It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Britains Armed Forces too small?

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:24 AM
link   
BBC said something about less military spending stirs up some fighting in siera leon dunno. well America is making giant leaps with its array of new generation aircraft, The jsf is only purchased by the RN Raf will be receiving theEurofighter but no replacement has been found for the aging Panavia Tornado. The RN cant get its order of JSFs because they only have 1 carrier on duty and 2 are in overhaul. The Harrier does need replacing because it isn't a very good attack fighter for these days due to its sub sonic speeds. But in the Falklands it was pretty cool, Harriers VS. Super sonic Mirages lol Britain rox




posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 05:18 AM
link   
The CURRENT intention of the UK government is:

raf: will get both eurofighters to replace the F3's and some Jags AND F35's to replace the rest of the jags and the GR9's

No replacement for the GR4 has been decided yet.

The navy will be getting F35's to fly from their new carriers.

Whether or not all the F35's are controlled together in a similar way to JFH remains to be decided.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Lets all calm down.

The problem as I see it and I speak with some authority on the subject, is down to costs.

The RAF in my opinion, cannot afford both Typhoon and the JSF to replace, Jaguar, Tornado ADF and Harrier GR 9. The Royal Navy are awaiting JSF to replace the Sea Harriers.

They should adopt the Typhoon acreoss the board, write off the £2B spent on the JSF and cancel the order.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   
good idea, except for the fact that the typhoon can't do close support of troops from makeshift runways. The Uk armed forces still have a requirement for a STOVL type aircraft, hence the RAF buying the JSF.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gembelindo
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!


i don't agree with that link mate,

north/south korea/india/israel - have better 'combat power' than countrys like france/britain (france isn't even on the list & pakkistan/turkey is)


nah it doesn't work out!!

about your other point, yeah i heard this rumour also about how the uk are 'SUPPOSSLY' cutting down to a point were we can only fight alongside america!!

i think thats nonsence to be honest, the uk needs a great military to some degree - and one of our main rivals who we always like to keep 1 step ahead of is 'france' (historical pride).

i don't think that will change, especially the way the world is today
+ what happens if another falklands scenario happens again? - there's been heated debates in the past also with spain about 'gibraltar'.

if we dismattle our military to a degree where we can only fight alongside a nation, whats stopping countrys like argentina just grabbing the falklands (for example)? - the island seems to be of significant importence to both countrys (probably because of all the oil surrionding it)


also historical pride is a key factor (from empire days) and the british armed forces as always been something our country as been proud of.

so as you can see, the uk needs a strong military and i think its something we have/will continue to invest in.








[edit on 12-4-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   
No, No, No
While the british army may be smaller that the u.s.a's all there forces are profesionals ie. there not conscripts.

Further more the royal navy is building 2 super advances carriers for the new f-35 fleet they have ordered this promises to be the most advanced aircraft carriers in the world

The u.k has the quites submarine fleet, best special force (SAS), best para troopers, and definatly the best tank (challenger 2), not sure in the air the eurofigther and f-22 are to close to call.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by buckaroo
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


Not acording to the flight international mag but they might not be as in the know as other papers...
Last I heard we will only be getting stingers which IMO is a load of B********



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

Yeah I think that was more of necessity.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
The UK In the second Gulf war has Contributed very little to the Capture of Saddam Insane(hussein) te only major battle took place in Basra Where A handful of men and armor defined "concentration of Brittish Forces" Please Tell Me some stories where the british amred forces stationed in Iraq actually participated in amjor battle besides Basra (no Offense)

I have noticed that the U.S Humvees and British Land Rover Tum/tuls wern't adquate for combating enemies armed with Rocket Propelled Grenades and Improvised explosives.both vehicles are not armored enough to safely transport troops and provide a sustainable base of fire and supporing fire. Here is a good solution to the problems that troops face www.army-technology.com... It looks cool Bae Systems are good!



