[Closed] So when is an aircraft carrier not an...?

it's ok, we've said the French can use them in the meantime.

That thing was nothing but a gigantic floating target and it's good that we're rid of it. It would not have lasted long had it all really kicked off on the seas.

Ehhh??

I disagree. It limits us massively as an expeditionary force and means we'd have to rely on NATO/septic tanks for air support.

What would happen if the Argentine sabre-rattling that happens every time the Junta fear uprising actually came to something? Would the French or Americans let us borrow a carrier to take some Sea Harriers down to the South Atlantic?

When it's a spade

[url= http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/assault-ships/hms-ocean/ ]When it's an Aviation Support Ship, or Amphibious Support Ship, or Landing Platform Helicopter..[/url]

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8072041/Navy-aircraft-carrier-will-be-sold-after-three-years-and-never-carry-jets.html ]Or when there's no aircraft to go on it[/url]

So when is an aircraft carrier not an...?

Ambiguous Support Ship?

Did anyone see that programme with HMS Ocean on - it was like a joke.

Firstly they only had 4 helicopters - 3 were out of order broken, the other was ready to go. That was until someone on board fell and hurt themselves. He needed a doctor which there wasn't one on board - nor a nurse so they had an admin person (cant remember her job) that also did medical work as she had first aid training.

They went to medivac him only for the helicopter to brake down. They ended up calling in a one from the Malaysian Navy.

Then in the middle of it all when they were waiting on the helicopter coming they decided they were passing the sea grave of some old Navy ship from years ago that sank. At which point they all had to drop tools and assemble on deck for a salute to their falling seamen.

I couldn't believe what I was watching, once Britain was know for its perfection in its Armed Forces, especially the Navy with our maritime history.

Please someone tell me the Navy isnt all like this. From an outside veiw it looked very shoddy and poorly funded ran.

If we arent going to do a decent job of keeping it all working and efficient then whats the point - lets minimise it all now and do what the Belgians, Swedes, Norwegians do and let someone else police the world.

[i]Would the French or Americans let us borrow a carrier to take some Sea Harriers down to the South Atlantic?[/i]

Or would we just perhaps rely on the aircraft permanently stationed there? Seems easier...

More interesting is that the design of the two new carriers may be changed to cope with conventional, rather than V/STOL aircraft, The Americans fired the general in charge of the F35 programme after too many cost over runs and may in fact cancel the whole programme. They're quite rightly asking themselves what can the F35 do that the very successful F22 can't?

This would leave the Navy somewhat in the lurch, no wonder they're thinking about making them compatible with French Naval aircraft...

Mind you, according to Thersa May the biggest threat facing us is Cyber attack, just what use an empty aircraft carrier is in those circumstances hasn't be made clear yet...

In the last 50 years how many times have we used aircraft carriers in anger? In the last 50 years how many times have we used nuclear weapons in anger?

Obvious that we need to keep one an ditch the other IMHO

However.........

Anyone else got a feeling of déjà vu ????

The current carriers were actually conceived as "through deck cruisers" (mainly for helicopter operations) in the late 1960s / early 1970s - calling them aircraft cariers was one of the early examples of "spin"... 🙄

The gap in fast jet operability has little to do with the retirement of the current ships (Illustious / Ark Royal) or commisioning of the two new carriers, and more to do with the scrapping of the Harrier force. Whether the old boats soldiered on or the new boats were ordered sooner, no Harriers = no jets.... until arrival of the JSF. This relates as much to the previous Government getting rid of the RNs Sea Harriers and general ongoing reduction in Air strength

Given the late delivery of most defence projects, and time taken for the shakedown of complex new military kit, the first of the new carriers would probably take until 2019 to get built, complete sea trials and commissioning etc. So just in time to take on the first JSF squadrons.

Only the government could spend £100bn on something it will never ever dream of using when the country is skint.

[i] Would the French or Americans let us borrow a carrier to take some Sea Harriers down to the South Atlantic? [/i]

Pointless, as they are getting rid of the Harriers too.

Joined up thinking, by 10 year olds!

Only the government could spend £100bn on something it will never ever dream of using when the country is skint.

Keep to the point, London Olympics deserves a thread of it's own.

[i]So just in time to take on the first JSF squadrons. [/i]

as long as those aeroplanes still exist, not a certainty

I've a vague feeling the same thing happen when the current Ark Royal was commissioned.

This is pretty scandalous too.
[url] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/05/type_45_gets_one_off_at_last/ [/url]

lets minimise it all now and do what the Belgians, Swedes, Norwegians do and let someone else police the world.

Innit though? I don't see anyone about to invade those countries. I do see far better state health and education systems mind. Save the taxpayer a few quid. If Britain wasn't constantly involved in this stupid pointless destructive game of global willy-waving, maybe our nation would be in better shape, and our wonderful government woon't be needing to make such drastic cuts....

Or would we just perhaps rely on the aircraft permanently stationed there? Seems easier...

We have an airbase in Argentina? What a stroke of genius. 😉

Elfin, as so often, you're bang on. Carbon's right: Let's scrap the lot and make a statement to the world that war is pointless and messy. And then stop annoying other countries so they don't hate us.

