> Traditionally; the existence of a Navy was to project power across a nation's geographically disparate colonies, which isn't in isolation a very valuable thin

> Traditionally; the existence of a Navy was to project power across a nation's geographically disparate colonies, which isn't in isolation a very valuable thing, so take it a step further: a nation may want colonies in order to bolster mercantile trade, and the existence of a Navy was to assert power over those colonies, and protect the trade ships in-between destinations. Not really. You might want to read "The Influence of Sea Power upon History", a hugely influential book that was among the factors for the tensions that brought WWI. Historically sea power (navies) were for trade and lines of communication and their security; conquest of enemies/trade outposts; raiding. Framing it all as "colonies" is a very post-Age of Exploration view.