You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So goodbye Arc Royal, the new training academy in south wales, Nimrod replacement, goodbye Harrier jump jets, raf kinloss to close, and a bit more, soldiers sailors and biggles to made redundant.
Wonder whats due tommorrow.
INVASION!!!!
[edited]
Free the Malvinas!
Cottesmore closing too.
But we're spending £500M on cyber security.
That's an awful lot of pimply youths sat in front of VDUs [s]downloading porn[/s] defending the nation from Al Quaeda cyber warriors.
what could possibly happen now?...
Vikings?
The riots in Paris are a diversion, the French will be here by teatime Friday.
Oh well.
The riots in Paris are a diversion, the French will be here by teatime Friday.
....and surrender by sunset!
though we don't have an empire to defend anymore and no one has invaded us for a long time...
The riots in Paris are a diversion, the French will be here by teatime Friday.....and surrender by sunset!
Ah come on.........the English did put up some token resistance at Hastings.
Maybe surrender by Saturday morning ? 💡
Hmmm. Lets cut our defence, leave our carrier(s) without aircraft for 10 years, and then see just how we fare when people really do start getting a bit shirty over the last pockets of oil left...
S'pose we can still nuke any bugger that messes with us though. Just a pity we have a very limited response between that and Her Majesty making her displeasure known.
Still, tomorrow I guess (Ca)moron will have announced the closure of the UK, so I guess we don't really need to defend it!
Can't we just revolt and burn parliament down with all the mp's in it?
Oh ffs don't be so silly. What country would dare invade a nation like Britain?
I think this forum is as effective a deterrent as any nukes or military might; one look on here, and any potential invaders would think 'Sod taking over and having to del with that bunch of moaning bastards', and leave us well alone.
S'pose we can still nuke any bugger that messes with us though.
Fantastic idea, Zokes. In fact, it amazes me why your not Minister For Defence.... 🙄
Still, tomorrow I guess (Ca)moron will have announced the closure of the UK, so I guess we don't really need to defend it!
I thought you lived Down Under? 😕
Truth is; the vast bulk of Britain's military is for little more than protecting the interests of Western business. About time taxpayers stopped paying for this private security protection.
That must be a wonderful crystal ball they have, to know we're OK without any carrier borne aircraft for the next 9 years, but we'll need them again after that.
That's an awful lot of pimply youths sat in front of VDUs downloading porn defending the nation from Al Quaeda cyber warriors.
Eh, don't knock it the pimpy youths are doing sterling work killing the taliban from sheds in the states, i wonder if they know they are not playing a game.
Spending cut, well they had to come. And the nation had a choice, pay the cash back in 4 years or 8 years. Over half seemed up for the tory 4 year option, so they must be ready for the pain!
the last people to attack us (at home) were a bunch of lads from bradford
and before that a load of irish sepratists im not entirely sure that aircraft carriers ,or nuclear carrying subs for that matter, were much use against them
pimpy youths
❓
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
As dramatic as these cuts seem all such decisions carry an element of Risk and only time will tell if the Risk was appropriate or not. The fact remains the Military is incredibly costly and inefficient (financially, not professionally) and is overdue a serious overhaul.
Well, Fred, I'm still a British citizen.
Bit ironic that you of all people would fail to spot the sarcasm in my comment on nukes though. No doubt you'll have some pithy comeback without adding anything of value to the discussion though...
Truth is; the vast bulk of Britain's military is for little more than protecting the interests of Western business
The sad thing is that you're right (apart from on punctuation). What's worse is that the next big cerfuffle really will be over resources, and I'd rather the brainless short-termist idiots of the current and previous administrations either worked on how such an argument would be won, or ideally avoided altogether.
Sadly I doubt the former, and there's bugger all chance of the latter...
(And cutting the armed forces isn't the answer to the latter. Making the country sustainable in a world severly limited by water and oil availability will)
Over half seemed up for the tory 4 year option, so they must be ready for the pain!
Erm - under half of those who voted so a small % of the population.
yeah i reckon we may have to whip the nukes out when russia annexes the north pole
How can a training centre for squaddies cost 14 billion, thats a lot of drinks and a huge bar they must have been building there. 🙂
[i]How can a training centre for squaddies cost 14 billion[/i]
The magic of PFI.
zokes - Member
"Hmmm. Lets cut our defence, leave our carrier(s) without aircraft for 10 years, and then see just how we fare when people really do start getting a bit shirty over the last pockets of oil left..."
We could spend every penny we have on "defence" and the likely bad guys would still flatten us in a round one knockout, and to be blunt everyone knows this. Pretending to be a superpower is just silly, we're a small island in a changed world.
Old news but a sign of the times.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11388018 ]Pimply youth activity[/url]
PS - Any one else wonder what that kid that wound up locked in a suitcase in his own bath tub may have been working on? Im guessing the day to day threats have changed significantly in the last 20years.
Nimrod replacement cancelled
That’s one decision I fully agree with, we have wasted £3Bn buying 9 aircraft at least that’s the end of the waste.