All the service men can get jobs in health and Education.....

Ive sorted it - there you go all fixed.

No one will attack us because we will be a cool hippy country.

Maybe even some money spare for trails.

I'd vote that party...Oh hang on I did...

[url= http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/policypointers/pppeace.pdf ]defence strategy that doesn't involve doing what the 'mericans tell us[/url]

This is pretty scandalous too.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/05/type_45_gets_one_off_at_last/

This isn't entirely accurate; Daring has only just completed her training and has just gone on her first deployment. The decision was made to use Daring in other ways rather than let her rust. After all, she does more than just fire missiles. Dauntless went on to do the first live firing concurrently.

Its not ideal that we had a ship on a deployment that hadn't proven her missile system but if the deployment didn't really require that capability, did it really matter?

I couldn't believe what I was watching, once Britain was know for its perfection in its Armed Forces, especially the Navy with our maritime history.

Please someone tell me the Navy isnt all like this. From an outside veiw it looked very shoddy and poorly funded ran

We're asked to do a lot (too much?), with not a lot. Fewer jobs, more money and/or more intelligent procurement I reckon.

In response to a few posts here;

British carriers have been used numerous times since WW2. They saw extensive active service in the withdrawal from Empire and the numerous brushfire conflicts. They guaranteed the security of Belize so it was able to become an independent nation when it's neighbour threatened it and without them the campaign to retake the Falklands could not have been waged.

If you are a bit of a lefty and want to get away from 'colonial' uses then they were very useful in the 1990's supporting operations in the Balkans and Africa.

Don't also forget that we are an Island with most of our trade carried by ship. Those ships can carry ASW aircraft which with everyone building submarines at the moment could be very useful in years to come.

Since WW2 all air to air kills performed by British aircraft were from Royal Navy jets or flew from an RN carrier. Despite the governments insistence that there are currently no overflight problems for the RAF that won't always be the case.

On the flip side the Tornado GR4 is a much more useful aircraft than the Harrier if you need someone hanging around with lots of bombs just in case. Their range, speed, and payload make them far more effective for policing a country like Afghanistan than Harrier GR9.

The Sea Harriers were not effective in Afghanistan because firstly there wasn't a Taliban air-force to worry about (and they are an air to air weapon) and secondly they were under powered for flying in the Hindu Mountains.

The Americans won't cancel F35 in favour of more F22's as they are totally different; the F22 is air-air only, the F35 is primarily a strike aircraft. The Americans may cancel it in favour of more F/A-18's and drones.

I think that about covers most of it...

When it's a baby RN "carrier"

Proper aircraft carier on the left. One of ours on the right....

[img] [/img]

Liam Fox seemed to be bending the truth on R4 this morning as well - talking about previous gaps in not having aircraft to fly from our carriers "after Buccaneer" was retired in the 70s...

Wrong way around - more a case of not having any carriers for our aircraft to fly off

The FAA's Buccaneers and Phantoms were retired when the previous Ark Royal was decommisioned in 1978, and they lost any steam catapault flight decks to fly off. (hence Argentinians starting to get more strident in territorial ambitions...)

Part of this is the way that the last Govenrment committed all the forces to 2 simultaneous (or at least immediately consecutive) wars of dubious legality which we're now mired in and have been for the last 8 years which has cost a fortune in kit, lives, morale, the Government committed to loads of fancy new stuff with an overspend it couldn't possibly hope to deal with.

Now it's going to cost more to cancel than to go ahead so we end up with outdated or out-of-spec stuff but then that's always the way on long term projects - look at Eurofighter.

It's a no-win situation this.

If you are a bit of a lefty and want to get away from 'colonial' uses then they were very useful in the 1990's supporting operations in the Balkans and Africa.

But why is it always us....?

Where is Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Finland, I bet they are only doing a small part - why cant we for a change?

The Americans won't cancel F35 in favour of more F22's as they are totally different; the F22 is air-air only, the F35 is primarily a strike aircraft. The Americans may cancel it in favour of more F/A-18's and drones.

Presumably the F22 hasn't got any carrier capability?

In the last 50 years how many times have we used aircraft carriers in anger? In the last 50 years how many times have we used nuclear weapons in anger?

[img] [/img]

[i]Of course, the whole point of a [s]nuclear deterrent[/s] Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?[/i]

from Laura Kuensberg on twitter - 42000 service personnel to be cut by 2015!!

horrendous.

If we can do without them what have they been doing up to now?

I cant believe that the majority are in support roles, or carrying out roles that we no longer really need

crazy-legs,

if the wars had been legal would that have made a difference?

rkk01 - Member
The Americans won't cancel F35 in favour of more F22's as they are totally different; the F22 is air-air only, the F35 is primarily a strike aircraft. The Americans may cancel it in favour of more F/A-18's and drones.
Presumably the F22 hasn't got any carrier capability?

Well there is that, which is similar to the 'why can't the Navy fly RAF Typhoons off the new carriers?' which keeps getting asked in these types of conversation.

