Britains Armed Forces too small?

Wrong, there are many countries with the capability to take us down or atleast give us a bloody nose...given a few years.

Not really, no UK ally is going to do it, that eliminates the US and Europe, which leaves us only with China and Russia. China simply cannot at the current time project the kind of force needed to take on the UK, so it too is eliminated. This leaves us with Russia, although it still is a powerful regional military its force projection, numbers, and transport capability have greatly diminished over the years. So as you can see barring any nuclear exchange or mass coalition no single potential enemy has a good chance when it comes to fighting directly with the UK.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Not really, no UK ally is going to do it, that eliminates the US and Europe, which leaves us only with China and Russia.

Ally's are not constant, give a few years as I said and they could quickly turn into enemies.
The boss said it best:

Politics determine who you face on the battlefield. And politics are a living thing. They change along with the times. Yesterday's good might be tomorrow's evil.

"People's values change over time. And so do the leaders of a country. So there's no such thing as an enemy in absolute terms. The enemies we fight are only in relative terms, constantly changing with the times."

China simply cannot at the current time project the kind of force needed to take on the UK, so it too is eliminated.

See above, you and I know how thier projects can be "speeded" along with help from the west.

This leaves us with Russia, although it still is a powerful regional military its force projection, numbers, and transport capability have greatly diminished over the years.

Yeah and thier economy is growning but not near a threat but its still a far off threat..

So as you can see barring any nuclear exchange or mass coalition no single potential enemy has a good chance when it comes to fighting directly with the UK.

Yeah attacking UK coastline, forign places like accesion island, falklands and gib are all lonely out there without a navy.
The way this government is going we wont have a "navy" so much as a bunch of gunboats.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

I think we need more troops & equipment deffinatly the ammount we have sationed in Iraq is pitifully esspecilly for the F.I.B.U.A warfare that they are in the only way to maintian order is to have alot of troops on the ground & 4000 in a city like basra were every citizen has an AK47 is abit weak even if our lads are trained as good as they are. The constant cuts are taking effect as well my mates in the paras tell pretty bad storys. Aparently them guys who were killed at the start of the war in the police station because they ran out of ammo? well My mate say he was in a unit not a half a mile away from them but when the call for EVAQ came over the radio they couldnt go into get them out because there vehicals they had been using (the warriors) had been taken away for sombody else to use that day & all they had left was a couple of land rovers that wernt armoured enough to get to the site so they had to leave them.

Same guy also said that when they first arrived there wernt enough food rations for our Units so most of them had to go to the americans and buy food from them at the yanks portable burger kings and pizza places which he also claims they have (which made me laugh just the idea of america armed forces needing there own burger king)

i dont have any evidence to back this up just what my mate claims his a fairly decent guy not prone to BS so i belive him.

But i couldnt even imagin any MP now days having the stones to confront anyone over our last remaing colonies. We seem determined to give gibralta back to Spain even though the majority of people there dont wont Spanish rule.

I think if our armed forces is to be employed anyware in the world at the moment it should be Zimbarbwa. How can we not take notice of what has happened there its pretty outragous on the same level if not more shocking atrocitys than anything the Taliban or Saddam ever done.....I bet if there was a sudden discovery of oil supplys in the place we would soon here how the government would soon be going to liberate the people from Mungabi.

Your mate in the Paras was right.

Because the allies had won the war, their prescence is now regarded as little more than a policing duty. As such, the standard load out for non-infantry units is 50 rounds per person.

From what a close friend told me, the police had about 500 rounds between them - woefully inadequate, if you ask me.

He also confirmed that there were other Brit forces nearby, but your mate's Paras were nearer.

Not slighting the Paras in any way, shape or form, but rumours abound that they were out in Company force - more than enough to take on the rabble that was laying siege to the police station. So why didn't they?

Of course it's not as simple as that, and some craphat civvies - back safe and sound at home, have tried to say that it is. As I recall, the Paras were on ops at the time and had their own problems, least of which was the Warriors going AWOL when they needed them. The unarmoured Lannies are not up to the task, even the ex-NI ones with Kevlar etc.

If that were not bad enough, another mate of mine (RAF SpecOps) has said they are in a terrible state because their kit keeps breaking down and malfunctioning, especially the much vaunted Ptarmigan/Bowman/Advanced Clansman radio systems and their sidekicks who use the L85A2 are pulling their hair out because they're still unreliable.

