Britains Armed Forces too small?

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
nah man, china's estimate for 2005 was 283.8 billion yuan (about 35.1 billion U.S. dollars), and it says that on most sites i go on!!


That's the “official” figure released by the PRC, however its likely BS. Like I said, officially the UK is in second place but in reality the PRC outspends it.




posted on May, 31 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
From what he's saying, it would seem that they would also have to come with a built in Gold mine and a Mint to print all the money needed to build:

25 New Carriers

Yes - because Great Britain has to fight Argentina, who still claims the Falklands.


Originally posted by stumason
buy 25 Airwings of F-18's
then replace them with 25 Airwings of F-35's

No, I propose ordering 24 airwings of F/A-18s and one airwing of F-35s.


Originally posted by stumason
but 550 new Harriers
build 10 new Bases

Yes - because Great Britain has to fight Argentina, who still claims the Falklands.


Originally posted by stumason
design a new MBT

Yes - one that would be indestructible by an IED.


Originally posted by stumason
3 new ASW Helo designs

Yes - because Argentine submarines pose a threat to the British navy. Proof: www.globalsecurity.org...



Where would these be built?

In Great Britain, there are 100 sea ports.

BTW, there's another way to found my proposals:
1) terminate the following positions: Minister for Europe in the FCO, Minister for Trade in the FCO and the DTI, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Whip
2) terminate the following departments: Department of International Development, Department of Culture, Department of Communities and Local Government
3) merge the Department of Trade and Industry with the Department of Work and Pensions

[edit on 31-5-2006 by Zibi]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
No, I propose ordering 24 airwings of F/A-18s and one airwing of F-35s.


I've changed my mind. I now propose ordering 27 aircraft carriers, 26 airwings of F/A-18s, and 1 airwing of F-35s.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by Zibi]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:12 AM
link   
lol!

How much do you think all of this will cost and where will the money come from? Where will we get the man power to operate all of these assets? What the hell will we use them for?



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:19 AM
link   


where will the money come from?

I've already stated the answer to that question.

1) terminate the following positions: Minister for Europe in the FCO, Minister for Trade in the FCO and the DTI, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Whip
2) terminate the following departments: Department of International Development, Department of Culture, Department of Communities and Local Government
3) merge the Department of Trade and Industry with the Department of Work and Pensions



What will we use them for?

I've already stated the answer to that question. Great Britain has to fight Argentina, who still claims the Falklands.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by Zibi]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:24 AM
link   
That might save a couple of quid, not the tens of billions of pounds, if not 100's of billions of pounds that it will take to buy all that lot.


Originally posted by Zibi
I've already stated the answer to that question. Great Britain has to fight Argentina, who still claims the Falklands.


This may be true, but we will not need 27 Nimitz Aircraft carriers to take out Argentina!!



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mAg1q
That might save a couple of quid, not the tens of billions of pounds, if not 100's of billions of pounds that it will take to buy all that lot.

Then also terminate the thirteenths for all governmental officials. Besides, scrap all ships that are not submarines, OPVs, Icebreaker ships, anti-mine-warfare ships, assault ships, or RFA ships and used the steel saved this way for the construction of those 27 aircraft carriers.



This may be true, but we will not need 27 Nimitz Aircraft carriers to take out Argentina!!

Yes, but Argentina will surely enlarge its military, so Great Britain should enlarge its military, too.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by Zibi]



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi
Yes - because Great Britain has to fight Argentina, who still claims the Falklands.

Thats hardly an exscuse to make 25 aircraft carriers, hell the US doesnt have that many and she has twice the number of outposts we have.



No, I propose ordering 24 airwings of F/A-18s and one airwing of F-35s.

Why?



Yes - because Great Britain has to fight Argentina, who still claims the Falklands.

Why harriers? Its an old design and frankly not getting any younger, and 550 bases?
Where in hell are you going to put them?



Yes - one that would be indestructible by an IED.

Mate theres no such thing, IEDs can be anything up to 18 inch cannon shells and frankly theres no armour that can withstand that to my knowledge.



Yes - because Argentine submarines pose a threat to the British navy. Proof: www.globalsecurity.org...

We have the most advanced ASW on the planet, we are NATO's ASW force.



In Great Britain, there are 100 sea ports.

Yes and how many shipyards?
A port does not mean a shipyard by ANY stretch of the word.


BTW, there's another way to found my proposals:
1) terminate the following positions: Minister for Europe in the FCO, Minister for Trade in the FCO and the DTI, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Whip
2) terminate the following departments: Department of International Development, Department of Culture, Department of Communities and Local Government
3) merge the Department of Trade and Industry with the Department of Work and Pensions
[edit on 31-5-2006 by Zibi]

I have serios doubts the above would reach the amount required.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi
Then also terminate the thirteenths for all governmental officials. Besides, scrap all ships that are not submarines, OPVs, Icebreaker ships, anti-mine-warfare ships, assault ships, or RFA ships and used the steel saved this way for the construction of those 27 aircraft carriers.

