UK Armed Forces

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I read in the newspaper the other day about budjet cut's etc..we already all know about that... but they were saying the navy is going to be so small that they will have less than they did i think it was 200 years ago.. also the raf..they will only have 20 operational fighters... until the new eurofighter jets come into service.. and the navys sea harriers are to be decommisioned and replaced by normal harriers which i've heard are unable to land on carriers..also the army is going to be severley reduced..

It just worrys me how the uk is present in many places all over the world and our goverment is still cutting back on budgets..

suppose this scenario happend even though it never would that the uk was attacked by a forigen country...i know this would never happen/but just pretend it did... i don't think we would be able to defend ourselves...

What are others peoples opinions on these new budget cuts?




posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I think its scandalous that the Govt expects our forces to go off all over the world into various troublespots whilst continually slashing the budget. I have said before that the RAF fighter strength is at its lowest since the 1920's when in the aftermath of the 'war to end all wars' we were cut back to three air defence squadrons, today we have four.

Regarding the Harrier/Sea Harrier. This has been coming slyly for years. First the RAF and RN Harriers were pooled into 'Joint Force Harrier' (and RAF Harriers are perfectly capable of deck ops and always have been, the problem is that they corrode badly from salt and spray as they are not built out of the same specially resistant metals that Sea Harriers use in key areas).

Next its 'Ooh, were operating two different types of Harrier (as if its a problem) we'll have to standardise' which we all know means the RN is stripped of its own air power in savage cuts despite the fact that the RAF Harrier COMPLETELY lacks the SHar 2's BVR capability and AIM 120 AMRAAM compatibility and the newest Sea Harriers in service are less than five years old.

What next? my guess is "well, as the RN doesn't actually have any aeoplanes of its own it doesn't need any F-35's so we'll only buy 90 instead of 150 and give them all to the RAF' ITS TRANSPARENT AND IT STINKS.

Rant over.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   


I read in the newspaper the other day about budjet cut's etc..we already all know about that... but they were saying the navy is going to be so small that they will have less than they did i think it was 200 years ago.. also the raf..they will only have 20 operational fighters... until the new eurofighter jets come into service.. and the navys sea harriers are to be decommisioned and replaced by normal harriers which i've heard are unable to land on carriers..also the army is going to be severley reduced..


Ok...calm down....Did you read the Sun? If so, STOP now!! It's crap and they have obviously twisted the facts.

The real deal is this:

There might be slight readiness issues due to some over commitment, BUT, this is not seen as a major problem by the Chiefs of Staff.

The Navy has had some of this years budget re-appropriated to the Army, as the Army is eating up alot of cash in Iraq whislt the Navy is not being used much atm.

At a push, right now, one half of the Fleet can be deployed, which is still an awful lot of ships if needed.

The RAF is perfectly functional and as for that crap about only 20 fighters, it's, well, crap. The RAF has, and will continue to have, over 1000 perfectly servicable aircraft of all types, which includes some 300 or so attack aircraft of varying types (might be more, not sure on exact figures). The only thing the RAF has had to do is cut monthly training hours by 1 hour down to an average of 16hrs a month.

If you want a balanced view on this report (which was produced by the National Audit Office) check out the BBC:

BBC on NAO report on UK readiness

EDIT:



suppose this scenario happend even though it never would that the uk was attacked by a forigen country...i know this would never happen/but just pretend it did... i don't think we would be able to defend ourselves...


And for that above, don't forget the Territorials. Combined, the Army can muster nearly 200,000 (more if you include those on reserve since leaving the Army), so we can perfectly defend ourselves from enemy aggression, seeing as we would see an attack coming, and the Navy and RAF would be able to hold them off.

Don't forget, we're an island and haven't been successfully inaved for over 1000 years.

[edit on 17/6/05 by stumason]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
It's unfortunate but........I think the UK military is feeling the effects of the unpopularity of commiting troops to Iraq. I know the cuts started way before however taking them so far suggests something more in my mind.

I think alot of support for military cuts thoughout Europe are do to a real feeling that by apeasing terrorists and foriegn regimes and refusing to cooperate with the US that they will not need a large or even moderate sized defense force. And/or cutting the military to basicly a small defence force that they will not be able to be pushed into unpopular wars by the US, for better or for worse.

Cutting the military is step 1, step 2 is the surrender of your soveriegnty to the UN and EU. Brits need to wise up and rise up, put some muscle back into your world presence and stop giving in to socialist weenies with eyes on a one world government and the war on individuality and nationalism.