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   
i seem to remember the black watch moving up to just outside bagdad in order to cover the US back while they went into fallujah. To say that we havent done anything in iraq because we havent been in any major battles is missing the point. The UK was assigned the basra sector by the US planners and we have done everything they asked of us. IF the US planners had said the UK forces should have taken Bagdad do you think for a second the Uk would have said " sorry mate, too scary for us". Just because we havent been shooting up the place doesnt mean we wouldnt or couldnt if it were needed.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gembelindo
The UK In the second Gulf war has Contributed very little to the Capture of Saddam Insane(hussein) te only major battle took place in Basra Where A handful of men and armor defined "concentration of Brittish Forces" Please Tell Me some stories where the british amred forces stationed in Iraq actually participated in amjor battle besides Basra (no Offense)


Lol 3000 plus men is "small" ?
What do you call "large"? 16 armoured divisions?
Baghdad, scotlands finest went off to war (along with marines and varios other troops from diffrent regiments) alongside american soldiers.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
i think your confusing basra with the peacekeeping dutys (basra is also iraq's 2nd largest city btw)!!

british soilders was involved in the invasion just as much as the US troops, i know the invasion only lasted 6 weeks - but come on short memorys people!!


also i wish people would stop saying us/uk troops, remember australia sent in troops for the invasion also.

austillian men & women died/put their lifes at risk for the 'war on terrorism' *cough* i mean 'war for oil'







[edit on 13-4-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gembelindo
The UK In the second Gulf war has Contributed very little to the Capture of Saddam Insane(hussein) te only major battle took place in Basra Where A handful of men and armor defined "concentration of Brittish Forces"



Finally, today, after two weeks of limited attacks, British commanders concluded that the government's resistance was brittle and that it was time to begin a major attack.

The British attacked on several fronts. Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, Royal Fusiliers and the Black Watch pushed into the city. The British forces were supported by Marine Corps Cobra helicopter gunships. Three Commando, a unit of the Royal Marines that has been operating at Fao, pushed in from the south.

All told, some 10,000 British troops were involved in the attack. Britain's 16th Air Assault division, which has been protecting the Rumalia oil fields, have also extended their operation northwest toward Highway 6, a major route out of Basra. By evening, British officers expressed confidence that their attack would be successful. Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, the allied land war commander, visited the British headquarters here today to be briefed on the attacks.


From edition.cnn.com... About the Assult on Basra.


SCOTTISH troops fixed bayonets and fought hand to hand with a Shi’ite militia in southern Iraq in one of their fiercest clashes since the war was declared more than a year ago, it was reported last night.

Soldiers from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders mounted what were described as "classic infantry assaults" on firing and mortar positions held by more than 100 fighters loyal to the outlawed cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, according to military sources.

At least 20 men from al-Sadr’s army were believed killed in more than three hours of fighting - the highest toll reported in any single incident involving British forces in the past 12 months.
fromscotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...

About the first British bayonet charge since the falklands.

Also steve0 lets not forget the contributions by the poles and italians who have also taken casulties .



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Lol 3 comando brigade is "a" unit lol it is "the" unit lol, there are basically no other units except training and air assets lol.



posted on Apr, 17 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   
ok devilwasp you're right, i asked my friends nad they saw it on BBC. they task force was pretty huge but the biggest battles werent in basrah, they were in Fallujah (dukes of Fallujah) and Tikrit. Forget Operation Iraqi Oildom, we should concentrate on bigger threats to the Brittish Armed Forces which mainly is BRITAIN itself! The Labour Party Government doesnt direct alot of money to Military Spending an BTW The Former Soviet Satllites like Kashakstan or some other places with (stans) have the potentila to attack despite their inability to project force WELL.

Britain is living in prosperity but i don't think wealth is complete without safety. Billions of pounds and if noone gives the Military a qaurter, they will resort to the HOMEGUARD of WWII. At The moment Blair Wants and airforce but how
Right Now Britain seems to participate in many major conflicts and they must be able to step up and SHow em' whos boss or vice cairman sumthin lie that. P.S Britain can already show em' who's boss anyways but they must kick China's ass when things get hot between east and west.
Go Brits!



