Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Britains Armed Forces too small?

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

The RN although still a force to be reckoned with is in no position to fight a war by itself, hence why it said that in the navy plan for 2005.


do you mean by how the UK will only be able to fight 'alongside a nation' in a coalition war?

i remember reading a document on this! but to be honest ive never seen anything about it since!!

i think that document is untrue anyways, dude even though you don't have much regard for our military at present, i can understand with some of the cock-ups in iraq, (ammo, boots in desert conditions etc), .

but we are still investing in all areas, we have the 2nd highest defence budget/we are the 2nd highest contributors into military research and development.

so i don't think we are 'downgrading' to a point where we can only fight in a 'coalition war' ie:- (us/uk).

we are still investing and looking at ways to improve, something as to give with the 'war on terrorism' after 9/11 the whole world changed, the mod have taken this into account created a new regiment (The Reconnaissance and Surveillance Regiment).

something as to give for all this dude, thats why theres been cuts!! - theres only one nation who don't have to do cuts for a giving situation (defence wise) and thats the 'united states' but britain are no longer an empire, we need to re-mould when a situation arises.

and (for the better) re-moulding our armed forces is something that is happening for the time period we living in (terrorism).













[edit on 3-5-2006 by st3ve_o]




posted on May, 3 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
also when you compare our equipment, we are more than enough for america 'technological wise' - but when it comes to 'numbers' (as you say) that is where the americans superior defence budget comes into the acquisition.

=====

AIRCRAFT:- typhoon - current best fighter in the world, (probably 2nd when the f-22 comes out) -

but also by 2012/14 (F-35's)

SEA:- type45 (according to links) ^greatest warship ever built^ when the first comes into operation next year.

CARRIERS:- most advanced carriers ever built (according to links)

www.royal-navy.mod.uk...

TANKS:- i don't think any nation has a better tank than our 'challenger 2'

SUBS:- submarines i don't know a lot about, but the new 'astute class' and the 'trafalgar class' look just as good as any the americans have (the swiftsure class is just rusting).

TRAINING:- we have something money can't really buy, the best troops in the world


========

so as you can see 'technology wise' we are up there with the americans, but they just have more.

but you say britain are 'in-decline' we are not! -

thats one thing that britain will contiune to do is INVEST, MP's say there's one thing we must continue to do and is still have that edge over europe (mainly france),

thats a bit of pride we still have since the empire ended 60 years ago




















[edit on 3-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
do you mean by how the UK will only be able to fight 'alongside a nation' in a coalition war?

i remember reading a document on this! but to be honest ive never seen anything about it since!!

You will never see many documents explaining how the RN will fight overall in the civilian world IMO, because the MOD will always never let loose how bad the situation is.


i think that document is untrue anyways, dude even though you don't have much regard for our military at present, i can understand with some of the cock-ups in iraq, (ammo, boots in desert conditions etc), .

I have MUCH regard for our military, the lads and ladies in it are the best there can be and I know many of them who are close friends and almost family to me. The leadership and money alocated to them is a diffrent matter.


but we are still investing in all areas, we have the 2nd highest defence budget/we are the 2nd highest contributors into military research and development.

Mate...look at what projects we have running and what will be benificial....you know the FSC project was canceled so there is no plan for the new frigates (IE the back bone of the navy) and the new carriers are over a DECADE off...what the F man!


so i don't think we are 'downgrading' to a point where we can only fight in a 'coalition war' ie:- (us/uk).

Mate when we cant hit our enemies and beat them without the US's help means 1 thing: A major problem. We are DEPENDANT on them, IE they can do what they want to us and they have and WE cant do anything about it.


we are still investing and looking at ways to improve, something as to give with the 'war on terrorism' after 9/11 the whole world changed, the mod have taken this into account created a new regiment (The Reconnaissance and Surveillance Regiment).

The SRR is simply removing the recon element from SAS, SBS and path finders so that we can have a "tri force unit", ie the way most things are going.
9/11 did not change the world, it was an event that simply promoted terrorism and speeded up the chain of events it does not change anything in regard to what our navy should be able to do.


something as to give for all this dude, thats why theres been cuts!! - theres only one nation who don't have to do cuts for a giving situation (defence wise) and thats the 'united states' but britain are no longer an empire, we need to re-mould when a situation arises.