What!
You want to get rid of destroyers, frigates and ocean survey ships?
You do realise that the first warship on scene to the last falklands war was an ocean survey ship?
And they nearly sunk an enemy frigate....


Yes, but Argentina will surely enlarge its military, so Great Britain should enlarge its military, too.
[edit on 1-6-2006 by Zibi]

Yes but to the size that we have 27 aircraft carriers?
Are you seriosly thinking we would have the crews for that sort of thing?



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Greetings everyone; I hope you don’t mind me giving my thoughts on Zibi’s proposed 25 new large carriers for the Royal navy.

There seems to be some factors not taken into consideration with this scenario so far in this thread that I would like to address.

Each carrier battle group will need a protective screen. Most carriers only have a point defence capability with CIWS and short range SAM systems. Also, unless they have ASW helicopters onboard they have no anti-submarine assets of their own.

So, if 25 new carriers were to be built, it would also require a large number of support vessels to be constructed in order for a carrier to be adequately protected.

A carrier will probably need one to two air defence frigates/destroyers and say 4 ASW/multi purpose frigates. That would mean a total of at least 50 Type-45 destroyers would need to be built. As for the ASW frigates, if each carrier was to be protected by four of them, around 90 would have to be built.

US aircraft-carriers are normally also protected by one or two SSNs and I would have thought a Royal Navy battle group would need the same. If these were to be built, around 45 new SSNs would need to be included to the Royal Navy’s inventory.

Additional replenishment vessels would also need to be built. Say around 25 of them.

So in total around 340 new vessels would need to be constructed (including the CVs) in order for them to be able to operate with the security needed.

This would require a large increase of the number of sailors in the Royal Navy. Say that each carrier has a crew of 3000. That would mean a total of 75.000 sailors would be needed just to crew them. On top of that the carrier support/screen vessels would also need to be staffed with capable sailors and officers.

I think such an increase in manpower might only be possible if the UK again introduced conscription and for the conscripts to be able to operate aboard these ships with the same professionalism as the current sailors in the Royal navy do now, they would probably need to serve for several years.

As you can see, the numbers soon add up. Taxes would need to be increased by a fair amount in order to fund such a venture.

I think what I have written gives an idea of how unfeasible 25 aircraft-carriers would be for the Royal Navy to acquire.

Regards from, Hoff



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Errrrrrr.............................just a simple question...............no, really.

Where are all our new ships going to be built?

Harland and Wolfe are almost gone with only one slipway left, Portsmouth, Devonport, (?) Rosyth (?) and Barrow are all out of commission.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 06:28 AM
link   
I think this 27 carrier RN is just a wild fantisy of Zibis which he believes is possible.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mAg1q
I think this 27 carrier RN is just a wild fantisy of Zibis which he believes is possible.


REALLY?...............................................I thought he was serious!

I was only pandering to his delusions......................no.....................honestly



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
What needs to be done in my country is this:
1 - Stop the stupid, wastes of money in some areas of Public Spending. I am referring to the hundreds of millions of pounds wasted every year translating benefit documents & official documents into dozens and dozens of foreign languages. I think all those who wish to come & live in my country should learn to speak our language, and not expect some sort of "right" to have us bend over backwards to have it all in their tongues. If I went to go live in Russia, or East Europe, I would expect to learn to speak their language, as the days of speaking loudly & slowly in English are over.
This will save more money than you can imagine.
2 - Stop spending so much public money on Legal Aid allowing convicted foriegn criminals the right to appeal against being deported.
3 - Stop public money being used to fund Legal Aid for failed Asylum Seekers.
Lawyers are scamming untold millions out of this alone.
4 - Moving on to the other end of the scale.
Do something about the taxation laws that are allowing corporations like Virgin, Fox, News International etc all register offshore tax havens, yet still pay no UK taxes as they claim they are non resident, yet all live here.
Why should Murdoch be allowed to pay less than 1% of his gross, whilst I get slammed serious amounts every year on much less - mainly because I cannot afford expensive Tax Lawyers.
Make everyone pay them, and taxes are less onerous.
5 - Stop this stupid flood of PFI arrangements for Public Spending. Our UNELECTED prime minister prefers these as they are all off the government books - but it all ends up with billions in consultancy fees, billions more in kickbacks & PFI interest, yet the hospital trusts that have had this forced onto them have to rent their own hospitals.
6 - Renationalize the Utility services Gas, Electricity & Water as well as Telephones & Transport. These used to make money for the treasury to pay for services that cannot be run at a profit. By putting all these - and Hospitals etc - into Private hands, the first duty of care of any private company is to it's shareholders. NOT to deliver good VFM.
7 - STOP giving free access to all the bloody EU nationals who come to this country to scam free healthcare - yet again with everything telling them how to claim benefits they should not be entitled to translated into their languages in case the poor things fail to understand how much cash they can # taxpayers over for. Plus again all the legal aid to help them get it.
8 - Kick out those who do not like it. We have the insane situation here until recently (and he was not the only one) of certain nameless Islamic Extremist Clerics on benefits for free cars, housing, disability money etc when he spends every waking moment preaching about how decadent we are and how we should all be killed. All paid for by the taxpayers.