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
It's amazing that people can make comments about something they know very little about, not having served in or have any prospects of serving in the armed forces of their country.

Britain's armed forces are too small. This Labour government of ours have hacked the defence spending to the bone and yet, quadruple the operational tasking.

That this is being done by the faceless people in the Treasury or the MOD is, in itself, a travesty of justice. Those Very Senior Officers at the Ministry of Defence have forgotten what it was like to be a 'mud skipping, hole digging Troglodyte' or a 'donkey walloper'.

Safe in their plush offices with their £125,000 original oil paintings [to remind them what being in the armed forces is all about] they reduce famous old Battalians and Regiments at the stroke of a pen, amalgamate others and force redundancies on people who are currently undergoing their second or third operational tour in Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda, Bosnia or Kosovo.

Currently, the MOD is scrabbling around its real estate, looking for bases to sell off. Here in Gloucester, we have something called the Personnel Training Centre at Royal Air Force Innsworth. It was built some 12-15 years ago at an initial cost of some £87.5 [$120M]. Now it is to close and the civilian staff made redundent. Also, RAF Stafford [the RAF's logistics base] closed last month, together with several army logistics bases.

I understand the need to reduce the burden to the taxpayer, to cut costs and reduce the overall defence budget, but when we are fighting a war in two countries, acting as peacekeepers in five more, maintaining a prescence in Northern Ireland, we need more than 50 rounds of ammunition per man, boots that do not melt in the desert and equipment that is up to the job, and not some overpriced, fly-by-wire toy aircraft or a couple of dozen JSF aircraft that may [or may not] fly from two French built super-carriers [by UK standards, that is!]



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
the carriers WILL NOT be built by the french, by theirs, ours or anyone elses standards. The contract for the design was won by a team headed by Thales UK who sub-contracted the design to BMT defence services in Bath. The design is entrierly british!!!

Seperate to this the french paid to use the design as the baseline for their own next generation carrier. They are unlikely to end up with anything like our carriers (theirs will have cats, different radars and sensors, self defence missiles, different engines and equipment, different internal layout etc etc etc) what they have bought is a starting point that has knocked about 3-5 years off the design process and so far it has cost them £100 million



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
the carriers WILL NOT be built by the french, by theirs, ours or anyone elses standards. The contract for the design was won by a team headed by Thales UK who sub-contracted the design to BMT defence services in Bath. The design is entrierly british!!!

Seperate to this the french paid to use the design as the baseline for their own next generation carrier. They are unlikely to end up with anything like our carriers (theirs will have cats, different radars and sensors, self defence missiles, different engines and equipment, different internal layout etc etc etc) what they have bought is a starting point that has knocked about 3-5 years off the design process and so far it has cost them £100 million


Please be nice to me and read ALL my posts. In an earlier post I was asked why I said what I did. Similar to this post. The answere to your post is the answere to my previous post. I, at least, am not trying to score points like some posters on this topic. I am not suggesting for one moment that you are, but please do the decent thing and read the post from the beginning. Somewhere, you will see my source and like all good guys, I cannot ever really reveal all my sources. Incidentally, my source is not for civilian consumption, so I have taken a big risk.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Actually, the post I refer to is in another thread.

I will try to find it and repost it here for you.

Sorry about that.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   
was gonna say, i have reread the entrie thread and wasn't sure what you were going on about! I wasnt trying to have a go at you in any way. I was mearly pointing out that the carriers are not french (even if you did write it in a sarcastic manner). This has been banded about this forum again and again despite being completly false (mostly due to very poor newspaper reporting, by people with no idea about military history, equipment and organisation).



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   
I'm sorry my friend, but that just does not cut it. I cocked up and was referring to another thread.

In my defence, I am 54 years old, going bald, have a food and wine belly and my eyesight is failling.

My bald spot is my in-house solar panel and when I wrote the reply, it was overheating as I'm not used to too much sun here in Gloucestershire.

I have still not found the thread I replied to but am still looking.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join