It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Armed Forces

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:
M6D

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
dont forget the M240 GPMG, also built by FN, a belgium company, how is that crap? after all, your favorite country ever the US seems to use it




posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
how do you know that the Typhoon can beat anything out there , its only just come into service and never fought a thing.


- The computers can do excellent simulations these days (when you have sizes, weights and power specs......which are hardly that difficult to come by seeing as everybody is exporting everything these days; except for the F22 of course......still trying to imply the RAF are set to fight those and the USAF, hmmm?)


You get carried away with making ever thing British a world beater


- That's not what I'm reading, I'm reading people challenging your silly tabloid criticisms, they are not making inflated claims.


the facts are ever thing we have is average


- This is simply wrong.

We might not match the US in everything but considering our plausible needs we do very very well. (and I wasn't aware of any likely plans to take on the USA anytime soon)

Would you care to spell out why you think the UK 'needs' the F22 or B2 (seeing as these are about the only 2 bits of kit generally seen as superior to what we have)?

Which credible enemy do you imagine the UK is likely to face that would require such a gross outlay of tax-payers £, hmmm?

Doesn't Iraq etc point to a future with less emphaisis on the ultra high tech?

What on earth would you go wasting scarce funding on a handful of white-elephants like the B2 and F22 for; the USA can barely justify - or afford - them (in ever smaller numbers) how the hell could the UK.......and what fantasy world is it that has the UK tax-payers going along with such ludicrous plans, hmmm?


we don't have anything special in weaponry


- Nonsense.
If you really think the Typhoon is "crap" you need your head examined and clearly know next to nothing about it......
........and the British forces in general have several examples of world-leading 'kit' at their disposal, actually.
If you are so ignorant that you are unaware of this that is your problem.

(and I note that you simply continue to ignore the posts describing its capabilities and spout this ill-informed garbage).


the only thing we have first class is the men who have to use the crap equipment.


- This is simply troll fodder and ignorant rubbish.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Everything i have said about Uk forces being underfunded is true, the Typhoon is a bit better than the ageing stuff the RAF has now but its still old technology. I don't know why you are a fanatic for British Armed Forces but ill guess you are about 16 years old.When you have seen what the Uk Governments has done to the once mighty British forces, over the years you might know what I'm on about.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Everything i have said about Uk forces being underfunded is true, the Typhoon is a bit better than the ageing stuff the RAF has now but its still old technology. I don't know why you are a fanatic for British Armed Forces but ill guess you are about 16 years old.When you have seen what the Uk Governments has done to the once mighty British forces, over the years you might know what I'm on about.

17 today actually and I spend every monday and thursday night talking to ex service men and go on courses with ex and serving men and women.
Also this "mighty force" you described is no longer needed.
Who are we going to fight?



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Its so easy to ignore the hard questions isn't it Bulldog? Keeps life simple



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Notice how he completely ignores post's proving him wrong. Makes you wonder how old HE is....

Despite the fact alot of us are talking from experience, when challenged to advise us where he is getting his info (apart from his utterly debunked Telegraph articles) from he goes quiet....



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I'm embarrassed by the lack of money we put into the armed forces, we have a navy that has about 25 ships, an air force still waiting for a 4th generation fighter that is now outdated, an army having to buy its own equipment because of cuts in expenditure. Why you think they are still the best is beyond me. If they cut the money anymore we will be back to the days of Dads army when they used sticks instead of guns.If you don't believe me ask any squaddie in Iraq if he thinks hes well equipped.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   


I'm embarrassed by the lack of money we put into the armed forces


£35 billion (and rising) is not enough? Did you not look at the budgetary info I posted above?



we have a navy that has about 25 ships


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...........

ahem, let me compose myself....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

You what? 25 ships?

Royal Navy

Just to save you the effort, I have manually counted Surface and Submarine Warships and got 51 vessels.

Then take into account the Patrol ships and minesweepers. Then take into account the RFA and RNR ships and you have a fleet in excess of 100 vessels. How many do you want?

PS....You also have the new Type 45's coming online in the next few years (12 in total) and the new Astute class Subs.

