Britains Armed Forces too small?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
With how many ships?

Well the largest 3 ships in the RN and RFA will be for ampib warfare or atleast are capable.




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Does it need a military with a global power projection capability?

YES
Over 90% of our imports come from the sea and it seems the RN has been shoved from first class to last class in terms of funding.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   
The reasons for having and the uses of the Uk armed forces are set out quite clearly by the MOD in the 1998 stategic defence review (as ammended after 9/11)

www.mod.uk...

(not sure if this version has the ammendment tho.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Heres a question for Devilwasp or any one for that matter , say we get the proposed number of both Type 45 destroyers and carriers , would you feel satisfied that the balnace between numbers and the ships actual improvement to the RN's war fighting capability was right , say in 15 years the numbers of surface combatants were 7 or 8 type 45s and 8 to 10 frigates plus 2 carriers, the HMS ocean and the Albion and Bulwark.which would be a reduction in presnet day actual hulls, but an increase in capability IMO.

Im not against cuts in actual numbers as long as the capa bility of the new equipment outways the loss, in the type 45 i think that is the case myself.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Lonestar24
With how many ships?

Well the largest 3 ships in the RN and RFA will be for ampib warfare or atleast are capable.



The UK is currently (at least later in the year it will be) of deploying 2 amphibious battle groups centred around a comando carrier (OCEAN and an invincible class -as shown in gulf war 2), alongside are the assault ships Albion and Bulwark followed by the 4 Bay class vessels (first two are on sea trials now, other two are catching up fast). Also included are the Wave Knight and Wave Ruler fast fleet support vessels with all the logistical supplies, the 6 new RoRo transport ships, new landing craft, assorted frigates and destroyers, subs, minesweepers, survey and hydrographic vessels etc etc etc.

oh and dont forget my personal favourite RFA Dillagence which is a floating repair base and very useful when things go wrong (as a number of US ships found out in GW1)

Anyone who says the UK cant do amphibious assault is kidding themselves.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by paperplane_uk]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 05:53 AM
link   
paperplane how much have you been drinking??




Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 3/24/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
paperplane how much have you been drinking??




too much coffee not enough alcohol.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 3/24/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   

posted by WestPoint23: Wow, nice little rant there don white except that it had - -almost- - nothing to do with the UK and the size of its military. Please people keep it on topic . . “ [Edited by Don W]


I did digress. If the “edit” feature still was available, I could reduce my post to half. My intention was to put the current UK (and any country) military needs in context. The US will not be able politically or financially to sustain the level of expenditure the Geo W War On Terror type of response to Nine Eleven Event requires.

We must be smarter than to let 1,000 - maybe 5,000 - men around the world whipsaw us into spending a couple hundred billion dollars (we have to borrow) every year chasing bogeymen. In an unpredictable confluence of personalities, we had Geo W, VP Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld - in the wrong place at the wrong time. That said, the United Kingdom must make its own decisions based on these circumstances. I can’t say this in 20 words or less, WP23.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   
The numbers are fine

The UK have all the technology it needs to defend itsself and to take any battle to anyone (bar head to head with Russia, China or the USA)
We can deploy all over the world. We hit hard for the small numbers and have all the means to get a job done.

The UK have quite a decent force for our country's size and the role we provide in supporting the International community.

We are not the world's police, we are a component ready to take action anywhere in the world with significant force.

If we ever need to move our troops due to priorities changing then that's what we'll do I'm sure. There is no need in having masses of troops sat about doing nothing all the time

Having a HUGE military force sitting around doing not a lot is why governments decide to have a pop at other countiries.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by snatchypaws

Having a HUGE military force sitting around doing not a lot is why governments decide to have a pop at other countiries.


good point, i can't remember a time when the british armed forces have struggled on manpower in recent years!!

. we have enough troops to defend our country from invasion,
. we have enough troops to send out overseas to defend our country (ie:- falklands),

but what we don't have is enough troops to invaded A NUMBER OF COUNTRYS, which the UK don't do anymore


but we still can kick some arse




[edit on 24-3-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o


we have enough troops to defend our country from invasion,
we have enough troops to send out overseas to defend our country (falklands, iraq, alfganistan),

but what we don't have is enough troops to invaded A NUMBER OF COUNTRYS, which the UK don't do anymore


We have far less troops now then when the Falklands was invaded alot less.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by buckaroo

We have far less troops now then when the Falklands was invaded alot less.


maybe so, but we make up for it in different areas!!

the government will never decrease a military to make it 'weaker'

how many troops were involved in the falklands (maybe 4000?) whats the manpower of the UK armed forces now? (i can't find anything on google).

but the RAF have 52,000+ men so i suspect the TOTAL NUMBER is over 100,000.


