Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 68–83 | Cite as

Anglo-American strategic relations and maritime power today

  • Greg KennedyEmail author


This article explores the maritime condition of the UK, examining what strategic conditions govern the future choices regarding the naval force structures the nation may adopt. One of the fundamental aspects of that strategic environment is the UK’s relationship with the USA. The question of what sort of naval capability best meets the UK need to contribute to a credible, global, Anglo- American maritime power structure is discussed, focusing on the future role of the UK carrier force.


Anglo-American carriers maritime power spending review defence review strategic alliance coalition 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Walter Russell Mead, God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007)Google Scholar
  2. 1a.
    Greg Kennedy, Anglo-American Strategic Relations and the Far East, 1933–1939 (London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2002)Google Scholar
  3. 1b.
    Walter Russell Mead, ‘‘The Anglo-American Alliance and Diplomacy at War, 1939–1945’’, in War and Diplomacy: From the World Wars to the War on Terror, ed. Greg Kennedy and Andrew Dorman (Washington: Potomac Press, 2008), 41–57.Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    Lawrence Freedman, The Transformation of Strategic Affairs, Adelphi Paper 379 (London: The Institute for Strategic Studies, 2006)Google Scholar
  5. 2a.
    Bernard Porter, Empire and Superempire: Britain, America and the World (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006)Google Scholar
  6. 2b.
    Niall Ferguson, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World (New York: Penguin, 2003)Google Scholar
  7. 2c.
    Niall Ferguson, Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire (New York: Penguin, 2004)Google Scholar
  8. 2d.
    Charles S. Maier, Among Empires: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
  9. 3.
    Jonathan Holsag, Trapped Giant: China’s Military Rise, Adelphi Paper (London: International Institute of Strategic Studies, 2010).Google Scholar
  10. 3a.
    For an understanding of the use of maritime power in this context see Julian S. Corbett, Some Principles of Maritime Strategy (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1911).Google Scholar
  11. 4.
    For growing maritime investment by Asia nations, as well as other BRIC naval capabilities, see International Institute of Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2010 (London, 2010)Google Scholar
  12. 4a.
    Nick Bisley, Building Asia’s Security, Adelphi Paper 408 (London: International Institute of Strategic Studies, 2009).Google Scholar
  13. 5.
    Christopher Meyer, DC Confidential: The Controversial Memoirs of Britain’s Ambassador to the United States of 9/11 and the Run-up to the Iraq War (London: Phoenix, 2005)Google Scholar
  14. 5a.
    Gideon Rachman, ‘Is the Anglo-American Relationship Still Special?’, Washington Quarterly 24, no. 2 (Spring 2001), 7–20Google Scholar
  15. 5b.
    Robin Niblett, ‘Choosing Between American and Europe’, International Affairs 83, no. 4 (2007), 627–35.Google Scholar
  16. 6.
    Gary Hart, The Fourth Power: A Grand Strategy for the United States in the Twenty-First Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar
  17. 6a.
    Stephen M. Walt, ‘Why Alliances Endure or Collapse’, Survival 39, no. 1 (Spring 1997), 22–23Google Scholar
  18. 6b.
    James B. Steinberg, ‘An Elective Partnership: Salvaging Transatlantic Relations’, Survival 45, no. 2 (Summer 2003), 54–63Google Scholar
  19. 6c.
    Ivo H. Daalder, ‘The End of Atlanticism’, Survival 45, no. 2 (Summer 2003), 64–77Google Scholar
  20. 6d.
    Lawrence Freedman, ‘The Transatlantic Agenda: Vision and Counter-Vision’, Survival 47, no. 4 (Winter 2005–2006), 19–38Google Scholar
  21. 6e.
    James Dobbins, ‘New Directions for Transatlantic Security Cooperation’, Survival 47, no. 4 (Winter 2005–2006), 39–54Google Scholar
  22. 6f.
    Jeffrey D. McCausland and Douglas T Stuart, eds., US-UK Relations at the Start of the 21st Century (Carlisle: SSI, 2006).Google Scholar
  23. 7.