Plus, in the not so distant future, we could have subs that look like this:

www.royal-navy.mod.uk...[(1630)-27-09-2001]Future%20ship.jpg



an air force still waiting for a 4th generation fighter that is now outdated


To be honest, we've been here, done that at least 5 times already on this thread. We already have it and it isn't outdated. Shut the hell up.


an army having to buy its own equipment because of cuts in expenditure


Proof? What, the Sun said in 2003 that "some" squaddies had to buy an extra pair of boots? lol..... They get exactly what they need.

The problem that the Sun hyped was a logistical error, not a funding crisis.

They just didn't have enough of the right kit ready at the time of deployment, but well before hostilities commenced these problems where sorted out.

You will find the Yanks had the same problem. In fact, at any given deployment scenario there will always be logistical problems. But the squaddies are trained to deal with that, and especially the UK squaddies, are very adept at making do until the situation is remedied.

Sending an Army to war is not an easy task, no matter how prepared you think you are, something will always go wrong. Luckily, in this case, they just didn't bring enough shoes.....oh no.......what will they do?




If they cut the money anymore we will be back to the days of Dads army when they used sticks instead of guns


Dude, you are not listening one iota are you? Go back and read the budgetary info I gave you earlier. We are increasing defense spending....



If you don't believe me ask any squaddie in Iraq if he thinks hes well equipped.


I'll go one better. I will ask my Dad, ex-squaddie now but teaches new REME recruits at Arborfield Garrison...or my Uncle, current RAF Wing Commander based at the Joint Command place, in charge of the Hercy Birds. Or my other Uncle, in the Army (REME again). Or my Brother, recent ex-Navy currently in the RAF Reserve. Or perhaps my mate who is in REME or the other one in the Signals?

All seem quite content...the only major problem the Army (or the MoD for that matter) faces at the moment is the fact BOWMAN (I'll give you a tenner if you can, in your own words, tell me what it is, seeing as you know so much) doesn't work very well, but then it is a highly advanced concept with a few bugs...give it time, it will rock.

[edit on 3/7/05 by stumason]

[edit on 3/7/05 by stumason]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Umm, you link about how the future subs will look does not work you did not enter in an address.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   
hmm i dont know if anyone else has said this as i have not read past page 1 yet, but as i see these cut backs are needed for FUTURE weapons in PRODUCTION development and deployment when ready phase's?

we have soon in 5-6 years 2 battleships size of what USA use Aircraft carriers these will be state of the art steath'd and everything now what planes will we use on those i wonder.... as landing on those wont be a problem.

also our nuclear weapons are being made better we are helping to make a next gen nuke wep.

and we have some subs comming of production line soon too.

and thats just the stuff we know about, rest assured that the UK has alot of secret weapons technology.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   

we have soon in 5-6 years 2 battleships size of what USA use


Just to clarify a few thing in your post. The US Arleigh Burke Class (DDG51) the displaces 9,217 Tons fully loaded. The Type 45 future British battleship displaces 7,350 Tons fully loaded. And the US future destroyers the DD(X) will displace around 1200-1400 tons.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Sorry Westy, here iis the link. You could have looked on the same RN website I posted for ship numbers, but here it is direct.

Astute Class

BAe Concept for Future Submarines

I am not sure if the poster above reffered to the Type-45's as the new "battleship", he may have been refferring to another project:

UK Carrier Project



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Yes I knew about the British carrier project just thought he was talking about destroyers.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
I'm embarrassed by the lack of money we put into the armed forces, we have a navy that has about 25 ships

We have 96 ships in total...hardly anywhere near 25.
You want to play tango about the RN go ahead....just remember I'm part of the SCC and a very sad git...
We also spend 37.1 billion dollars.



, an air force still waiting for a 4th generation fighter that is now outdated,

Outdated compared to what?
The J-10?
The latest mig?
The rafelle?



an army having to buy its own equipment because of cuts in expenditure.

They are buying BETTER kit, mabye you should read up about this fact.


Why you think they are still the best is beyond me.

Best at what?
Training?
Size?
Sharp shooting?
Pott cleaning?


If they cut the money anymore we will be back to the days of Dads army when they used sticks instead of guns.If you don't believe me ask any squaddie in Iraq if he thinks hes well equipped.