Mate we remould anymore and sweeden will beat us in a straight fight, britain may not be an empire but damm it we are a nuclear power, SHOULD be a world power and frankly a member of the security council. IF we cant be able to do what the world expects of us we should step down from the council and frankly IMO that would be a great indignity and a great dishonour to a country like ours.


and (for the better) re-moulding our armed forces is something that is happening for the time period we living in (terrorism).

Terrorism does not mean we should do away with aircraft carriers for a decade, terrorism does not mean we need a smaller navy with more "hard hitting qualities" , terrorism does not mean we need a smaller army.
Terrorism simply means we need to step up our intel war and our spec ops division because frankly THEY are the ones who will truely take the war to the terrorists, not the regular armed forces.












[edit on 3-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
also when you compare our equipment, we are more than enough for america 'technological wise' - but when it comes to 'numbers' (as you say) that is where the americans superior defence budget comes into the acquisition.

Mate our armed forces cant afford enough combat equipment for our troops, the americans have it coming out of thier ears for crying out loud!


=====


AIRCRAFT:- typhoon - current best fighter in the world, (probably 2nd when the f-22 comes out) -

We only have 2 sqdrns of them.


but also by 2012/14 (F-35's)

The project is behind, overbudget and way below expectations,.


SEA:- type45 (according to links) ^greatest warship ever built^ when the first comes into operation next year.

What about the DDX? the other AMERICAN warships?
No mate what your hearing is hype I will belive RN officers and ratings once THEY have served on it, not what some lab man says.
I seriosly doubt we will get 12 hell even 9 is pushing it.


CARRIERS:- most advanced carriers ever built (according to links)

Wont be due for another decade....any ideas what we should do UNTIL then?




TANKS:- i don't think any nation has a better tank than our 'challenger 2'

Tanks dont work well without infantry mate, we learned that in WW2.


SUBS:- submarines i don't know a lot about, but the new 'astute class' and the 'trafalgar class' look just as good as any the americans have (the swiftsure class is just rusting).

Wow 4 new subs, wowho!!
The swifsture class are running missions around the world mate, they are deep blue water ships not coastal ships and therefore no use in defending the nation uless we attack the ships in deep water.


TRAINING:- we have something money can't really buy, the best troops in the world


Doesnt help if the rifle jams, you dont have ammo or sat coms.


so as you can see 'technology wise' we are up there with the americans, but they just have more.

No they HAVE the equipment, we DONT.
We have SOME of the above but not ALL.
Most of the army is behind on equipment mate, they had to pull 1/3rs to 2/3rds of the Cadet forces training ammo because they where soo low on ammo, this comes from SCC head office in nodnol.


but you say britain are 'in-decline' we are not! -

WE ARE!
We cant strike beyond our borders without mobilising ALL of our navy.


thats one thing that britain will contiune to do is INVEST, MP's say there's one thing we must continue to do and is still have that edge over europe (mainly france),

Mate most of europe couldnt wip us in a fight because thier in FIGHTER range, now tell me. Could we win a war with argentine? No, why ? Because thier so far away.
We have no power projection mate, our carriers are shot to hell YET AGAIN by the bloody government.


thats a bit of pride we still have since the empire ended 60 years ago


Our empire exists as long as we have gib, falklands and ascion island. We have no pride if we let tony and his crew RUIN , I reapeat RAPE our armed forces of the kit THEY need.
You dont need to believe me, you just need to talk to ex MOD to find out.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
ohhh dude, i have no strength honestly!!


you'll never change my views about the british armed forces, you seem rapped up in your own world about your views.

only thing i will say is the carriers are 2012, (want me to find links)?

what do you think all that carry-on's about with the jsf?, because the carriers are due 2012 (6 years), we may well have the carriers but with no aircraft to operate on them (thats why we might go with the rafele)!!

but who knows in 6/8 years (2012/14) when we have:-

type45's
new subs
f-35's
ucav's in operation
new carriers
typhoons

plus by then (more new projects on order), we have many now but those listed above are the main ones (look on the armed forces websites)!!

but who knows you might turn round and say "hmm that steve_o dude was right all those years ago, i wish i could turn around the clock to 2006 so i could kiss his arse!!"












