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.

 

The Future of The British Armed Forces?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
TheSaint is it true you fought in the Falklands war?




posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
i have served in th falklands not in the actual conflict but sometime after

lovely place and nice scenery



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
craphat civvies call it 'Foutrytwo' commando.


Lol showing off your pongo training fritz?



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesaint
i have served in th falklands not in the actual conflict but sometime after

lovely place and nice scenery


Hey Saint, my mate Steve says the elephant seals are really nice and cuddly, if you can snuggle up to them



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I hear the Penguin poo is rather interesting too....



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I hear the Penguin poo is rather interesting too....

Stu is the MOD's resident expert on edible types of poo, incase you where all wondering on why he would know such high class information as penguin poo....



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Haha, you heard it here first. Stumason, ATS FSME on poo.

I hear it is bright red..If thats the case, I wonder, how does a penguin tell if it has heamorroids?

Anyway, sorry for going a bit off topic there... I shall desist...



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   


as many know, the 2003 white paper 'Delivering Security in a Changing World' outlines cuts in the british armed forces!


Yes. Blair is a backstabber.



2005 - GB has the 2nd highest defence budget in the world
2nd highest military expenditure in the world

Wrong. Link: www.cia.gov...

Will you continue to state your personal opinion, or will you find out the facts? If you do the former, don’t expect any intelligent person to participate in this discussion.



The new aircraft carriers

Which will be totally useless if they enter service (they would be inferior to the CV-60, never mind Nimitz-class ACs).



type 45s

There’ll be less destroyers in the future than there are now.



Typhoons

This fighter has already been developed, the only problem is that it is crappy. The MOD should’ve ordered F-35s instead.



Their have been alot of cutbacks in troop numbers

Vehicle numbers have been cut too. The MOD reduced the combined number of frigates and destroyers from 35 to 25. Your navy is now smaller than it was in 1999. BTW: the Blair government has not only denied your soldiers funding, but also the right to vote.



The British Army has invieled a new armour vechile. Which will suppossingly cut the number of British Soldiers killed by roadside bombs.

The only way to reduce the number of IED casualties is to invent a new tank version.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by Rightist]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rightist




The new aircraft carriers

Which will be totally useless if they enter service (they would be inferior to the CV-60, never mind Nimitz-class ACs).


Let's compare them:

Criterium... CVF... CV-60
Number of aircraft...45... 70-90
Speed (knots)... 25... 33 [4]
Range (nautical miles)... 10000 [3]... 12000 [2]
Crew including the airwing [1]... 3000 [3]... 4957 [2] or 5499 [3]

CV-60 is not a VTOL aircraft carrier, but it’s flight deck is long enough for the F-35 to take off. No skijump is needed to be installed on the ship.

The design plans could be obtained from the US for free, GB is America’s most important ally.

Sailing CV-60 would mean hiring more sailors, but that’s not an issue. Cut the expenditures on welfare.

Remember, people: the CV-60 is WAY FASTER, and this is important.

[1] In case of CVF, the combined crews of both CVF ships
[2] According to the “New Military Technology” magazine
[3] According to the GS consulting company's website (www.globalsecurity.org...)
[4] According to the USN's website

Links:
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.navy.mil...
www.globalsecurity.org...

[edit on 29-9-2006 by Rightist]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rightist

Yes. Blair is a backstabber.



no he's just a muppet



Wrong. Link: www.cia.gov...

Will you continue to state your personal opinion, or will you find out the facts? If you do the former, don’t expect any intelligent person to participate in this discussion.



i don't care about the cia, i have better links to backup my statements..

mod offical link:- www.mod.uk...

wikipedia:- en.wikipedia.org...

i can post more if you wish?



Which will be totally useless if they enter service (they would be inferior to the CV-60, never mind Nimitz-class ACs).


actaully they will be amougnst the worlds most advanced aircraft carriers, biggest carrier project produced. even the french frog eaters want a slice of it




There’ll be less destroyers in the future than there are now.


theres currently 9 type42's in service now, 8 type45's will be produced with each warship possessing more firepower than the WHOLE fleet of the type42's put together




This fighter has already been developed, the only problem is that it is crappy. The MOD should’ve ordered F-35s instead.


actaully apart from f-22, theres not many aircraft (if any) a better fighter than the eurofighter typhoon.

and we ARE ordering the f-35's.



Their have been alot of cutbacks in troop numbers


i agree with that, but we are making up for it in other areas 'technologically' i don't feel thats the problem though, 225,000 troops is more than enough troops for the british armed forces

even 200,000 (i think) AFTER reduction is more than enough manpower for defence and deployment to various countrys....britains problem is our troops get sent to EVERY country around the globe, we do too much for the world.

thats the problem that needs reviewing




Vehicle numbers have been cut too. The MOD reduced the combined number of frigates and destroyers from 35 to 25. Your navy is now smaller than it was in 1999. BTW: the Blair government has not only denied your soldiers funding, but also the right to vote.


more advanced warships (type45's/carriers)/subs (astute) and frigates (plans are taking place) are being designed or already in development, i actually find it funny how you think 'blairs' government as done all this though :/ infact if you look at the 'bigger' picture you'd realise it was the tory government that let our armed forces to rust, the labour government have started to re-build what john major and thatcher failed to do.