Just need to cull a few other Cold War toys for boys
I would have thought that there'd be a little more sympathy at an apparent 12,000 job losses. maybe they should go on strike? Oh no they can't as the military aren't allowed a union. My opinion is that all of the job losses should come from the central MOD which is a hugely beurocratic and wasteful organisation full of egomaniacs who are just building empires.
Of course it's only fair that the MOD have cuts, same as the police, courts, fire service, local councils, welfare etc.
we have wasted £3Bn buying 9 aircraft at least that’s the end of the waste.
That is a scandal. We'd have been cheaper buying 2nd hand P-3s & fitting British systems. Now we're left with no maritime patrol aircraft, like Holland. Except 85% of our trade comes in by sea. Good effort!
Andy
Backhander - I have alot of sympathy with respect to the 12,000 job losses.
However I think given what may be coming Id better hold some back for the other X,000's!
Fair comment loco, I will as well mate.
What p1sses me off is that there will be less opportunities for young people, often from poor backgrounds to get a chance due to these cuts when the MOD wastes obscene amounts of money due to poor management/procuement etc. Has anyone been to whitehall? I have, it's ridiclous; art works, commissioned sculptures (of a soldier, which most soldiers will never even see), fancy discounted cafe etc. I've also lived in class 3 accomodation.
Google "mod overspend". How can anything come in [b]1BILLION[/b] over budget FFS?
Truth is; the vast bulk of Britain's military is for little more than protecting the interests of Western business. About time taxpayers stopped paying for this private security protection.Don't worry. With foreign aid spending ringfenced we'll be able to bribe people rather than shoot them if they disagree with our activities.
Had to happen as sadly NuLiabour bankrupted the MOD.
However to leave us with no Naval Fixed wing or Maritime patrol smacks of insanity.
Desperately sorry for those who will lose jobs in defence and other departments yet to be announced.
There should be more cut off the military and more spent of the people of this country who need it.
There should be more cut off the military and more spent of the people of this country who need it.
Nice try.
I'm sorry, but on a day when the government announces it's halving the budget for council houses I feel there's a need for some perspective. What happens at home is most important, and reducing the number of houses available for those that can't afford it will have much more of an effect on the nation than whether or not we have aircraft carriers.
I'm sorry
You're forgiven.
There are some people on here bright enough to get a rize out of me. You are not one of them.
Nimrod replacement cancelledThat’s one decision I fully agree with, we have wasted £3Bn buying 9 aircraft at least that’s the end of the waste.
Just need to cull a few other Cold War toys for boys
Except that we've already spent most (if not all) of that money. Cancelling it only saves a relatively small amount of operational costs, and means we've lost what's a fairly important capability for a maritime nation - far from a Cold War toy.
Of course the programme has cost a ridiculous amount of money, but it should have been culled when we could actually save some of that money.
From the BBC...
He said Britain would still meet Nato's target of spending 2% of GDP on defence[b] and would continue to have the fourth largest military in the world [/b]and "punch above its weight in the world".
And we need that why???
not a lot of vacancies for unemployed fighter pilots are there, its not as if you can go self employed, or maybe thats what Cam is planning a new dads army of trained people with the planes and ships sponsored by big companies.Then rent them out to Top Gear when not needed for a war.
backhander- it's an honest opinion. In fact today was the first time I thought about getting in touch with the Jeremy Vine show because there were a load of right wing types expressing their fear that Argentina were going to come and invade Britain. Fortunately I couldn't pull up the car in time- if I ever do get in touch with that show, I think i'll have turned into Mr Prototype STW...
Had to happen as sadly NuLiabour bankrupted the MOD.
Yeah I've heard the Tories say that the last Labour government overspent on defence, eg. the Typhoon and Nimrod orders plus the two new aircraft carriers.
Who would have thought that a Labour government would overspend on defence/weapons eh? Specially as I kept hearing the Tories urging the last Labour government to spend more on defence/weapons.
Still, it wasn't any old Labour government, it was a "New Labour" government..... so I guess that explains a lot. Lets hope the next Labour government won't treat warmongering as such a priority.
Spokes, You're entitled to your opinion, I believed it to be a troll attempt. I also believe that servicemen have as much right to remain employed as firemen, policemen etc. There's no way I believe our military to be the forth biggest either.
4th?
The 1st 3 being China, USA, North Korea? I thought France had more troops than we did.
The amusing thing about all the up-in-arms-Daily-Mail-reader response to this is that people somehow think we're still worthy of that much respect and therefore protection. Yeah, when your empire covers 2/3 of the globe, then maybe a large fighting force might come in handy to keep the natives from becoming restless. But nowadays? Who in their right mind is going to invade Britain? What strategic advantage could we possibly provide that Portugal, Iceland or anywhere else in the world couldn't? Also, we're almost entirely surrounded by Europe, and whoever fancies a pop needs to get through them first. France excepted, obviously.
Cut away, I say. But keep the nukes.
I thought France had more troops than we did.