    On the concept of mental maps, see Keith Neilson, Britain and the Last Tsar: British Policy and Russia, 1894–1917 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), xi–xii, 3-50Google Scholar
  24. 7a.
    Zara Steiner, The Foreign Office and Foreign Policy, 1898–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969)Google Scholar
  25. 7b.
    Zara Steiner, ‘Elitism and Foreign Policy: The Foreign Office Before the Great War’, in Shadow and Substance in British Foreign Policy, 1895–1939: Memorial Essays Honouring C.J. Lowe, ed. B.J.C. McKercher and David J. Moss (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1984), 19–56Google Scholar
  26. 7c.
    Paul M. Kennedy, The Realities Behind Diplomacy: Background Influences on British External Policy, 1865–1980 (London: Fontana Press, 1981)Google Scholar
  27. 7d.
    A.K. Henrikson, ‘The Geographical ‘Mental Maps’ of American Foreign Policy Makers’, International Political Science Review 1 (1980): 496–530.Google Scholar
  28. 8.
    Geoffry Till, Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century (London: Frank Cass, 2004)Google Scholar
  29. 8a.
    Frank G Hoffman, ‘From Preponderance to Partnership: American Maritime Power in the 21st Century’, Centre for New American Security, (accessed November 2008). Both Britain and America are focusing ever-growing attention to the Asian area of operations, as indicated by the speech of UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, ‘We are consciously shifting Britain’s diplomatic weight to the East and to the South; to the economic titans and emerging economies of Latin America, the Gulf and of Asia, where we have not been as active in recent years as circumstances warranted. These are the markets of the future, and as the old club of so-called developed nations gives way to a wider circle of international decision-making, they may also come to hold the balance of influence in international affairs’, = Speech&id = 536241882.
  30. 9.
    Harsh ant, ed., The Rise of the Indian Navy: Problems and Prospects (Ashgate, forthcoming); Christopher W Hughes, Japan’s Remilitarisation, Adelphi Paper 403 (London: International Institute of Strategic Studies, 2009); ‘Remarks at the Risk Conference, Italian Chamber of Deputies’, May 27, 2010, by Dr. James Henry Bergeron, Political Advisor, Striking Force, NATO.Google Scholar
  31. 10.
    James J. Wirtz and Jeffrey A. Larsen, eds., Naval Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Operations: Stability from the Sea (London: Routledge, 2009)Google Scholar
  32. 10a.
    Jason Alderwick and Bastian Giegerich, ‘Navigatin Troubled Waters: NATO’s Maritime Strategy’, Survival 52, no. 4 (August–September 2010), 54–69.Google Scholar
  33. 11.
    Patrick Porter, ‘Last Charge of the Knights? Iraq, Afghanistan and the Special Relationship’, International Affairs 86, no. 2 (March 2010): 355–77Google Scholar
  34. 11a.
    Tod Lindberg, ed., Beyond Paradise and Power — Europe, America and the Future of a Troubled Partnership (New York: Routledge, 2005)Google Scholar
  35. 11b.
    Robert Kagan, Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (London: Atlantic Books, 2003); McCausland and Stuart, US-UK Relations. for evidence of the British concern over a deterioration in the ‘special relationship’ and need to ‘bond’ with the Americans strategically see evidence of former British Ambassador to the USA, Sir Christopher Meyer on November 26, 2009 and former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Jack Straw, on January 21, 2010 to the Iraq Inquiry, Scholar
  36. 12.
    The impact of this lack of strategic thought is now in evidence as the UK security community attempts to define what is strategy and who should be doing strategic thinking for the nation. See evidence and discussions of the ‘Public Administration Committee —First Report: Who Does UK National Strategy’, (accessed October 12, 2010).
  37. 13.
    Ministry of Defence, Adaptability and Partnership: Issues for the Strategic Defence Review, Cm7794, Session 2009–2010;; Scholar
  38. 13a.
    Hew Strachan, ‘Making Strategy: Civil-Military Relations After Iraq’, Survival 48, no. 3 (2006), 59–82Google Scholar
  39. 13b.