[edit on 29-9-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o

actaully they will be amougnst the worlds most advanced aircraft carriers, biggest carrier project produced - even the french frog eaters want a slice of it.

Had you read my posts you would find out that they will be inferior to the CV-60, never mind the Nimitz-class ships. They are not going to be among the world's best ACs, they'll be inferior to all the American ACs since CV-59 and the CDG.




theres currently 9 type42's, 8 type45's will be produced with each warship possessing more firepower than the WHOLE fleet of the type42's.

There are 8 Type 42 destroyers, not 9. Link: www.royal-navy.mod.uk...



actaully apart from f-22, theres not many aircraft (if any) a better fighter than the eurofighter typhoon.

There are 3: F-15, F-16 and F-35. Let's compare the F-35 with the EF-2000.

Criterium... F-35... EF-2000
Stealth?...Yes...No
Runway requirement (metres)... 167.64... 700
"G Limit"...9...9

Links: www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...



and we ARE ordering the f-35's.

But only 90. And they aren't going to be the RAF's sole fighters.




even 200,000 (i think) AFTER reduction is more than enough manpower for defence and deployment to various countrys...

For defence against Zimbabwe, yes. For defence against any enemy and overseas deployments, no. Fact: Argentina, Denmark, Mauritius and Seychelles all are GB's enemies.



Vehicle numbers have been cut too. The MOD reduced the combined number of frigates and destroyers from 35 to 25. Your navy is now smaller than it was in 1999. BTW: the Blair government has not only denied your soldiers funding, but also the right to vote.




more advanced warships are being designed

Like the CVF ships, which are INFERIOR (as I have already proven) even to CV-60?

[edit on 29-9-2006 by Rightist]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rightist

Had you read my posts you would find out that they will be inferior to the CV-60, never mind the Nimitz-class ships. They are not going to be among the world's best ACs, they'll be inferior to all the American ACs since CV-59 and the CDG.


is that 'YOUR' own opinion or 'FACT', if its 'fact' post links man





There are 8 Type 42 destroyers, not 9. Link: www.royal-navy.mod.uk...


thanks made my point look 'better' and you look 'thicker'

your orginal post, "There’ll be less destroyers in the future than there are now"

but as you can now see ^an improvement^




There are 3: F-15, F-16 and F-35.


yeah alright man




But only 90. And they aren't going to be the RAF's sole fighters.


90? make that 150.

and they are there to replace the harriers, they are not designed for the RAF (even though they will use them) but we are mainly buying them for the naval side of things operating on the new carriers.




For defence against Zimbabwe, yes. For defence aginast any enemy and overseas deployments, no. Fact: Argentina, Denmark, Mauritius and Seychelles all are GB's enemies.


peacekeeping around the world, when you hear about 'peacekeepers' british soilders are the first to the scene...its about time other nations got their hands dirty a bit more, not just british and american troops all the time.




Like the CVF ships, which are INFERIOR (as I have already proven) even to CV-60?



in what way have you PROVEN that?, you have gave nothing to back-up your statements
all you have given is your 'opinion' (which your entitled to)


[edit on 29-9-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
ps:- your not zibi again are you?

i can see in the other thread how you was talking about poland and theres only one person on ATS ive EVER heard talk about 'poland' and thats zibi






[edit on 29-9-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o

is that 'YOUR' own opinion or 'FACT', if its 'fact' post links man

3 links not enough?



your orginal post: "There’ll be less destroyers in the future than there are now"

Yes. Nowadays there are 8. In the future there'll be 6. Link: www.royal-navy.mod.uk...




There are 3: F-15, F-16 and F-35.

yeah alright man


Care to read my posts?



and they are there to replace the harriers

And the Tornados.


they are not designed for the RAF (even though they will use them)

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a stupid sentence! "They are not designed for the RAF, but it will use them anyway!" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Fact: the RAF has ordered more F-35s than the RN.



peacekeeping around the world, when you hear about 'peacekeepers' british soilders are the first to the scene...

This is irrelevant to the fact that the BM is too weak.

in what way have you PROVEN that?

I have proven that. I'll quote myself:



Let's compare them:

Criterium... CVF... CV-60
Number of aircraft...45... 70-90
Speed (knots)... 25... 33 [4]
Range (nautical miles)... 10000 [3]... 12000 [2]
Crew including the airwing [1]... 3000 [3]... 4957 [2] or 5499 [3]

CV-60 is not a VTOL aircraft carrier, but it’s flight deck is long enough for the F-35 to take off. No skijump is needed to be installed on the ship.

The design plans could be obtained from the US for free, GB is America’s most important ally.

Sailing CV-60 would mean hiring more sailors, but that’s not an issue. Cut the expenditures on welfare.

Remember, people: the CV-60 is WAY FASTER, and this is important.