It would have had a lot more when it had conscription, but that was scrapped a few years ago.
backhander - Member
Spokes, You're entitled to your opinion, I believed it to be a troll attempt. I also believe that servicemen have as much right to remain employed as firemen, policemen etc.
That's true, but we can surely re-deploy them to so something more useful - and which doesn't require several £Bn of high-tech equipment?
On the largest military issue, anybody care to guess who the world's 4 largest air forces are?
I thought about it, Druidh had the plums to say it...
it's spend were talking then not size of forces. A quick google finds many countries with far far more 'troops' than we have.
But nowadays? Who in their right mind is going to invade Britain? What strategic advantage could we possibly provide that Portugal, Iceland or anywhere else in the world couldn't?
No one is going to invade us. We don't have any resources that they want. However, they have resources we may want.
Also, we're almost entirely surrounded by Europe, and whoever fancies a pop needs to get through them first.
So, they'll be five minutes before they get to us?
It would have had a lot more when it had conscription, but that was scrapped a few years ago.
Also the Gendarmerie may also be included in the numbers as they are financed from Frances defence budget.
us, russia, china & north korea? it all depends on what some countries include in their list of military aircraft. brazil or argentina may feature.
However, they have resources we may want.
And that's a valid reason for not cutting expenditure on the armed forces? So when the time comes we can forcibly take what's not ours?
Also the Gendarmerie may also be included in the numbers as they are financed from Frances defence budget.
And the Paris fire brigade (army) and the Marseilles fire brigade (navy)
What mail reader responses? Just because someones opinion doesn't agree with yours, they're daily mail readers?
I don't necessarily equate spend with size/capability, we all know how wasteful our MOD is. IMO, it's boots on the ground which counts which puts us in 29th.
druidh, the troops are often deployed to do useful tasks, far more than they are to do the loud stuff (traditionally). The amount of humanitarian work carried out by the forces is considerable.
No one is going to invade us. We don't have any resources that they want.
Not invade, but being a maritime nation, our merchant navy is certainly a pretty valuable "resource" that needs protecting.
backhander - Memberdruidh, the troops are often deployed to do useful tasks, far more than they are to do the loud stuff (traditionally). The amount of humanitarian work carried out by the forces is considerable.
Exactly.
Just because someones opinion doesn't agree with yours, they're daily mail readers?
That generally seems to be the case, yes. They're not a stereotype for nothing.
So when the time comes we can forcibly take what's not ours?
Tsk tsk ....... they are officially known as "vital US interests".
And under the agreement of the "Special Relationship" it is Britain's responsibility to help the Americans secure and defend them.
That generally seems to be the case, yes.
On some planets, maybe. But not this one.
On some planets, maybe. But not this one.
Oh, so you're well-versed in real-life examples of my opinions, the opinions of those that I disagree with, and the corresponding newspaper readerships? That must be nice for you.
backhander has never struck me as a [i]stereotypical[/i] Daily Mail reader.
You should be less causal with your [i]stereotyping[/i] Flying Ox.
Anyway......
This makes for some interesting reading (perhaps), sorry it's wiki but;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_level_of_military_equipment
We spend an awfully large amount on defence but aside from a specific type of boat, nuclear subs and tac nukes don't really punch AT our weight let alone above it. I can understand the argument for nukes (but don't necessarily agree with them) but do we really need 225 of the ****ers? How many times over could 225 nukes destroy the planet?
I am most certainly not a mail reader.
And when did I ever accuse backhander of being a Daily Mail reader?
You should be more [i]thorough[/i] when reading posts ernie_lynch.
backhander - Member
Anyway......
This makes for some interesting reading (perhaps), sorry it's wiki but;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_level_of_military_equipment
We spend an awfully large amount on defence but aside from a specific type of boat, nuclear subs and tac nukes don't really punch AT our weight let alone above it. I can understand the argument for nukes (but don't necessarily agree with them) but do we really need 225 of the ****ers?
So, it's over to what TJ says on the other thread. It's not about whether or not we have a military, it's about how much we want to spend and what we get for it.
it's about how much we want to spend and what we get for it.
And how we want to use it, which will have a large bearing on how it needs to be equipped. Absolutely.
I was interested to hear that SF have got a budget increase.
Edit, having read TJs assesment in the other thread, I don't agree with his opinions of what the military capability should be but I do agree that the expectation should match the budget.
Sorry I really couldn't be bothered to read your post that thoroughly.
So its not backhander who you are accusing of being a Daily Mail reader - just other people who disagree with
you ?
It seems backhander was right all along.
[img] 
[/img]
🙂
What? that troll was rubbish. there was loads of miles left in that. You should be ashamed tfo.
I know, but it's bedtime for me. Up at 5 in the morning 🙁
project - Member
"not a lot of vacancies for unemployed fighter pilots are there"
Don't think they have that much to worry about, sure it's not a transferrable skill but ex-forces people tend to be highly employable and ex-RAF and navy even more so. Poor bloody infantry get a raw deal after service though.