Britains Armed Forces too small?

(back on track) Britain's Training Would be able to compensate but the continous Budget cuts and decommisionging or relieving of vessels,aircraft,soldiers and the cancelling of projects can lead to = the world's best trained men using sticks and stones to fight terrorism, man thats BS, i know that wouldn't ever happen unless some Hitler had controll of the Brittish arsenal and sent it through hell but no way! I used to be like "Britain is so strong and ooo they have this and that and america cant even kill a single brit and so anall Obssesd with britain. but i saw that my Hero-Nation was actually becoming some old and brittle island with 1 carrier on duty! how could that ever happen, all the hard work of the empire builders are wasted now you guys are on the island instead of educationg and colonizing third-world nations. P.S Thx for colonizing singapore and malaysia they are looking good cuz of you. P.S.S ( if the post was stupid then just say so cuz i'm supposed to sleep now cuz i got school tomorow P.S.S its late in indonesia

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.

What? Do you mean by one missile or one warhead? Either way that's impossible, you would need warheads of preposterous magnitude to be able to take out a country the size of Russia with one missile. The only weapons which can do that are theoretical and cannot be produced.
What I think you read is that perhaps they are tying to make a warhead capable of taking out all the electronics in a country like Russia via high altitude nuclear blast which produces EMP radiation.


[edit on 11-4-2006 by WestPoint23]

Hey Probably this is the new warhead, not sure though scold me if i'm wrong, i need to be disciplined www.timesonline.co.uk...

true something of that magnitude would be humoungous and impossble to lauch into the air or take out russia. America Rules Superpowa!

the vangard class were designed in the 1980's and went into service in the very early 90's, by 2020 they will be 30 years old and due for a replacement (R-class boats only lasted 30 years too) . Something like an SSBN cant be designed quickly so they are already starting the 'what do we want/ need' initaial design work for a replacement. These things take about 15 years to complete so work has to start about now.

yep thats the one gembelindo thanks

westpoint, you know you maybe right (i'll try to find the link) - i did some searching around on google when i read about it in these forums!!

and yes the link i found said (i quote) "it would be able to wipe out a country the size of russia in one".

. it would make other countrys feel unease

. and it may break the nuclear treaty, which this one dude said it wouldn't as this new weapon wouldn't have been tested therfore no law would have been broken (always ways in getting around things)

but all in all, this new weapon (if its the one i'm talking about) would have to be more superior to the trident, thats obvious or they wouldn't spend all that money on it!!

anyway nulcear weapons isn't my topic/nor something i know a lot about - so i can't really make a good debate on the subject.

but i will try to find the link









[edit on 11-4-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by st3ve_o
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)

I take it you're talking as a whole? Currently it's about 92'000 soldiers plus 30'000ish TA.

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

It was nearer 4000

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

Just a shame that we don't just defend the country, we have commitments elsewhere. That's what stretches our manpower.

(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!!

not so much reconstruction as slow destruction. We are loosing numbers of troops, and stretching our commitments to breaking point. We need to stop being Bushs' lap-dogs and going to war every time he wants to.

I take it you're talking as a whole? Currently it's about 92'000 soldiers plus 30'000ish TA.

nope its 180,000 + 35,000, (my original figures were correct)

It was nearer 4000

ok thanks - ive not looked into it, but i'll take your word for it

Just a shame that we don't just defend the country, we have commitments elsewhere. That's what stretches our manpower

i agree, and its something ive said futher back in this thread - (we do too much for the world)!!




[edit on 11-4-2006 by st3ve_o]

The one saving grace of the ongoing security of the United Kingdom is that the British people are far more predisposed to actually sign up and fight than many other of our 'allies'.

I mean no disrespect but a healthy patriotism and willingness to fight always has been, and will always continue to be instilled in the British. I think it probably stems from the fact that we are a small island nation and have encountered hostile forces from any and every angle since people have been living here.

I would be willing to bet a handsome wedge of cash that we would see unprecedented volunteering from the general public if our country ever got into any real trouble. Any indication of hostile action against our home turf would be quite different from a small group of arab sympathisers self-detonating on the tube and would garner serious support from the vast majority of the general public.

It's our only saving grace as I believe that our fighting forces are currently totally insufficient for maintaining the UK's interests at home & abroad.

Benjj

[edit on 11-4-2006 by benjj]

Originally posted by st3ve_o

I take it you're talking as a whole? Currently it's about 92'000 soldiers plus 30'000ish TA.

nope its 180,000 + 35,000, (my original figures were correct)

I was talking about SOLDIERS, not Airmen or sailors. Your figure includes RAF, RN & RM. Force estimates for the Army are currently 92'000 as of 2005 figures. The aim is to have100'000 troops at any one time, which leaves the Army at approx 8'000 troops under strenght.

Originally posted by st3ve_o
(training of our troops) - i agree, i believe pound for pound our troops are the best troops in the world

Still aint squat without ammo.