[edit on 24-3-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
maybe so, but we make up for it in different areas!!

the government will never decrease a military to make it 'weaker'

how many troops were involved in the falklands (maybe 4000?) whats the manpower of the UK armed forces now? (i can't find anything on google).

but the RAF have 52,000+ men so i suspect the TOTAL NUMBER is over 100,000.


[edit on 24-3-2006 by st3ve_o]

Look up MOD statistics or Defence statisitcs, btw we couldnt win another falklands style conflict unless we had american support.

A) The harriers have near to 0 A2A capability anymore.

B) We only have 2 working carriers (1 right now, the others in dock)

C) Our "air support" is restricted to A2G and limited A2A combat, whats the range of a stigner again?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
well if we can't win another falklands, why don't the argentines invade then?


afterall the falklands is of great importance to them (probably because of the oil surrounding it).

but what you said above is just a matter of 'opinion', but i believe what you listed below is still MORE than a country such as argentinas!!

the trouble is with us brits we are born MOANERS, we always want something to complain about!!

if we arn't equipt enough to beat a (3rd ish world) country such as argentinas then why do we have the 2nd highest defence budget in the world?

. why are we the worlds 2nd highest funders into 'military research and development?'

if the british armed forces are so 'poorly' equipt where does the money go?




[edit on 24-3-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
well if we can't win another falklands, why don't the argenties invade then?


afterall the falklands is of great importance to them (probbaly because of the oil surranding it)!!

but what you said above is just a matter of 'opinion', but i believe what you listed below is still more than a country such as argentinas.

the trouble is with us brits we are born moaners, we always want something to complain about!!

if we arn't equipt enough to beat a (3rd ish world) country such as argentinas why do we have the 2nd highest defence budget then?

. why are we the 2nd highest funders into 'military research and development?'

if the british armed forces are so 'poorly' equipt where does the money go?


I reckon what devilwasp means we coudn't win in the same manner , ie send in 25 + frigates and destroyers , and plainly we coud not but i dont doubt that we would still spank the Argentinians should they be foolish enough to re invade the falklands. with the SSN fleet etc .



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
Where can you see the British army being used next?


Try Afghanistan. They are already there. This i know for a fact.
Eddie....................



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
Where can you see the British army being used next?


Try Afghanistan. They are already there. This i know for a fact.
Eddie....................


Very true , current and proposed deployments listed on this source.www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by buckaroo

I reckon what devilwasp means we coudn't win in the same manner , ie send in 25 + frigates and destroyers , and plainly we coud not but i dont doubt that we would still spank the Argentinians should they be foolish enough to re invade the falklands. with the SSN fleet etc .


well at the moment the british armed forces is under re-construction.

12 type45's, 'the greatest warship in the world' (according to google research).

new carriers in develpment
new subs

f-35 (if that doesn't happen), dassault rafael

other nice projects in development (uav's, ucav's) etc.

in 5/10 years time (2010+) the british armed forces should have a good shape to it.

but as said, things take time.


[edit on 24-3-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o

12 type45's, 'the greatest warship in the world' (according to google research).



hmmm i doubt we will see 12 type 45 's I reckon 6 or 8

HMS Daring (D32) Already launched in service 2009
HMS Dauntless (D33) under construction launch 2007
HMS Diamond (D34) under construction launch 2008
then you've got HMS Defender (D35)
HMS Dragon (D36) and
HMS Duncan (D37) ill bet on a final order of 8 though.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
The British Army are also deployed in these countries. Admittedly some of these are not War zones like Iraq, but are still deployments non the less.

Guess this might answer the question earlier as to where the British forces would be going.


Deployments..............
Belize
Bosnia
Brunei
Canada
Cyprus
Falkland Islands
Germany
Gibraltar
Kenya
Kosovo
Middle East
Northern Ireland
Sierra Leone

Source





 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def