It says a lot for this government that when they need the forces the most, they continue to kick them in the teeth.

You only have to read the coroner's report in to the farce at Deepcut. How can a young fit guy on stag, shoot himself in the head twice with an automatic weapon? How can another guy shoot himself in the chest 5 times?

I still believe the war was illegal for we Brits to be involved in. If we must go to war, then by God the MOD has to give its forces the best weapons and equipment money can buy, and not penny pinch and endanger men's lives.

Tony Blair, John Prescott, Geoff Hoon and Ian Reid should be standing in a dock in a court, to answer charges of manslaughter at the very least.

I know the medical guy who was on the rescue aircraft that was sent in to pick the redcaps up. The reason that they didn't get there was because some pr!ck with a machine gun opened up on the Chinook as they approached the area, causing 6 casualties in the aircraft, 4 of whome were in P1 (critical) condition (2x head + 2x chest hits) This would have made the rescue unworkable as there were already too many casualties on the aircraft who needed urgent treatment. The medic had to make the call to call back the rescue, a decision that he still kicks himself over.

The rounds that the the redcaps SHOULD have been carrying were taken from them and re-distributed among other troops who were seen to be more in need of them. My point is, what condition is our army in when they have to divvy up a soldiers BASIC ammunition load in a war zone to give to someone who might need it more?

Paddy you know, just as I do, that 50 rounds each is not the standard load out for patrolling - by any stretch of the imagination!

I still teach SAA and, unless they've re-written the pamphlet in the last 7 days, normal loadout is 180 rounds 5.56 in 6 x 30 mags, 100 rounds 7.62 x 1 belt linked or 200 x 5.56mm linked for Minigun. Plus a few tracer for spotting plus a couple of A-Pers HE, Smoke or Phos grenades - depending on role.

Those poor Red Caps were, without denegrating their role in Iraq, rear echelon security and as such, they should never have been put in harms way. In fact, in my opinion, they should have had a platoon of infantry to back them up.

It strikes me that once again, the powers that be have got away scott free thanks to the inquiry, whilst the families are left to mourn.

It is disgusting to their memories that once their sad story is off the front page, TV and radio will lose interest and it will soon go away.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by fritz]

TextText Black As we all know or may have seen on our televisions, "tellies" for you limeys like devilwasp. America and Britain has formed the so called "TextUnstoppable Force"Text and is now busying themselves with the initial rebuilding of a Text Formerly OppressedText Iraq. But are Britain's amrmed forces growing to the point where they can only fight alongside the world's eternal superpower?

In a ways, yes. The Brittish RN has currently 3 aircraft carriers in service and some submarines comparable that of the U.S Subs and can still pack a punch or walop. it has shown many innovations to its Little Brother, America like, the ski jump on all brittish carriers and a countermeasure for antiship missiles. Yes only 3 aircraft carriers, they seem to appear smaller than the task force sent to liberate the Falkland islands from Argentine hostility. despite the huge differences, the RN downed Argentine Mirages without any loss and destroyed the Famous Argentininian Battleship. This is Because of the training, the RN in a way is better trained than the USN which is 10 times its size and it should be able to compensate for the small numbers, China has 2 million soldiers running the world's most crappiest equipment and are , infact the most-poorly trained dudes on earth. so traning surely would help out here.

in modern warfare, numbers mean nothing when technology puts on the pressure, i remember myself looking through and reading all 72 pages in the USA V.S China Thread and devil wasp seems to fail at understanding that numbers mean nothing. all the brits have to do is to start directing money into the military and start showing Commies and other fools whos boss, Along side America! plzz do not criticize my post only what my words meant to you ok, i'm a noob!

Originally posted by Gembelindo
In a ways, yes. The Brittish RN has currently 3 aircraft carriers in service

We have 1, the other is in for refit and oldest is in mothball the next 2 arent going to be ready for a decade atleast...

and some submarines comparable that of the U.S Subs and can still pack a punch or walop.

All of our "mighty" submainres , though getting on in age, are very easily on parr with US and I would wager any subout there.....except the sea wolf but that doesnt count...

the RN downed Argentine Mirages without any loss and destroyed the Famous Argentininian Battleship.