To me it has all the marks of the 1930's, and what did churchhill say about chamberlain? I think the quote goes "He surrendered for peace but he got war anyway".



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Britain's armed forces have been decimated in the last 20 years even the Squddies have to buy their own equipment as MOD stuff is below par. If anyone ever attacked us we would have to rely on the Americans to bail us out , thats Tony Blairs thinking. He sucks up to Bush so America defends Britain. It leaves me with a feeling that this Country is just a parasite that cant do anything on its own anymore.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
So everyone is on the doom and gloom mode today then?

Anyone in the Forces or are you just all reading the Sun and Daily Mail?

Anyone speaking from experience or just going on hearsay?

No one paying attention to what I said above?

Nope...No one is listening as usual....... Mooo Moooo Flibble..... no one cares.....Quack.....



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
No just being realistic, if they cut anymore we will have about 4 ships and 3 aeroplanes, tell me your thoughts on this.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I find all this - what amounts to - a 'we can't handle a World War on our own anymore' criticism incredible.

Of course we can't.

It has been that way and Britain has been dependant on her alliances for decades (since the 1950's) for God's sakes.......and you might have noticed we needed alliances to win the last 2 we were involved with n'all.

It has nothing to do with "Tony Blair" and everything to do with a defense requirement that has (thankfully) shrunken as we are blessed with living in a (now) very stable part of the world.

The last review (by respected defense experts) concluded that we needed modern (ie very expensive) forces but not a lot of them.
Thanks to the progress in Northern Ireland the British Army is able to contract in numbers but will actually have more men available as the requirement in NI has greatly diminished.

Lastly there are many of us happy to see forces fit for the requirement but are very very happy to see the UK not get into the pointless wang/pissing contest many military matters are really all about.

The young lad in me says shiny planes and tanks are very impressive and great and all but the adult in me says if we really don't need them I'd rather the schools and hospitals thanks very much.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
My thoughts?

Its crap.

As I said above, at very short notice, half the Fleet is deployable. And we have a very well trained and active air force with over 1000 aircraft. Plus the Army, if required, can muster in excess of 200,000 men (Reg's and Reserves included)

We are also building 2 new carriers and a fleet of new destroyers which are much more capable than what we have now.

We have a fleet of new subs coming online very soon.

We have hundreds of new aircraft in the pipeline, either already being built or in the design phase (the JSF for the new carriers for one)...
]
We are spending more on high end gadgets, like UCAV's and Futuristic Combat outfit thingys for the grunts. And new wonder ships set for the 2020's....

The problem here is that the media see manpower reduction as bad. The truth of the matter is that with all the new gadgets the Forces are getting, we don't need that many men, even though the actual numbers of troop reductions are minute and the recruitment drive is bigger than ever.

So where is the doom and gloom coming from?



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
if we ARE a bit crap, spare a moment of your gloom for the rest of europe:

www.strategypage.com...



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I think the doom and gloom comes from the fact that we don't have a credible Army or Navy or Air Force, all are using out of date systems and equipment that ought to have been mothballed years ago. The future lies where? A plane that is already out of date and cant have guns cos it makes it out of balance. No wonder the Americans laugh at us with our stupid attitude to defense. My remedy , stuff Europe and buy American , then we might be a force and not a fart.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Again...No one listens to a word I say...

Out of date? Mothballed?

If you are referring to the Eurofighter, it is still a very capable machine and what use is cannon when the enemy will have 20mile+ range missiles?

Anything else that should be mothballed? Please, provide me with a list, this should be interesting.....

EDIT: Have you actually spoken to anyone in the RAF about the Eurofighter? Or anyone in the forces? I hope not, because if you describe any of the branches as incapable and out of date, chances are that after they have finished kicking your teeth in, they will very much correct you...

[edit on 17/6/05 by stumason]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
It is out of date and I'm embarrassed by the fact that this is seen as cutting edge tech, Ive not seen one flying over Britain yet. This is Europe at its best , make something among ourselves that costs a fortune that doesn't work.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Your just showing how little you know.

Every RAF pilot that has flown the Typhoon says it's the best thing since sliced bread.

You in the RAF? Doubt it from the way your talking. And if that is the only thing you can come up with to back up your claim we are using out of date tech, then quite frankly sir, your talking out of your arse. (no offense, just going for dramatic effect)

[edit on 17/6/05 by stumason]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
I think the doom and gloom comes from the fact that we don't have a credible Army or Navy or Air Force,

Exscuse me?
The last air to air engagement the RN had the RN managed to kill planes of a much higher A2A capability than that of the harrier.
The army has proved itself to be one of the best in the world in iraq, afghanistan and in the falklands.


all are using out of date systems and equipment that ought to have been mothballed years ago.