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

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

An army with ammunition?
A navy that can strike beyond 12 nautical miles?
An airforce that can defend us against enemys and not against allies?
BTW, it was about 30,000 men and women in the total task force. Now add Iraq or any other major op into the equation.

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

Uhh yeah 6 weeks training? Try 24. Still doesnt explain about he ammo.

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

Troops alone mean bugger all, the RN could lay off the coast and kill twice that number without recieving a scratch.

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

lol how about management?
They're spending money on an aircraft THAT DOESNT EXIST!

(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.

The type 42's are a decent ship and need replacing but frankly I doubt we will get 12.

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!!

Lol yeah 1 ship = 9?
Doubt it, the type 45 is an effective warship but frankly I wouldnt put it against 9 RN destroyers.

(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

Lol no the swiftsture are kept in faslane naval base on the west coast, these 4 are old boomers and the other 3 are hunters of some class I dont know.
Also have you looked at the MOD budget? You go look and do the math.
This "astute" will mean squat if we only have 4 of them.
[qipte]
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!!

The FASM is a fantasy at the moment, the first sea lords wet dream.....the Vanguard are nearing the end of thier service life and therefore being upgraded.

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

All fantasies , none of this will be ready for another DECADE....do you expect the world to wait on us?

(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!!

Yeah the list of those that can is steadily increasing. For example we no longer have any air protection for the RN except from stingers and destroyers.

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

Yeah they said that in the falklands but hey only a thousand men and women where either killed or wounded.

ohhh dude, to be honest i just get the impression you like moaning!!

you mentioned ammo 4/5 times, yes that was an issue in iraq (and it got bad press about it).

you mention the falklands (i like the way you put 1000) - 255 were killed in action - when you include 'injuried' do you mean like amputation/burns etc, or included in this 'ONE THOUSAND' is treatment for a little scratch on their finger?

i think you just put 1000 to add negativity as usual (i just get the vibe)

all in all, i feel i can sleep well in this country - you've listed the negatives (ive listed the positives), niceone - but you won't change the way i feel about the future of the british armed forces - something i'm concidering a career in.

but its just a case of which to join *scratches head* i could join the royal navy and serve on the ^greatest warship ever built^ the type45's

or i could join the raf and have a chance to fly in the ^current best fighter^ (typhoon), few more years the f-35.

either way i'll receive the BEST TRAINING in the world!!

woops, i'm not supposed to say that - THE BRITISH ARMED FORCES IS $HITE, someone invade us.








[edit on 11-4-2006 by st3ve_o]

In A way Devilwasp seems to be unpatriotic and makes negative remarks about his own nation. But for now i side with him because sometimes He's right. Well The ammo shortage your talking about is a serious thing, dont just take it as bad press. You heard the stories about ure mate' lives on the line and its like boys in boots without their toys. Rushing a war is suicidal and when the casualty count goes up or weapons run shot then the Public will be targetted and over taed (scary) Devilwasp is right the brittish armed forces don't get the stuff they wanted.

New Subject. Hey Steve-O you're lucky cuz you gonna be well trained and I'm stuck here in the world's largest archipelago with an armed force called ABRI and i ain't gonna be trained so well. if i join the ABRI i'll probably end up as a reserve and theyll arm me with a ss10 or a semi automatic version of the M16A1! you guys got it easy
P.S How come A brittish tank series dunno was replaced by challenger 1 before it had 1 year under its belt?

Originally posted by st3ve_o
you mention the falklands (i like the way you put 1000) - 255 were killed in action - when you include 'injuried' do you mean like amputation/burns etc, or included in this 'ONE THOUSAND' is treatment for a little scratch on their finger?

Dude 225 died because some idiots screwed up our naval forces.....my petty officer at the SCC was a rating on one of those vessels that sunk. Those others where injured, that DOES men anything from a scratch on the finger to having no legs and no arms because of shrapnel.

i think you just put 1000 to add negativity as usual (i just get the vibe)

I'm giving you a dose of reality....something the guys in white hall dont do often even though the boys in blue try to change.

all in all, i feel i can sleep well in this country - you've listed the negatives (ive listed the positives), niceone - but you won't change the way i feel about the future of the british armed forces

- something i'm concidering a career in.

Sleep well tonite....but think about what the party you elected into office did to the government...
Might shock you to know I'm planning on joining either the RN or the RNR depending on if I want to continue serving in the MN.

but its just a case of which to join *scratches head* i could join the royal navy and serve on the ^greatest warship ever built^ the type45's

Which wont be ready for 2 years.

or i could join the raf and have a chance to fly in the ^current best fighter^ (typhoon), few more years the f-35.

The RAF wont fly the F-35 because of 2 reasons: A) the RN is the only ones with them. B) the typhoon is a great fighter but I doubt you will fly in it....they wont order more than enough to defend britains coastlines, which wont be into the large doubles.

either way i'll receive the BEST TRAINING in the world!!

woops, i'm not supposed to say that

- THE BRITISH ARMED FORCES IS $HITE, someone invade us.