We lost over 200 men and several ships not mentioning aircraft..
We sunk her with a ww2 torpedo with a sub..

devil wasp seems to fail at understanding that numbers mean nothing.

Tell that the last remaining men of the BEF who fought the entire german army with bolt action rifles and hand grenades...we "won" but we still lost the ground we took.

all the brits have to do is to start directing money into the military

Tell that to the labour gov and thank them for near enough wrecking the RN fleet, THANK YOU WESTMINSTER!

Devilwasp, Since you are a limey/brit then would you supposedly make a list of 10 of the most powerful navies and airforces. Yo I got a buddy in the US Navy on USS KittyHawk and he's a Filipino-American and he said that the the US has 10 times more Naval Vessels that Britain and that the Formerly Glorious Russian Navy is rusting in some ruskie port . The Ship Never had an accident since its moored in japan some jap name dunno. but he's seen like small carriers with few JSFs and mostly harriers and Tarawa class ones with only Helos also the Nimitz he's serving on even L.A Class Subs . Probably the info above was mostly useless to you guys then tell me about friends you got in the RN. P.S the differences between a chinese sailor and a brit is 1. the brits are more muscular 2. the brits are better trained 3. the brits can say "sally sells seashells by the seashore 4. the brits are better looking 5.the brits can par with the U.S finally 6. Chinese navy cant invade Takwan, they have to swim there lol! (no offense , iv'e seen them!)

Originally posted by Gembelindo
Yo I got a buddy in the US Navy on USS KittyHawk and he's a Filipino-American and he said that the the US has 10 times more Naval Vessels that Britain and that the Formerly Glorious Russian Navy is rusting in some ruskie port .

Yeah you do have more than 10, hell your sub fleet is probably the same size as our entire fleet.

Probably the info above was mostly useless to you guys then tell me about friends you got in the RN.

I have 1 rating friend serving on a frigate , one midshipmen serving on HMS Ocean and 3 royal marine comandos.
All agree that the RN is too small and underfunded.

P.S the differences between a chinese sailor and a brit is 1. the brits are more muscular 2. the brits are better trained 3. the brits can say "sally sells seashells by the seashore 4. the brits are better looking 5.the brits can par with the U.S finally 6. Chinese navy cant invade Takwan, they have to swim there lol! (no offense , iv'e seen them!)

Yeah but the thing is the chinese navy is getting better and getting new ships, we arnt.

christ devilwasp, you like pulling your own country down!!

ive never seen you say ONE good thing about our military yet, you'd be no good in a poker game thats for sure

in another thread i posted some projects that we had in development, and you already replyed before i even had chance to look at them myself, it was like:-

"rawrrrrrr HOW DARE YOU POST THOSE PICTURES, THEY MAKE US LOOK SLIGHTLY GOOD!!"










[edit on 11-4-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yeah but the thing is the chinese navy is getting better and getting new ships, we arnt.

erm type45's? - the supposely 'greatest warship ever built' - (6 already ordered) with a potential 6 more.

those new carriers (2012), jsf (if the order goes through) 2012.

even though you posted a link saying it would be 2014, i can find many links which will say the project will be ready 2012.

erm new subs too - who apart from america as flight tested better ucav designs than us (with more supposly in development).

look mate, we have the 2nd highest defence budget (behind america), we are the 2nd highest funders into militry research and development, the future looks good for our military.

most aspect of our militry is 2nd/2nd/2nd (and thats not bad to say all the money the US spends on its defence), do you expect our puny island to spend the same amount as the US? - well tough we can't, we aren't simply an empire anymore and we can't afford to compete with americas superior defence budget.

so for the time being we have to play simon says and 2nd fiddle.

Originally posted by st3ve_o
christ devilwasp, you like pulling your own country down!!

ive never seen you say ONE good thing about our military yet, you'd be no good in a poker game thats for sure

Dude I used to be all "The UK could own the US's ass on every front , hell man the US would never even reach the main land." but I've seen our fleet being slowly ripped apart...I live along the road from rostyh naval base. There an aircraft carrier and 7 nuclear submarines lie rotting because we cant afford to dispose of them.

in another thread i posted some projects that we had in development, and you already replyed before i even had chance to look at them myself,

Lol why post the pics then lol, dude if you want real achievements look up the vulcan bomber and ask me why we canceled it.

You want me to say something nice about the british armed forces?