Challanger , out of date?
Best protected tank in the world...
Typhoon, out of date?
Just created, one of the best fighters around.
Nimrod, out of date?
Claimed as the best submarine killer made..
Lynx mark 8, out of date?
Fastest helicopter in the world...
Apache gunship, out of date?
Claimed as one the best gunships in the world..
The list goes on..


The future lies where? A plane that is already out of date and cant have guns cos it makes it out of balance.

What?
They have the gun, just not ammo for it as yet.


No wonder the Americans laugh at us with our stupid attitude to defense.

Laugh at us?
Thats why they asked blackwatch to go into iraq?
Thats why they support us and we support them?
Our attitude to defence is fine.


My remedy , stuff Europe and buy American , then we might be a force and not a fart.

Umm you do relise that europe makes some of the best technology in the world....right?
Also , do you want to buy abrahms?
I wouldnt, far too expensive for us to run...


Originally posted by Catechista
if we ARE a bit crap, spare a moment of your gloom for the rest of europe:

www.strategypage.com...

That site is wrong, we have 190,000 men and women in the MOD.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   


That site is wrong, we have 190,000 men and women in the MOD.


More than that DW. 110,000 regs in the Army alone. Plus 30,000 for Navy and Airforce, plus 75,000 TA, plus whatever the reserves for the RAF and RN.

Then....

Take into account when you leave the Forces, you are still subject to recall for a while afterwards (we're talking years) so the combined stregth of the UK's armed forces probably come close to 300-400,000 if needed...then you can start drafting too....



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Actually, it is out of date compared to what the Americans have, but ...... we don't plan to engage the Americans in any kind of warfare. (unless the last 50 years of alliance is just a cunning ploy to get 'inside' their gaurd!)

the Eurofighter is basically the 'best of the rest'. sorry if that is not good enough for you.

An unbiased Australian review of Eurofighter:

www.ausairpower.net...

from that site:

The aircraft's counter air performance is cited as its major strength, and it is frequently cited to be "82% as effective as an F-22".

The magic 82% number is derived from a mid nineties DERA simulation against a postulated Su-35 threat. The number is based upon the rather unusual metric of "probability of successful engagement" in BVR combat, rating the F-22 at 91%, the Typhoon at 82%, the F-15F (single seat E) at 60%, the Rafale at 50% and the F-15C at 43%.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Well flying something different to the Stonage Tornado will make the RAF boys get exited , but its not going to make Britain any better. Other Countries have developed better aircraft that are more modern and can easily defeat the EEC fighter that was planned how many years ago and still not in service.If i was in charge id scrap it as being to old.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason


More than that DW. 110,000 regs in the Army alone. Plus 30,000 for Navy and Airforce, plus 75,000 TA, plus whatever the reserves for the RAF and RN.

Then....

Take into account when you leave the Forces, you are still subject to recall for a while afterwards (we're talking years) so the combined stregth of the UK's armed forces probably come close to 300-400,000 if needed...then you can start drafting too....


Stu...
your right its about...
255600
If the MOD site is to be believed...thats not takeing into account the recall numbers...


Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Well flying something different to the Stonage Tornado will make the RAF boys get exited , but its not going to make Britain any better.

The tornado is one of the best A2G fighters invented.
Fact.


Other Countries have developed better aircraft that are more modern and can easily defeat the EEC fighter that was planned how many years ago and still not in service.If i was in charge id scrap it as being to old.

What?
Name a fighter then....if you say the F-22 thats unfair since thats stealth.



[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Catechista
Actually, it is out of date compared to what the Americans have, but ...... we don't plan to engage the Americans in any kind of warfare. (unless the last 50 years of alliance is just a cunning ploy to get 'inside' their gaurd!)

The F-22 uses some of the same systems on board the typhoon.


the Eurofighter is basically the 'best of the rest'. sorry if that is not good enough for you.

An unbiased Australian review of Eurofighter:

www.ausairpower.net...

from that site:

The aircraft's counter air performance is cited as its major strength, and it is frequently cited to be "82% as effective as an F-22".

The magic 82% number is derived from a mid nineties DERA simulation against a postulated Su-35 threat. The number is based upon the rather unusual metric of "probability of successful engagement" in BVR combat, rating the F-22 at 91%, the Typhoon at 82%, the F-15F (single seat E) at 60%, the Rafale at 50% and the F-15C at 43%.


How can the austrialians be unbiased?
They fly american F-18's....





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join