Merlins could be upgraded to carry the same equipment and Cerberus radar suite as the Sea King ASaC7. However, the limitations of using a helicopter in this role are well documented - endurance is limited, service ceiling is low and vibrations from the rotors may cause distortion. Therefore, two other concepts have also been put forward: a MASC version of the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and the acquisition of the American E-2 Hawkeye embarked AEW aircraft. The V-22 was seen an attractive option for the original STOVL configuration of CVF, combined the VTOL aspects of a helicopter with the endurance of a fixed wing aircraft. The E-2 is already in service with the French and US Navies. It has advantages over the V-22 again in terms of endurance and ceiling; because its cabin is pressurised, it can operate at greater altitude than the Merlin, extending the range of its radar. However, the E-2 is not compatible with the ski-jump system envisaged for the CVF and would require a reversal back to the CATOBAR system which the US continues to lobby for. The decision on what aircraft will be chosen will be left until the 2015 Strategic defence review"
Without any source? The future AEW Project is Crowsnet.Phd8511 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who wrote this 

message: 24 Commando Engineer Regiment will be removed from the ORBAT not before April 2013.http://www.army.mod.uk/news/24264.aspx131 Independent Commando Field Squadron Royal Engineers will instead be under 32 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers (Army) and be re-named as 131 Commando Field Squadron Royal Engineers.http://www.serfca.org/Portals/0/Images/f/SUMMARY%20OF%20A2020%20RESERVE%20STRUCTURE%20AND%20BASING%20CHANGES.pdf page 8The Royal Marines 3 Commando Brigade will no longer have 1st Battalion, The Rifles  under its operational control. This battalion will move to 160th Brigade under the Army 2020 plan.http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/Army2020_Report.pdfPhd8511 (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Marines 

message: unless you are not reading
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Major-projects-report-2014-appendices-and-project-summary-sheets.pdf page 20
http://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/article/hms-ambush-officially-welcomed-into-the-royal-navy
http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/astute-class-submarines-enhanced
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?q=%22astute%22+%22boat+7%22
Phd8511 (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please get your facts right.Phd8511 (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to join the discussion. Just please try and do so with some civility and maturity. You don't need to be so angry all the time. -  theWOLFchild 11:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to open your mind.Phd8511 (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And you need to grow up. -  theWOLFchild 07:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Why is it that you think screaming in all capital letters is somehow going to make a difference? Again, you need to calm down. And how many different pages are going to post comments about this on? Stop forum shopping, it's not allowed. The discussion on this issue has already been started on the proper page; Talk:HMS Ajax (S125), so go back there and try to discuss this in a calm, mature and rational manner. If you can gain consensus to change the content you want changed, so be it. If not, then you need to drop this and find something more productive to do. As I said before, this name issue will sort itself out sooner or later, so relax. -  theWOLFchild 13:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boat 7 not HMS Ajax 

message: Please see Talk:HMS Ajax (S125). Thank you -  theWOLFchild 19:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please get your facts right.Phd8511 (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to join the discussion. Just please try and do so with some civility and maturity. You don't need to be so angry all the time. -  theWOLFchild 11:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to open your mind.Phd8511 (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And you need to grow up. -  theWOLFchild 07:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming dispute

message: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/third-astute-submarine-formally-handed-over-to-the-royal-navy
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2016/march/18/160318-hms-artful
THERE IS NO NAMING DISPUTE.Phd8511 (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it that you think screaming in all capital letters is somehow going to make a difference? Again, you need to calm down. And how many different pages are going to post comments about this on? Stop forum shopping, it's not allowed. The discussion on this issue has already been started on the proper page; Talk:HMS Ajax (S125), so go back there and try to discuss this in a calm, mature and rational manner. If you can gain consensus to change the content you want changed, so be it. If not, then you need to drop this and find something more productive to do. As I said before, this name issue will sort itself out sooner or later, so relax. -  theWOLFchild 13:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is Boat 7 not Ajax 

message: of listing active Royal Navy Ships?Phd8511 (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a completely relevant article to add. (See MOS:SEEALSO) The "see also" section here is not strictly limited to other "future of..." articles. Now, why is it you are always so hostile? Why do you even bother with Wikipedia if it makes you so angry all the time? -  theWOLFchild 07:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you should learn Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. WP:CONSENSUS is kind of important. So is WP:CIVIL. -  theWOLFchild 08:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT IS THE USE 

message: learn what are facts and information! Consensus be gone.Phd8511 (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should learn Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. WP:CONSENSUS is kind of important. So is WP:CIVIL. -  theWOLFchild 08:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I had enough 

message: Nice to have large sections of ships to be built and commissioned but what about ships to be decommissioned?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/525150/Navy_FOI2016_04694____HMS_Gleaner_to_be_withdrawn_in_2018.pdf
Cantab1985 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about ships to be decommissioned  

message: Should it be in the table?
JessPavarocks (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Dreadnought 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Future of the Royal Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222022127/http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf to http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: and this section is rumours. Removed until definite.
Although nothing has been officially stated, the Royal Navy may have declared interest in the potential procurement of the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, for operation in a number of different roles. At the 2016 Farnborough Airshow, Bell Helicopter stated that although there was no specific requirement from the 2015 SDSR, the company was "keeping the Royal Navy informed". The V-22 has been procured as a COD aircraft for the US Navy, with one of its major requirements for the role being the capability of transporting a whole F-35 engine, something that the US Marine Corps also does with its V-22s, and this has been suggested as being attractive for the UK, in addition to other potential requirements (aerial refueling, special forces operations, heavy lift capability).
JessPavarocks (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Military Aircraft: Procurement:Written question - HL6058 see http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Lords/2017-03-14/HL6058 speculation. JessPavarocks (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  V-22 is not fixed wing 

message: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-marines-to-be-restructured-in-line-with-growing-royal-navy
Will update
JessPavarocks (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Marines 

message: As a non naval person, interested in public procurement, what I look for in vain here is an assessment of what the navy is for = the prediction of future strategic threat or threats which we need to design our navy to meet. Maybe there is no such thing - in which case we need a section saying so. For without it, this article is merely a list of bits and bobs which might be enough, might be too much, might be the wrong thing altogether - how would we know? Unraed (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  But what is the need to be met? 

message: Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I just wanted to check on the use of hyphens when referring to the name of a class of ships. For example, is it Astute-class or Astute class? Xtrememachineuk (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphens 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Future of the Royal Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/%40dg/%40en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811224119/http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/CAMM-family_background.pdf to http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/CAMM-family_background.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At the 2016 Farnborough Airshow, Bell Helicopter stated that although there was no specific requirement from the 2015 SDSR, the company was "keeping the Royal Navy informed". The V-22 has been procured as a COD aircraft for the US Navy, with one of its major requirements for the role being the capability of transporting a whole F-35 engine, something that the US Marine Corps also may be doing, and this has been suggested as being attractive for the UK. 
BlueD954 (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculative order excessive part 

message: I have just come across this article, and I notice there are equivalent articles for other nations' navies with similar titles. 
I wonder, could we improve the title of this article?  Currently, it does not reflect the uncertainty involved in writing about the future.  This article can only be about the 'planned future' rather than the currently unknown 'actual future'. JohnmgKing (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title improvement 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn.  JohnmgKing (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Future of the Royal Navy →  – The current title, whilst in line with similar pages on Wikipedia, is not really accurate. It isn't overly precise to clarify that we are talking about the planned future, and we do not have special insight into the actual future. JohnmgKing (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 18 January 2023