Mabye I'll ask the guys in the RM who I know personally or mabye the 2 people working at faslane naval base or mabye I will even ask the army guys at my local shooting range next time I use it , huh?
If anyone beleives this troll then you are being unaware of the facts or gullable.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Just an update on the spending on British armed forces
Link

[edit on 24-7-2005 by DJDOHBOY]



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Everything i have said about Uk forces being underfunded is true, the Typhoon is a bit better than the ageing stuff the RAF has now but its still old technology. I don't know why you are a fanatic for British Armed Forces but ill guess you are about 16 years old.When you have seen what the Uk Governments has done to the once mighty British forces, over the years you might know what I'm on about.


When you see what the US government has done to the once mighty US...

Why are you such a fanatic for US kit? For the most part it's crap.

The Challenger 2 is better than M1A1.
The F89 Austeyr is better than M16.
The Lynx is better than Huey.
Anything is better than M60.
Warrior is better than Breadley.

Belgian small arms are the best in the world as a complete product range. Rifle, assault rifle, Machine gun, light machine gun, pistol, and the amazing PDW 90.

I'll assume you're 16 years old and can only read newspapers with girls on page 3. You clearly know nothing of UK forces or their equipment or doctrine.

If American kit is so good why do they use the FN Minimi (M249 SAW)? Why didn't they make their own LMG?

And who's going to pay the salaries for the army you want? You know how much soldiers were paid a century ago? You know how much they're paid today? What support services were there for squaddies or sailors in the China Station? Had the Chaplain's department visiting the families of all the dead did they, offering bereavement counselling? Do you have any idea of where a modern military's money goes?


RAB

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Bulldog your quoting the dally mirror! ahhahahahahahah haha
that's like calling the Sun a newspaper.

RAB



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Here is a real figure of spending:

www.mod.uk...



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Greetings,

I have to say I have enjoyed reading this thread, just a few points from my perspective:

1. As for buying your own boots, this is semi true. A soldiers feet are rather important, they have to walk on them run on them and fight on them, so its important that they feel comfortable. The MOD supply troops with a boot that is worth around £120, its waterproof, latest gortex liner and a special shock sole, its bloody amazing from the old £20 jobs in the 70's. Some soldiers prefer to splash out and get a pair of custom jobs if they have issues with their feet, or just prefer to buy their own prefered make, doesn't mean that the MOD supplied boots are crap. Same way some fellas pick up some GPS units, extra pouches etc

2. Kit, this is marginally shocking, at the minute the british are using PLCE, Personal Load Carrying Equipment. This combat gear was and still is a leap year in a soldiers load bearing equipment, to to mention the fact that it was the PLCE that the Molle was marginally designed on, being fully customised and to a degree switch around.

The Bradley is a piece of, ::cough:: It simply fails to complete its tasks or even in some cases live up to the hipe. In urban combat, they are moving targets, I can't comment on the Stryers, but they don't seem to be doing much better. The Warrior is the ultimate battletaxi technology
No sunroof sadly.

I would prefer british MBT support to the Americans, not to mention our Army Air Corp, you won't find a madder bunch of indiviuals that would risk their lifes to park those sodding great things under fire, if you have ever been on board one and watch as the pilot has to pull up to clear a line of houses... you would understand lol. Personal Favourite is the Lynx.

3. SA-80A2, Yes there was some teething troubles, some quite major, but they have been redesigned and the problems solved, although, there is a high plastic count on it, not some thing I enjoy to see on a weapon, BUT its very hard to get a lightweight weapon without plastic not to mention any current weapons that don't have some plastic count.

4. DPM, this was orginally designed for the German Forests in the fight against the soviet threat, in every threater it has been in it has been bloody great, from the jungles to the undergrowth in Northern Ireland, to the deserts, don't see the need to change some thing that works so well. The Combats themselves are top of the line, with many nations either copying it or buying them.

I won't say any thing about the Eurofighter, because those other fellas have done a damm fine job debunking the bull dog.

- Phil



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   
I heard from a chief on my shooting course tell me that the SA-80A2 could be customised for lefties...
And add to the fact it works perfectly.
Oh and PS , nice choice of chopper goose


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join