    Michael Codner, ‘A Force for Honour?: Military Strategic Options for the United Kingdom’ (Working Paper No. 2, Royal United Services Institute, October 2009).Google Scholar
  40. 14.
    The first attempt by the UK Coalition Government to articulate a strategic vision is found in ‘A Strong Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The National Security Strategy’, (accessed October 2010).
  41. 15.
    Discussions and presentations at the Royal United Services Institutes’ Conference, ‘SDSR: The Unfinished Business’, London, 10 January 2011. What was particularly interesting was the American perspective that the loss of the RN aircraft carrier ARK ROYAL and organic naval aviation might possibly be a sign of an overall British reluctance to be a global, capable partner any long, a view vigorously denied by senior UK MoD and Government officials.Google Scholar
  42. 16.
    Frank Hoffman, ‘Hybrid Warfare and Challenges’, Joint Forces Quarterly, 2009, no. 52: 34–9Google Scholar
  43. 16a.
    Richard N Haass, ‘Wars of Choice’, The Washington Post, 23 November 2003Google Scholar
  44. 16b.
    Richard N Haass, War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars (London: Simon and Schuster, 2009); Lord Goldsmith testimony to Chilton Inquiry, Scholar
  45. 16c.
    George P. Fletcher and Jens David Ohlin, Defending Humanity: When Force Is Justified and Why (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar
  46. 16d.
    Lawrence Freedman, A Choice of Enemies: America Confronts the Middle East (London: Phoenix, 2009)Google Scholar
  47. 16e.
    Robert M. Gates, ‘A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age’, Foreign Affairs 88, no. 1 (January–February 2009), 8–17; F/0/fcoc_final_revised_12Feb10.pdfGoogle Scholar
  48. 17.;;;
  49. 18.
    On mistaken perceptions of the duration of limited wars, see GD. Bakshi, Afghanistan: The First Faultline War (New Delhi: Lancer, 2002)Google Scholar
  50. 18a.
    M. Bearden, ‘Afghanistan, Graveyard of Empires’, Foreign Affairs 80, no. 6 (2001): 17–30Google Scholar
  51. 18b.
    Robert M. Cassidy, Russia in Afghanistan and Chechnya: Military Strategic Culture and the Paradoxes of Asymmetric Conflict (Carlisle Barracks, PA: US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, 2003)Google Scholar
  52. 18c.
    Kenneth J. Campbell, The Tale of Two Quagmires: Iraq, Vietnam and the Hard Lessons of War (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2007)Google Scholar
  53. 18d.
    Lawrence Freedman, Kennedy’s Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar
  54. 18e.
    John Darwin, The Empire Project: The Rise and Fall of the British World-System 1830–1970 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
  55. 19.
    Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations: And the Remaking of the World Order (New York: The Free Press, 2002)Google Scholar
  56. 19a.
    Philip Bobbitt, The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History (London: Penguin, 2003)Google Scholar
  57. 19b.
    Philip Bobbitt, Terror and Consent: the Wars for the Twenty-First Century (London: Penguin, 2009).Google Scholar
  58. 20.
    Jeremy Black, War and the New Disorder in the Twenty-First Century (New York: Continuum, 2004)Google Scholar
  59. 20a.
    Chandra Chari, ed., War, Peace and Hegemony in a Globalized World: The Changing Balance of Power in the Twenty-First Century (London: Routledge, 2008)Google Scholar
  60. 20b.
    Special Edition, ‘Globalisation and War’, Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies, no. 2 (2002), 37–51Google Scholar
  61. 20c.
    Harry D. Yarger, Short of General War: Perspectives on the Use of Military Power in the Twenty-First Century (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2010).Google Scholar
  62. 21.
    Strategic Defence Review White Paper, October 1998, UK Government Publication.Google Scholar
  63. 22.
    Conversation with senior MoD officials, December 2010, Defence Academy UK.Google Scholar
  64. 23.
    Colin S. Gray, Modern Strategy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 227.Google Scholar
  65. 24.