The men are the best trained in the world, they make use of every ally in training and warfare. British armed forces are the most deadly and tenacios force on the earth, hence why the americans asked for our best infantry unit to go to baghdad. We were the best ASW in NATO, hell we WERE the ASW for nato....there was not one sub that could get out of the north sea or the atlantic ocean without us knowing and or having a sub following it.


We operate the most advanced and deadliest aircraft in the world: The typhoon, the swiftsure, the type 23 frigate, the super lynx (fastest helicopter in the world 2 decades running) and we have the most accurate assualt rifle on the planet with out a doubt. You name a target and our boys most likely can hit it but not without serious problems and restraints.

Originally posted by st3ve_o
erm type45's? - the supposely 'greatest warship ever built' - (6 already ordered) with a potential 6 more.

The first one wont be finished for another year.

those new carriers (2012), jsf (if the order goes through) 2012.

Those 2 carriers wont mean sod all if ones in reft and the others defending the UK.

even though you posted a link saying it would be 2014, i can find many links which will say the project will be ready 2012.

That was the original plan to be set in 2012 but the JSF is over budget, overdue and basically burning cash.
[qoute]
erm new subs too - who apart from america as flight tested better ucav designs than us (with more supposly in development).

Germany, france, I beleive most of the world have UCAV's and UAV's.
We're only ordering 4 more subs.!!! Wooohhooo deadly!

look mate, we have the 2nd highest defence budget (behind america), we are the 2nd highest funders into militry research and development, the future looks good for our military.

Yeah and where does most of that money go? Not to weapons, not to ships, not to the army and not equipement.
It goes to the RAF, the RAF spent more money on planes than the entire RN budget. The RAF spent more money on planes than we did on ammunition yet I see no RAF typhoons being rolled off the production lines, we only have 2 sqrdns of them. AND ONES A TEST SQDRN!

most aspect of our militry is 2nd/2nd/2nd (and thats not bad to say all the money the US spends on its defence), do you expect our puny island to spend the same amount as the US? - well tough we can't, we aren't simply an empire anymore and we can't afford to compete with americas superior defence budget.

I dont expect us to spend money the same as the US but frankly our military equipement is crap, FRANCE has a better chance at winning a war than us. Hell check out what aircraft they are flying and what weapons they use and you'll find them signifigantly better equiped than our boys in uniform.

The men cant win the war without the gear....
[qoute]
so for the time being we have to play simon says and 2nd fiddle.
Simon says that tony wants an airforce not an armed forces.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by Gembelindo
Devilwasp, Since you are a limey/brit then would you supposedly make a list of 10 of the most powerful navies and airforces. Yo I got a buddy in the US Navy on USS KittyHawk and he's a Filipino-American and he said that the the US has 10 times more Naval Vessels that Britain and that the Formerly Glorious Russian Navy is rusting in some ruskie port . The Ship Never had an accident since its moored in japan some jap name dunno. but he's seen like small carriers with few JSFs and mostly harriers and Tarawa class ones with only Helos also the Nimitz he's serving on even L.A Class Subs . Probably the info above was mostly useless to you guys then tell me about friends you got in the RN. P.S the differences between a chinese sailor and a brit is 1. the brits are more muscular 2. the brits are better trained 3. the brits can say "sally sells seashells by the seashore 4. the brits are better looking 5.the brits can par with the U.S finally 6. Chinese navy cant invade Takwan, they have to swim there lol! (no offense , iv'e seen them!)

All too true. According to the Guinness Book Of World Records, the largest air forces in the world, in descending order are:

No 1 - The United States Air Force
No 2 - The United States Navy Air Force
No 3 - The United States Army Air Force and
No 4 - The United States Marine Air Force.

So much power. But with power comes great responsibility - least that power corrupts.

Unfortunately, wielding great power has corrupted the greatest power in the world today. Instead of acting as the world's policeman [or woman] the nation state acts like the world's biggest crook.

I'm Pretty Confident that The Brit Government is making budget cuts on a daily basis therefore leaving they boys in boots without toys to play with or take out an enemy. I seem to feel that Both America and Britan have leaders that in a way weaken their military strnghth. For example Bill Clinton closed down all those bases and disarmed all those nukes , man i would cry if i saw that happen like the soldiers losing their jobs, they cant provide for their families and Clinton even gave supercomputers to china! i dont know who the defector is in the british case but i hate to see an Empire that Ruled Asia and Africa become a small bunch of people with ambitions yet they are trapped on their island. Tell me, how many Brittish soldiers are on defense duties, if it looks bad then tell me the perpetrator in the U.S case it was clinton closing down bases and relieving troops. Who made the RN weaker? Who ade the troops lesser? Hail Britain! Hail America!