When you add up the billions each year going in bribes, thieved, so-called "consultancies" etc, it would easily quadruple the size of our armed forces with no real cuts required anywhere.

I have no problem with people wanting to live - and WORK - here.
But they need to adapt to OUR ways, not us adapt to THEIRS.
Likewise, we need to get rid of this unelected prime minister, who has overseen the biggest explosion in immigration in my country's history. He has surrendered control over our laws, our finances and our borders to the neo-nazi EU. He has GIVEN AWAY what Adolf Hitler, The Kaiser & Napoleon were fought to preserve. What millions DIED fighting for has been surrendered without an election to give the bastard a mandate, and without a say in the process by the promised referendum. Fat Gordon says it is not a constitution, so no referendum needed. Trouble is, the treaty of Lisbon IS a constitution.
12 years of Labour rule has done at least a whole generation irreparable harm & damage. Socialism does not work - we are NOT all the same, neither are we all equal. We are all different.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by neil wilkes[/url]

Whilst I wholeheartedly endorse and support your views Neil, I cannot help but think that your post is better suited to the 'Rant' section of BTS.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Hahaha, oh wow. 25+ carriers for Britain? As if one or two proper 300+ meter, preferably nuclear ones with their escorts wouldn't be enough to take on the Falklands in their entirety? And as if two or three with escorts wouldn't be enough to take on just about any country besides america in a naval battle in a straight up deep water fight. (besides maybe Russia, with all their submarines.)

Britain's military is plenty big for what it does. Frankly, they're better off spending their money domestically. America throws hundreds of billions of dollars at it's military, and it doesn't do it any favors for it's status as an economic superpower. Britain doesn't even compare in that aspect, and it certainly doesn't have the ability to afford a comparable military.

That said, they could certainly do with some naval air-to-air capabilities. Their current harriers aren't up to snuff, AFAIK. Of course, all the proposed cuts combined wouldn't make up the costs of even a dozen jets, let alone a carrier aviation group, let alone twenty plus carriers.

They might need some more military power, were there a naval power in the world who could hope to mount a successful invasion of Britain, let alone any besides their ally, america, who could even put in a good shot at it with any chance of winning.

The weak link, however, is that this is earth, and there isn't such a thing. Britain is safer than ever from invasion to do whatever it wants. It just needs enough force projection ability to keep people from messing with their stuff overseas. And as Argentina doesn't seem to be actively annexing the Falkland islands, I'd say it's doing ok.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mdiinican Britain is safer than ever from invasion to do whatever it wants.


No we are not! Those bloody French have been at it again but this time, they have German backing.

Sooner or later, those damned Bosch and their lap-dog Froggies, are gonna come storming out of the Channel Tunnel and we're not going to have anything to stop them!

Apart from me and my mate Kevin Palmer who plan to ambush them.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by neil wilkes
 


Or, all you Daily Mail readers can fork up £30 for the "Defense of the Nation" fund or something else so sickeningly jingoistic. That should at least get the UK a transit van it can cover with Bulldog decals. It could be driven to France at the first sign of Argentinian aggression, and could be used to shout insults at people and break patio furniture.

Seriously, if you want the UK to wind up like the US, then let's get the British government to cut back spending on things people need (legal support, due process, education), and spend it on things a few people want (ie military). The British military could be better, but if we scrap the country it's trying to defend in order to pay for it, what good have we achieved? It'd be like selling your car's engine to pay for turtle wax. It might look good, but that's as far as its usefulness goes.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by neil wilkes
 


Or, all you Daily Mail readers can fork up £30 for the "Defense of the Nation" fund or something else so sickeningly jingoistic. That should at least get the UK a transit van it can cover with Bulldog decals. It could be driven to France at the first sign of Argentinian aggression, and could be used to shout insults at people and break patio furniture.

Seriously, if you want the UK to wind up like the US, then let's get the British government to cut back spending on things people need (legal support, due process, education), and spend it on things a few people want (ie military). The British military could be better, but if we scrap the country it's trying to defend in order to pay for it, what good have we achieved? It'd be like selling your car's engine to pay for turtle wax. It might look good, but that's as far as its usefulness goes.


Yeah but scrapping the military has the added effect that the SAR facilities and ability that we NEED to keep our 95% import buisness safe would deteriate...how many ships crews and cargo's have been saved by the SAR service given but the RN and RAF....?

But hey who needs a new sea king or aircraft carrier when we can spend that money giving an illegal immigrants free houses and free living money...?





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join