    ‘Fourth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2006–2007, South Asia, Response of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs’, HMSD, 2007; = 18174&querytype =view&lang = en; ‘Trade and the Global Economy: The role of international trade in productivity, economic reform and growth’, UK Treasury Report, HMSO, May 2004; ‘Motorways of the Sea’, report by Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, European Commission, 2006; ‘Seventh Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2005–06, East Asia, Response of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs’, HMSO, October 2006; ‘Current International Shipping Market Trends — EU Maritime Policy Priorities and Legislative Initiatives’, by Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, European Commission, November, 2004; ‘Responding to Global Economic Challenges: UK and China’, Treasury Report, October, 2005.
  66. 25.
    ‘USN Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, Commander US Naval Forces Europe, Address’, IISS, March 25, 2010;
  67. 26.
    Paul Cornish and Andrw Dorman, ‘Blair’s Wars and Brown’s Budgets: From Strategic Defence Review to Strategic Decay in Less Than a Decade’, International Affairs 85, no. 2 (2009): 247–61.Google Scholar
  68. 27.;
  69. 28.
    Greg Kennedy and Keith Neilson, The British Way in Warfare: Power and the International System, 1856–1956, Essays in Honour of David French (Basingstoke: Ashgate, 2010).Google Scholar
  70. 28a.
    Greg Kennedy, ed., British Imperial Defence: The Old World Order, 1856–1956 (London: Taylor & Francis, 2008).Google Scholar
  71. 29.; Argentina Protests Falklands Oil Exploration Plans’,
  72. 30.
    ‘British Defence and Security Policy: The Maritime Contribution’, Lee Willett, RUSI,; ‘Europeans need a “British” navy not a “German” army”,; Save the Royal Navy, ‘10 reasons why the state of the Royal Navy should matter to YOU’,
  73. 31.
  74. 32.;;,8599,1967353,00.html.
  75. 33.
    Carnes Lord, ed., Reposturing the Force: US Overseas Presence in the Twenty-First Century, United States Naval War College, Newport Papers, No. 26, 2006; A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower’, October 2007,; ‘Quadrennial Defense Review Report’, February 2010, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  76. 34.
    While force generation of carriers is usually predicated on the need for three vessels to ensure generation of one for operations at any given time, with other two in various states of training or refitting, the likelihood of eight being the correct number versus the logical assumption of nine is based on the 11 CVNs now in service one is ENTERPRISE class and the other 10 are NIMITZ class. Being of a different class to the other 10 in such a circumstance means the continuance of a one vessel class of ship would create enormous costs out of proportion to capability required. As well, one of the ageing NIMITZ’s is likely to be de-commissioned over the next 4-5 years. See Defense Science Board Task Force, ‘Future of the Aircraft Carrier’, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (Washington, DC: Defense Science Board Task Force, 2002); GAO/NSIAD-98-1, ‘Navy Aircraft Carriers: Cost-Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carriers’, August 1998, Scholar
  77. 35.
    A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower’, October 2007,
  78. 36.
    Geoffrey Till, ‘Adopting the Aircraft Carrier: The British, American, and Japanese Case Studies’, in Military Innovation in the Interwar Period, ed. Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 191–226Google Scholar
  79. 36a.
    Geoffrey Till, Air Power and the Royal Navy 1914–1945: A Historical Survey (London: Jane’s Publishing Co., 1979)Google Scholar
  80. 36b.
    Greg Kennedy, ‘The Royal Navy, Intelligence and the Spanish Civil War: Lessons in Air Power, 1936–39’, Intelligence and National Security 20, no. 2 (June 2005): 238–63.Google Scholar
  81. 37.
    Anthony Gorst, ‘CVA-01: A Case Study in Innovation in Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers, 1959–1966’, in The Royal Navy, 1930–2000: Innovation and Defence, ed. Richard Harding (London: Frank Cass, 2005), 170–92.Google Scholar
  82. 38.
    The Coalition Government’s ‘National Security Strategy’ for October 2010 says that VSTOL is no longer the way ahead.Google Scholar
  83. 39.