Mabye you mised my actual point there, the UK armed forces are the best trained and some of the best equipped in the world but that does not mean we are by any means "good". The SA-80A2 is still jamming in desert conditions which BTW it looks like we'll be stuck with for a few years, the JSF is still behind and I doubt it will come into service at all.

The type 45 is no where near completed or ready to recieve weapons (this BTW is word from the RFA captain in charge of the 4 new bay class assualt shisp which are quite impressive yet the last ones engines exploded on sea trials )

Take it what ever way you wantk I still hold the UK as the best military in the world yet it is being constantly screwed over by every government thats came into power.....from the lib dems in the 1930's to the torys in the 80s and to labour now adays.

Oh and my mistake, the RAF is not spending more money than the RN.....seems the RN IS recieving more money although its being shunted to the JSF project.

Originally posted by devilwasp
The RAF wont fly the F-35 because of 2 reasons: A) the RN is the only ones with them. B) the typhoon is a great fighter but I doubt you will fly in it....they wont order more than enough to defend britains coastlines, which wont be into the large doubles.

The RAF's Replacement for the harriers will also be JSF , or at least that is the plan.

Originally posted by buckaroo
The RAF's Replacement for the harriers will also be JSF , or at least that is the plan.

You mean the JHF for the carriers, yes and no the RAF will still fly them but really they are operating an RN deck.
Daft idea anyhow.

Originally posted by devilwasp
You mean the JHF for the carriers, yes and no the RAF will still fly them but really they are operating an RN deck.
Daft idea anyhow.

No not the JHF , I meant that the RAF will also be purchasing the JSF to replace its GR9 s , what you had said to the previous poster was and im paraphrasing you wont get to fly JSF in the RAF as only the RN are obtaining this type, And although I admit to being slightly out of touch and to be honest bored with the constant will they wont they of the JSF , it is my immpression that the RAF will indeed purchase the JSF aswell as the RN.

As to you bringing up the JHF I too think that is is a silly idea mate , all that capabilitiy in the FA 2 just being tossed away , to be replaced in the interim by a IR version of a old missile in the sea dart .

And I know that the JHF at High Wycombe is commanded by a RN Commodore but are all the pilots RAF ? anyone? so this might seem silly but what are the fleet air arm pilots going to be doing in the mean time? , some are surely going to be out of a plane for a while , so in 6 or 7 years when the new carriers and there shiny new airwings come on line will the FAA suffer a lack of experianced (jet) pilots , this question has been bugging me for a while and any input would be appriciated .

Lets hope that in the mean time the RN does not have another operation corporate on its hands.

Originally posted by buckaroo
No not the JHF , I meant that the RAF will also be purchasing the JSF to replace its GR9 s , what you had said to the previous poster was and im paraphrasing you wont get to fly JSF in the RAF as only the RN are obtaining this type, And although I admit to being slightly out of touch and to be honest bored with the constant will they wont they of the JSF , it is my immpression that the RAF will indeed purchase the JSF aswell as the RN.

The JHF is ALL of the UK's harriers btw....joint harrier force....

As to you bringing up the JHF I too think that is is a silly idea mate , all that capabilitiy in the FA 2 just being tossed away , to be replaced in the interim by a IR version of a old missile in the sea dart .

The GR-9 is supposed to have a good A2A package....IF THEY WOULD INSTALL IT...

About the rest mate, the JHF is basically commanded by either an RAF or RN officer, each sqdrn will do time on one of the two carriers then work land based ops out of RAF and RN bases. Bit strange having RAF officesr on RN ships but heh.

Originally posted by devilwasp


The GR-9 is supposed to have a good A2A package....IF THEY WOULD INSTALL IT...

Yes I believe that it will be getting ASRAAM ( may have already) But its will still lack the BVR charicteristics of the FA 2s , blue vixen Radar, still the MOD knows best eh

About the rest mate, the JHF is basically commanded by either an RAF or RN officer, each sqdrn will do time on one of the two carriers then work land based ops out of RAF and RN bases. Bit strange having RAF officesr on RN ships but heh.

Yeah quite strange but it did happen in the Falklands too remember although of course under slightly more pressing circumstances,

Thankyou for putting me on the right direction re operations of the JHF .

[edit on 11-4-2006 by buckaroo]

Hey I Turns out Britain's Armed Forces are growing to the point where they can only fight alongside the U.S Armed Forces. May not be much but try this link www.strategypage.com... Hey is it they Labour Party thats making all the budget cuts on military spending? Because it's pretty serious check this link out! Hey Plzz Correct me if i'm wrong ok. Damn It was The LAbour Party All Along, Those Fat Idiots Grrr. Poor soldiers losing their jobs and magnificent ships rusting cuz of them! Look at the RN's Carrier fleet, America Decomisioned some but they're buiding more and one's comin out soon. The Commanche Program Is almost done. Where's the new Euro fighters? Dam Budget cuts! If Britain doesnt spend more money on military toys it aint gonna have a military by 2050 But i think the old Union JAck will prevail darn Budget cuts!