It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Budget Cuts for MOD?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 03:01 PM
oh yeah... where was the US when the falklands happened...

sorry no oil involved

i forgot...

posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 06:13 PM
zero lift. with British troops getting cut left and right also the ever shrinking of your navy and the fighter jets that we provide Britain is good without us they would not fare up too well against a modern and big military.

posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 06:44 PM
dont count on it
our troops may be small in numbe but are well trained and ready for a fight.
our navy is excellnt apart from the number part.
our air force is kinda bad cause the RAF cant be bothered to buy a decent plane.

posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 07:38 PM
Myabe I read Westpoint's post wrong. but the US doesn't provide the UK with any fighter jets.

Anyway back to the post.

The latest Spending review (SR2004) has been put back by two weeks because of Departmental infighting within the UK government. I wouldn't get too worried just yet, the MOD budget may not be as nice as they would want but the Daily Mail has consistently reproted that MOD budgets will be slashed since Labour came to power and they have been wrong every time so far. I wouldn't be surprised to see them wrong again.

There are a number of major platform acquisition programmes that are very important to traditrional labour electoral regions and cutting or delaying them with an election probably looming next year isn't a great plan for Tony Blair. Anyway TB isn't a total fool. He knows that the UK armed forces have been shown to be the most highly thought of institution in the country (above even the NHS, royal family and the football team) I personally don't think things will turn out as bleak as people are suggesting! TB just can't be seen to be slashing the MOD budget whilst putting more and more troops into a war zone.

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:20 AM
the brittish are getting the F-35 because their current jets now well frankly dont cut it. Compared to US jets.

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:25 AM

Originally posted by WestPoint23
the brittish are getting the F-35 because their current jets now well frankly dont cut it. Compared to US jets.

they just dont cut it against any jets hell i think the spitfires could beat em.

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by WestPoint23
the brittish are getting the F-35 because their current jets now well frankly dont cut it. Compared to US jets.

Britain are getting the F-35 because their jets now are getting a bit old. The jets they have now are excellent.

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:03 AM
why do people try and knock the British armed forces:
Navy: Hasn't lost a war in 300 years
RAF: Limited number yet still pull off difficult missions with out dated tech
Army: Better trained than other countires due to our lack of numbers, (the troops are trained to do many different jobs to higher standard), and we have the SAS and SBS, nobody can beat them

Standard American troops are trigger happy, ... i'm sorry but i've got to bring it up but, American friendly fire is out of control, shoot first bury the dead later thats American army tactics

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:08 AM
roayl marines= best trained and best paid infantry soldiers in the world,have the worlds best special forces unit the SBS. every one is as fit as a navy seal physicaly and mentaly.

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:15 AM
when we were still invading iraq American troops were in a state of siege against a large iraqi town, they were losing men and asked if we could take over, we moved in and the American's moved out, fighting died out and British troops moved into the town to liberate it, shows how differently we fight

(can't find name of town)

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:26 AM
Are you suggesting that the British were better at fighting than the US ? I hope not as the resident US posters will yet again start the US vs everyone else argument again (which considering the actual topic of this post, we are nearly there anyway)

The reason that the Brits were employed for that particular mission was their experience in dealing with close quarter battle procedures within large, residential and civilian areas. The experience gained in Northern Ireland was recognised and utilised.

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:41 AM
i just get annoyed when some American's talk about how their troops are meant to be far better, people forget the British army is the best trained and one of the most succesful militaries in the world
even if our army's equipment is crappy

sorry if i ranted a bit (sorry american people

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:10 PM
yes but the brittish did loose a war to the americans a long time ago also your current jets are as good as the F-4 was.

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:15 PM
do you knwo why we lost?
A.our troops didnt wanna be there.
B. our troops well werent the best trained. had the french supporting you
ah well still you guys faught hard.

[edit on 29-6-2004 by devilwasp]

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 12:15 PM
i guess your talking about the war of independence

yes you won that one because our tactics were out dated and the american troops fought using their own better tactics

if i remember right we (britain) burnt down the white house before we left

but now were all friends, arh bless

[edit on 29-6-2004 by UK Wizard]

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 08:49 PM
well you had to burn something after you got your...handed to you and we built it back better than before

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 08:54 PM
not really. as i rem at the battle of what was it car someting the 93rd held its position for 8 hours under fire and didnt move until they were almost killed and they took down lots of americans

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 08:59 PM
Unless i'm mistaken the White House did not exist until after the Revolutionary War. The White House was burned in the War of 1812 along with the library of congress. The war ended in a cease-fire. Oh yeah and the UK was the best trained army and best equipped army in the war at the time. Having the best training must be a tradition.

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:01 PM
yeah it is strangely
just the size and equipment thing is sorta not sticking

posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 02:37 AM
Armed forces braced for big cuts

From the BBC
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon is due to announce big cuts in the armed forces on Wednesday. The RAF is likely to be hardest hit, with the possible closure of bases and the early withdrawal of Jaguar squadrons, says the BBC's Paul Adams.

Some army regiments could be merged into bigger units, with an overhaul of its structure expected.

The details follow Mr Hoon's White Paper Security in a Changing World, presented to the Commons in December.

Some regiments could be merged into larger units

Rest of Story

The governments in the UK always seem to cut the MOD budget. The British armed forces always seem to carry on doing a great job though.
However, if they don't get enough good quality, high tech equipment, even they will not be able to do an effective job.

The governments keep on cutting the MOD budget and still expect the armed forces to fight as well as they do. They have been lucky so far because generally, the British armed forces have worked very hard and still been able to fight wars. I think in the future, if governments keep this 'cost cutting' up, they shall see our forces unable to keep up with modern technology and fight in the modern day battlefield on our own, or with our allies.

EDIT: Oops, Didn't insert end quote tag.

[edit on 21/7/04 by Hyperen]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in