[edit on 3-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o

but who knows in 6/8 years (2012/14) when we have:-

type45's
new subs
f-35's
ucav's in operation
new carriers
typhoons

plus by then (more new projects on order)!!


Sorry Mate , but here I tend to side with Devilwasp,

Honestly (although I admire your optimism) do you think that all those sytems you listed will be in service within 8 years? With the MODs record on new systems ?

Yes we will probably get them all some time , but They will all be late , and either over budget , or lacking in what was promised.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
You know, I’ve tried to stay away from this thread and let Steveo have his way, but I'm human, and I have my limits too. However to avoid inflammatory responses and not hijack the thread I will say as little as possible and jut post link to make my point.


Originally posted by st3v_o
AIRCRAFT:- typhoon - current best fighter in the world, (probably 2nd when the f-22 comes out) -

but also by 2012/14 (F-35's)


F-22 Squadrons
F-22 and F-35


Originally posted by st3v_o
SEA:- type45 (according to links) ^greatest warship ever built^ when the first comes into operation next year.


However you did omit the fact that they will enter service with only 48 aster Missiles and one Helo. “Greatest warships ever built? Your choice. Most effective and capable? Not quite.

Link


Originally posted by st3v_o
CARRIERS:- most advanced carriers ever built (according to links).


Again, most advanced? Your choice. Most capable? Don't think so.

10 Nimitz Class Super Carriers
CVNX/CVN-21


Originally posted by st3v_o
TANKS:- i don't think any nation has a better tank than our 'challenger 2'


Your view, I’ll let it slide, mostly because I like this tank too.


[edit on 3-5-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by buckaroo

Sorry Mate , but here I tend to side with Devilwasp,


lol well you would do, you created this god-dam thread



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
you'll never change my views about the british armed forces, you seem rapped up in your own world about your views.

I am not trying to change your views, I am simply pointing out something so you do not make the same mistakes I made.


only thing i will say is the carriers are 2012, (want me to find links)?

With what aircraft? The carriers most likely wont be ready for near a decade.



what do you think all that carry-on's about with the jsf?,

Please dont patronise me, I know what all the carry on about the F-35B is about thank you very much and I very doubt we will get all of our aircraft.


because the carriers are due 2012 (6 years), we may well have the carriers but with no aircraft to operate on them (thats why we might go with the rafele)!!

Yes "due" that WILL change, believe me. IF we have to buy a diffrent aircraft then we WILL redesign the carrier.


but who knows in 6/8 years (2012/14) when we have:-

type45's
new subs
f-35's
ucav's in operation
new carriers
typhoons

Thats still over 6+ years away, NOW we have no sword.
You think 16 new ships and some sqdrns of typhoons will be our sword? No they will be our defencive net around the north sea.


plus by then (more new projects on order), we have many now but those listed above are the main ones (look on the armed forces websites)!!

Those "more new projects" most likely wont go far due to costs, we are spending more money on a BEF style force and a patrol boat style navy....


but who knows you might turn round and say "hmm that steve_o dude was right all those years ago, i wish i could turn around the clock to 2006 so i could kiss his arse!!

Or mabye we could see 6 new destroyers, mabye 1 carrier if we're lucky and mabye 4 new submarines to replace 8.
Frankly mate I've seen what MOD head office can do and frankly they #e on the RN, RAF and army ALL the time.
The sooner you realise just as I did that the british armed forces are on the decline and we NEED to make a stand then the sooner you will recognise that it is a repeat of 1982 ALL over again.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Blah, blah, blah.

Yes guys, we all know about the Carriers (2012 'ish'), JSF (rubbish) Typhoon (good, but not that good), Type 45/48 Frigates (pretending to be destroyers) Upgraded Trident (too expensive - likely to be cut)

BUT

have you heard General Mike Jackson's latest wheeze?

His beloved Parachute Brigades are said to be involved in the early stages of a 'planned' jump (for that read 'combat insertion') into the Afghanistan poppy fields.

Shades of Arnhem all over again.