    Conversation with senior RN and RAF officers, January 2011. The role of the USN in supplying the expertise to allow the RN to transition properly to this new era of carrier aviation, in all regards, was highlighted by Admiral Alan Richards, Global Strategy Forum, November 16, 2010.Google Scholar
  84. 40.
    John Reed, ‘USN Seeks Carrier-Based Drone for Strike, ISR’, Defense News, March 25, 2010;;; ‘CVF: For the Nation, Not the Navy’, Lee Willett, Scholar
  85. 41.
    D. Andrews, ‘Architectural Considerations in Carrier Design’, International Journal of Maritime Technology 1, no. 1 (2004) 1–20; ‘BAE Systems grows into UAVs’, Craig Hoyle,; ‘UAVs a prime area of acquisition interest for aerospace contractors’, Scholar
  86. 42.
    Shicun Wu and Keyuan Zou, eds., Maritime Security in the South China Sea: Regional Implications and International Cooperation (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009)Google Scholar
  87. 42a.
    Jeff Lightfoot, ‘The “Pacific” President’s agenda for Transatlantica’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies 8, no. 3 (September 2010): 290–305.Google Scholar
  88. 43.
    Geoffrey Till, Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century (London: Routledge, 2003).Google Scholar
  89. 44.
    Nicholas Evan Sarantakes, Allies Against the Rising Sun: The United States, the British Nations, and the Defeat of Modern Japan (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2009)Google Scholar
  90. 44a.
    Jon Robb-Webb, ‘“Light Two Lanterns, The British are Coming by Sea”: Royal Navy Participation in the Pacific, 1944–1945’, in British Naval Strategy East of Suez 1900–2000: Influence and Actions, ed. Greg Kennedy (London: Taylor & Francis, 2005), 128–53.Google Scholar
  91. 45.
    NSS paper, threat paper, and DCDC work, as well as other literature from various sources on artic,;;; Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre, MoD, ‘The Arctic Out to 2040’, September 2008;;,news-comment,news-poli-tics,the-northeast-passage-could-enable-russia-to-blackmail-europe.
  92. 46.
    Oran R. Young, ‘Governing the Arctic: From Cold War Theatre to Mosaic of Cooperation’, Global Governance 11 (2005): 9–15; Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre, MoD, ‘The Arctic Out to 2040’, September 2008.Google Scholar
  93. 47.
    Oran R. Young, ‘The Future of the Arctic: Cauldron of Conflict or Zone of Peace’, International Affairs 87, no. 1 (January 2011), 99–114.Google Scholar
  94. 48.
    ‘The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture’, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2008,; Catherine Gautier, Oil, Water and Climate: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)Google Scholar
  95. 48a.
    Stephen C. Nemeth, Sara McLaughlin Mitchell, Elizabeth A. Nyman, and Paul R. Hensel, ‘Ruling the Sea: Institutionalization and Privatization of the Global Ocean Commons’, 2007,
  96. 48b.
    R.J. Nicholls, P.P. Wong, V.R. Burkett, J.O. Codignotto, J.E. Hay, R.F. McLean, S. Ragoonaden, and CD. Woodroffe, ‘Coastal Systems and Low-Lying Areas’, in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 315–56; Scholar
  97. 49.
    For the centrality of the maritime element in that future development, see Mead, God and Gold: Britain; Bruce A. Elleman and S.C.M. Paine, eds., Naval Blockades and Seapower: Strategies and Counter-Strategies, 1805–2005 (London: Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar
  98. 49a.
    Andrew Forbes, ed., Maritime Capacity Building in the Asia-Pacific Region, Sea Power Centre, Australia, Papers in Australian Maritime Affairs, No. 30, 2010; ‘Economics and Maritime Strategy: Implications for the 21st Century’, William B. Rugger Chair Workshop, No. 2, US Naval War College, November 2006Google Scholar
  99. 49b.
    Barry Posen, ‘Command of the Commons: The Foundation of US Hegemony’, International Security 28, no. 1 (Summer 2003): 5–46.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Defence Studies Department, King’s College LondonJoint Services Command and Staff CollegeUK

Personalised recommendations