P.S i Live In indonesia and its a third-world nation that has no navy only like 50s cruisers and 2 2nd hand korean subs
we even replaced the Scorpion Tank with a German fuchs apc, we have only 3 70s f16s and we are under embargo by the US, I'm lucky!:

[edit on 11-4-2006 by Gembelindo]

[edit on 11-4-2006 by Gembelindo]

[edit on 11-4-2006 by Gembelindo]

ok lets go into details.

(training of our troops) - i agree, i believe pound for pound our troops are the best troops in the world

(manpower) - 180,000 (including 35,000 TA's) - i don't think thsoe figures include our elite forces too (SAS - SBS)

what more does our country need? - i think the amount of troops involved in the falklands was something like 8,000.

so there are no shortages in the british armed forces, if WW3 scenario ever started and we started losing men, then we (public) would haveto be called up like the last world war, i'm a young lad (24) give me 6 weeks training and i'll be like rambo

but all seriousness though if that scenario ever happened, we have reserves who are on stand-by (ex militry, people who have completed training etc).

but 215,000 troops is more than enough to defend the UK.

(raf) - i think we are both in agreement nothing needs inproving, (typhoon, tornado-gr4 etc) with other projects in the making, (f-35, ucavs).

(royal navy) - i would agree with you the type42's do need replacing (which they are) but the type-42's even now compared the other countrys are still a decent vessel.

but once the type45's (potential of 12) are in service (+ the carriers), our navy should have a good shape to it - apprently just one type45 has more firepower than the whole fleet of the type42's put together!!

(submarines) - i suspect the rusting sub your taking about is the 'switsure class' which i admit do need replacing, which they are (with the astute class) - which is a world class submarine costing (£3.8bn - $7.5bn), which BAE say is "more complex than a space shuttle" - so don't say we don't spend on anything except on our airforce

the 'vanguard class' submarines certainly don't need replacing (in my opinion), but theres already talk of replacing these also with the 'future attack submarine - FASM' as i'm sure you might have heard!!

there are other designs the mod is looking at too (for example):- www.royalnavy.mod.uk...

(summary) - ive often said the uk armed forces is under re-construction, but even so theres not many countrys that could sort us out, in 10 years (tops) the uk armed forces will have a real good shape to it!!

but who the hell is going to start a war with us anyway? - we have nuclear weapons












[edit on 11-4-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by st3ve_o

but who the hell is going to start a war with us anyway? - we have nuclear weapons

First Of all due to the disarmnaments during the post cold war days, i think britain has , at the moment very few warheads, but i dont suppose Blair or some finance minister would make nukes with the budget cuts going on as my friend John Of the UK said (he's in my school) besides nukes dont work these days, everyone has em and no one has the balls to use em come on!

during the cold war days, britains nuclear arsenal i think was 600/700

but yeah in 1998 we went from 400 to 200/300 warheads (present day).

still thats enough to cause nulcear winter, which anyone of the Big5 can do (us, uk, russia, china, france)!!

======
other nations who claim to have them:-

pakkistan - around 10
india - around 20
israel 20-50 (tops)
======

but yes your right since WW2 noone has had the balls to use them again (thank god), the atom is much more powerful now than that of 1945, but thats what keeps peace!!

but nuclear weapons will be used again at some point (i have no doubts about that) and i think the only country stupid enough to use them again is america, but thats a whole different subject.

EDIT: - whats that new nuclear weapon british scientists are working on now to replace the trident? (i read something about it a few weeks ago) it can take a country the size of russia out in ONE, scary shiit
















[edit on 11-4-2006 by st3ve_o]

U' re Calling America Stupid! (sorry to be Uptight and sensitive) man America has 18,000 nukes thta Clinto hasnt disarmed and what can u do with 18,000 nukes to what? Asia! hahaha yeah Right America Uses Their Nukes only for Deterance or Defense! Again Different subject!


[edit on 11-4-2006 by Gembelindo]