What do you think about that and please, do not ask for my source. The person concerned will most definately be visiting Colchester Military nick if I reveal who it is.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Hi guys, I was pointed over here by someone and have enjoyed the read


Regarding the disagreements between Devilwasp and steve O, you might both like to read and comment on this thread here which covers the same ground but specific to the RAF.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Im going to have to go with the brits on the best military
they have this guy



[edit on 8-5-2006 by Pita]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I think you under estimate the British people devilwasp, if the UK was being invaded damn right people would fight. Maybe a few would bugger off but I don't think I know anyone who would sit back and let it happen or runaway to another country.

You have very pessimistic views but since I don't know as much as you on this subject they may well be warranted.

We just need to vote in a Government who are willing to inject funds into the military rather than giving single mothers 20k a year and a free house!



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snoopdopey
I think you under estimate the British people devilwasp, if the UK was being invaded damn right people would fight.


I don't think that he is saying Britain's military is too small to defend itself. Britan's armed forces are too small to fight multiple wars. They are fine if all we had an isolationist stance like that of America in the 1920's. However, Tony does insist in taking part in all these wars.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snoopdopey
I think you under estimate the British people devilwasp, if the UK was being invaded damn right people would fight. Maybe a few would bugger off but I don't think I know anyone who would sit back and let it happen or runaway to another country.

I dont, do you honnuestly thinnk the british public could put up a decent defence against any decent army. Do you think rocks and stones put up well against apache or eurocopter gunships?
Mabye a few 2 by fours or even a brick against an M1A2 or mabye even a T-82?
Come on, as much as we like to think that the british isles are invicble they are not, put good old WW1 and 2 pride away for a minute and think about how we can defend our assests away from britain?
I believe that what 90% of our imports come via sea because we are an island nation....how do we defend these ships? With 11 destroyers and mabye twice as many frigates while still defending britain?
Not likely.
The british public may defend itself but the majority will run once someone with a machine gun or even a sniper rifle appears.


You have very pessimistic views but since I don't know as much as you on this subject they may well be warranted.

There not pessimistic , there realistic.
Mate look up "national defence statistics" and read up the annual report on funding and the actual list of how many ships/aircraft and materials we have.


We just need to vote in a Government who are willing to inject funds into the military rather than giving single mothers 20k a year and a free house!

Well mate supposedly our budget has gone up in the last few years but frankly its gone into things like oh I dont know aircraft that cant go past tanker range?



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Devil Wasp said: Well mate supposedly our budget has gone up in the last few years but frankly its gone into things like oh I dont know aircraft that cant go past tanker range?

How about half a dozen or so original oil paintings in MOD Whitehall depicting the aims of the MOD - a sort of 'self reminder', Cost? Over £250,000;

'Residence to Place of Duty' [Home to Work] payments to Regular and Non Regular Permament Staff (NRPS). Cost? Oh I would say at least a Couple of £M a year;

'Residence to Place of Duty' [Home to Work] for Territorial Army soldiers. Cost? Oh I would say a couple of £M a year.

Then there's the new Military Annual Training Tests or MATTs that have replaced the Army Training Directives. New training packs that include CD and DVD discs produced by civilian contractors. All pamphlets have been re-written, re-printed and placed in nice glossy folders with brightly coloured books that explain how you use the packs. Cost? Oh I would think another couple of £M - give or take a few quid.

The 'new' disciplinary procedure whereby a serviceman [or woman] cannot be formally 'charged' - even for being absent from place of duty - but must now be interviewed with a solicitor (at taxpayer's expense) if that servicewoman [or man] so desires, instead of just being given jankers for a week.

The Health & Safety claims against the Army alone, for last year, are set to top the £50M mark. That is just for army personnel and does not take in to account the civilian contractors who are currently sueing the MOD.

I hope that gives you an idea where 'some' of the money is going.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Yes, the British military is too small and uses the wrong equipment. My ideas are:
1) Scrapping all combat ships that are not OPVs, subs or aircraft carriers, and ordering 25 aircraft carriers (each should be of the same size as USS Nimitz, but conventionally powered)
2) The aircraft used by the RN should be the F/A-18, until the JSF comes into service
3) Only on one aircraft carrier should ASW helicopters be parked
4) Ordering 550 more Harrier aircraft for the RAF, and constructing 10 new airforce bases so that the Harriers could be parked somewhere
5) Inventing a new tank version - with thicker armour. The current British MBT version is easy to destroy with IEDs
6) Inventing a new IFV version
7) A new tanker version should be invented, and then a new tanker version
8) A new ASW helicopter version should be invented, and then a new ASW helicopter version, and then a new ASW helicopter version

And besides, the RAF needs to improve training.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi
Yes, the British military is too small and uses the wrong equipment. My ideas are:
1) Scrapping all combat ships that are not OPVs, subs or aircraft carriers, and ordering 25 aircraft carriers (each should be of the same size as USS Nimitz, but conventionally powered)

EEHHHH?