[1] In case of CVF, the combined crews of both CVF ships
[2] According to the “New Military Technology” magazine
[3] According to the GS consulting company's website (www.globalsecurity.org...)
[4] According to the USN's website

Links:
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.navy.mil...
www.globalsecurity.org...


[edit on 29-9-2006 by Rightist]

[edit on 29-9-2006 by Rightist]

[edit on 29-9-2006 by Rightist]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
What a pity st3ve_o, because I do so agree with much of what you've said.

But technology, please don't make me
!

The technology we Brits have waited for, is just about out of date.

Aircraft:

Have you already forgotten the BAe Nimrod fiasco? Millions of pounds invested, Design and development overran costing by several hundred million, Delivery/In- Service date postponed for years and when it finally flew, the sidewards looking radar did not do what it said on the tin!

Eurofighter 'Typhoon'. Several million if not billion over budget, not yet fully in service across the board, [yes I know a few are operational.

Radios:

Personal Role Radios - introduced for each soldier on the battlefield, keeps breaking down, does not have sufficient range and the PRC 349's interrupt PRR transmitions. It does not work well in FIWA operations but there again, neither do the 349s, especially if one operates in steep sided vallies.

Vehicles:

Having spent millions on a fleet of 4 and 8 tonne Bedford trucks, the then government allowed GM to take over the Bedford production plant and production ceases. Fast forward a few years, and we see there are hundreds or thousands of these vehicles sitting in TNPs. When these break down or require parts, there are simply none to be had.

The TA green fleet of Bedfords and Lannies consist of many vehicles that are at least ten to fifteen years old, and many are left hookers because there are not too many right hand drive vehs left to cannabilise for spares. Where CRB is in play, these vehs can sit for up to six months waiting for spares that, in the end, have to be bought on the civvy market, which usually means importing them.

Weapons:

The much maligned SA80 has had it's problems not least, the £96 Million required to rectify original faults before the purchase of the SA80A2 which in turn also has a few problems that thankfully have cost little to rectify.

We are an island nation and as such, we should have a decent blue water navy. The new Type 45 [?] Frigates should go some way to aleviate the problems the RN has, but we do need more surface vessels.

What we don't need to do, is waste several billion pounds on updating the Trident fleet. As somebody posted on the Trident thread, and as I said in my Rant thread, we need a fleet of fast, quiet attack subs that can launch either nuclear equipped cruise missiles or conventional anti-ship and land target missiles.

Sorry I am bored now and I forgot what I was rabbitting about.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   


ps: your not zibi again are you?

i can see in the other thread how you was talking about poland and theres only one person on ATS ive EVER heard talk about 'poland' and thats zibi

I don't know who that is, and I don't care. Have you found out the facts about the BM or will you continue stating your opinion? The reason for why I posted a message about Poland was that someone calling himself Jimmy wrote a cretinious post saying how powerful Poland supposedly is. I am not uncritical towards that country.



if its 'fact' post links man

Links? OK. Example link:www.abovetopsecret.com...




What we don't need to do, is waste several billion pounds on updating the SSBN fleet.

Age is irrelevant to a military vehicle's performance, and BTW the SSBN fleet is supposed to perform strategic attacks, not tactical ones.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by Rightist]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Whats going on here..

My Zibi alarm went haywire for a minute.... now it's gone quiet.


Do you think he has stealth?



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
WHY HAS THIS THREAD TURNED IN TO A SLANGING MATCH?

THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A SERIOUS THREAD BUT, YET AGAIN, IT APPEARS TO BE DEGENERATING INTO ANOTHER PERSONAL ATTACK THREAD.

SURELY THAT SHOULD BE DONE [WITHIN REASON] ON THE RANT PAGES?

mod edit: All caps on the internet means your shouting, please don't shout


ABOUT ATS: General ATS discussion etiquette (review link)
4) Most of all, do not use ALL CAPS in posts and thread titles.


[edit on 29-9-2006 by UK Wizard]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
zibi, i'm not going to respond to the whole of your post as it will be a waste of time as we are just going over the same things again&again


(summary) - i don't care HOW GOOD the new carriers are compared to joe blogg's carriers, end of the day within the next 10 years britain is going to have 2 large WORLD CLASS aircraft carriers and along with the type45's it will give a HUGE facelift to our navy.

. you say 6 type45's, 6 are already confrimed yes - but another 2 will be ordered (giving the total to 8 destroyers), the original plan was 12 though.

. about the f-35, you say its going to replace the tornado aswell as the harrier (is that tornadogr4)?

without looking into it, i think this is wrong because the last i heard the mod wanted to keep the gr4's in service while 2018/2020...as far as i'm aware they are replacing the harrier (navy) and jaguar (raf)


[edit on 29-9-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Questions for the Brit experts.

Will the CVF be built?
Will enough Type 45s be built?

I don't know whats going on across the pond, but upon learning the MOD is only spending 2% of their GDP on defense, for a country involved in 2 wars it just looks like you guys are about to take a pounding on your armed forces unless something changes.

I don't see how either of the two projects listed above will be built without increasing defense spending, something that doesn't seem very likely.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join