2) The aircraft used by the RN should be the F/A-18, until the JSF comes into service

EHHH?


3) Only on one aircraft carrier should ASW helicopters be parked

EHH?


4) Ordering 550 more Harrier aircraft for the RAF, and constructing 10 new airforce bases so that the Harriers could be parked somewhere
???


5) Inventing a new tank version - with thicker armour. The current British MBT version is easy to destroy with IEDs
????
Strongest tank armour on the planet?


6) Inventing a new IFV version

Warrior not ok?


7) A new tanker version should be invented, and then a new tanker version

Isnt that how its usually run...


8) A new ASW helicopter version should be invented, and then a new ASW helicopter version, and then a new ASW helicopter version

Merlin....just a thought..



And besides, the RAF needs to improve training.

???

No offence mate but where did u get half that?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi
Yes, the British military is too small and uses the wrong equipment. My ideas are:
1) Scrapping all combat ships that are not OPVs, subs or aircraft carriers, and ordering 25 aircraft carriers (each should be of the same size as USS Nimitz, but conventionally powered)


Seriously? 25 new carriers? 25!!?? oh dear.... Any idea how much that would cost? £1 Billion a piece, plus operating expenses.... Stupid idea. And what would protect these 25 carriers?


Originally posted by Zibi
2) The aircraft used by the RN should be the F/A-18, until the JSF comes into service


Why? Until we get the new carriers (be it the planned 2 or your dreamland 25) those F-18's can't take off from anywhere.


Originally posted by Zibi
3) Only on one aircraft carrier should ASW helicopters be parked


What? Why? At the present time all ships of frigate size and above have a helo pad. We already have a dedicated Helo carrier, called HMS Ocean, with another planned. Why only have one carrier doing it all? Hardly the strategic genius are you?


Originally posted by Zibi
4) Ordering 550 more Harrier aircraft for the RAF, and constructing 10 new airforce bases so that the Harriers could be parked somewhere


So....You want 25 new carriers, full to the brim with F-18', but you want 550 Harriers as well? Along with 10 new bases? Where is all this money coming from?
!! Your barmy!


Originally posted by Zibi
5) Inventing a new tank version - with thicker armour. The current British MBT version is easy to destroy with IEDs


I think you'll find any tank in the world is "easy" to destroy with an IED. Most IED;s are modified artillery shells, usually several put together. So the explosice force of one of these will shred ANY tank that goes over it. Unless you want a 100-ton monster tank that is unwieldy and impossible to run.

EDIT: Besides, the Chally 2 is the best tank in the world.



Originally posted by Zibi
6) Inventing a new IFV version


Why? The Warrior is fine. Besides, a new IFV is in planning anyway.


Originally posted by Zibi
7) A new tanker version should be invented, and then a new tanker version


Tanker? As in air refuel or ship refuel? As we have more than capable ones inservice already. And then, why would we then design another new one after that? You make no sense at all.


Originally posted by Zibi
8) A new ASW helicopter version should be invented, and then a new ASW helicopter version, and then a new ASW helicopter version


Why? I believe the Sea King is being replaced by the Merlin. Then why would you want to redesign it again, not once, but 3 times?


Originally posted by Zibi
And besides, the RAF needs to improve training.


I believe the RAF gets some of the highest amount of man-hours training in the world. The RAF pilots regulary beat USAF pilots, even when out numbered, on exercise in "inferior" aircraft.

In other words, may I suggest you go out and see if your doctor can arrange a brain transplant, or at the very least, some corrective surgery to repair the logic centre that is apparently malfunctioning.



[edit on 10/5/06 by stumason]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Any idea how much that would cost? £1 Billion a piece,..


Ha, that would be a bargain, I believe a Nimitz class goes for around 5 these days.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by WestPoint23]






top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join