My view is we should have 2 carriers, ditch F35 and buy F/A-18 or shhh.. Rafale depending on how much you want to annoy the Americans.

However you need to remember a carrier is only useful as long as it floats. If they are not properly protected some very low rate powers now have diesel electric submarines which would be able to kill one easily enough*. It would be very embarrassing for the pride of the RN being sunk by a North Korean sub.

*Also remember these are not like the armoured warships of WW2 and look at USS Cole to see what an explosive laden speedboat can do to modern thin hulls.

[i]The Americans won't cancel F35 in favour of more F22's as they are totally different; the F22 is air-air only, the F35 is primarily a strike aircraft[/i]

The F22 can already carry JDAM, and newer versions will have an even greater strike capability. One of the F35 biggest problems is it's A2A role is more than a little bit rubbish.

I agree with you that we should be buying F/A 18 and shhh Ralfe...

[i]crazy-legs,
if the wars had been legal would that have made a difference? [/i]

It would have been a hell of a lot easier to justify the massive cuts now being made as a result of committing 3 forces to 2 wars over 9 years.

It's quite easy to say (and I've heard it said on news programmes discussing the cuts), well if we hadn't have gone steaming into Iraq and Afghanistan with no long term plan of what to do or how to get out then there wouldn't be a gaping hole ion the MoD budget. OK, we're in this mess now and it has to be dealt with so I guess the arguments are more semantic/point-scoring than anything...

Also remember these are not like the armoured warships of WW2 and look at USS Cole to see what an explosive laden speedboat can do to modern thin hulls.

Hence the concerns over Exocet / Invincible during the Falklands...

No one will attack us because we will be a cool hippy country.

That would be amazing. Hippies are great.

I agree with the over stretching and budget, I was just being a bit arsey, the legal - illegal bit personally winds me up a bit tbh.

Out of curiosity, do things like fuel,food etc required to function in Iraq and Afghanistan or any other theatre or conflict/deployment come out of the annual budget for the MOD or some other place?

just wonder what these costs would be in percentage terms of the overall budget and what they could have saved

Labour were always keen to point out that all the "war fighting" costs came from the Treasury, not the MoD budget - which covers the standing costs of personnel, eqpt, bases etc...

I see where you're coming from turin, it bugs me too but it's been commented on in the news. One of those "oh I wish we'd done this instead" scenarios and it's not really helping anyone now...

I dont know alot about this so I will write something. I like the idea of having some new boats, the old ones do seem a bit small and pointless. I would also like to see the harrier remain in service but again it seems outdated and under utlilised. I am sure there have been more VTOLs for demo purposes than in real use.

The 3 forces are massive and inefficient, they make councils look simple. I believe they do need a big shake up but it does need to be done carefully as that massive overhead of history is part of the pride and confidence of our forces.

Do we still have the Astute sub coming?

I also agree we do tend to stick our oar in everywhere and dont seem to benefit from it, I know we still have a defence industry but why arent we providing the gear to everyone else?

I wonder what the "war fighting costs" were then, Im sure it will be locked away for a few years but could be interesting given current circumstances. Are we talking a wayne rooney bought a month or a bank bailed out a year kind of terms?

I doubt the true value would ever be released

Dont get me wrong,I wouldnt want the service personnel to be under supplied or restricted, just curious.

well iirc a cruise missile is 1/4 million a pop
not sure how many we launched, mind

id imagine the sums we are taking about would be bailing out the banks every year

yep 7 astute subs coming

seperate from the trident replacements of course

So Astutes are nuclear powered but not nuclear armed?

We also have trident missile replacement coming too which requires new subs not the current ones and not Astutes?

well thats what i just read in todays metro, which is made by the daily mail so who knows whats true!

i would once again reccomend this programme
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00v3qt5

secret iraq on bbc2 - warning it will make you bitter despondent and frustrated

[i]So Astutes are nuclear powered but not nuclear armed?

We also have trident missile replacement coming too which requires new subs not the current ones and not Astutes? [/i]

There's different types of submarine though - hunter killer, attack, ballistic missile platforms...
I don't know much about subs but I imagine they're fairly specialised in the same way that aircraft are for example (eg bomber, fighters, recon...)

I think one of the modern problems with such high value ships is the threat from hypersonic missiles. There is very little defence apart from WW1-style armour cladding.

The question remains about how to quickly deploy a airborne strike capability within range of an enemy without an AC. Perhaps we should be scrapping the concept of strike aircraft and looking again at missiles.

There is a trade-off between the cost of providing accommodations for a pilot (space, mass, avionics, top speed, g-forces) and a runway to land, v.s. the non-reusable nature of missiles.

It won't be long before the pilot's redundant in fighter aircraft, they'll e flown remotely. The pilot holds back the planes capabilities by blacking out when you pull to many g. They'll be a lot being taken in to account which the man on the street is not party to when they make these decisions.

[i]It won't be long before the pilot's redundant in fighter aircraft, they'll e flown remotely. [/i]

On a programme on Discovery a few months ago a top American airforce chappy said fighter aircraft will all ways have a pilot in them. He said drones are useful for certain situations but not all.

Costs will no doubt drive it, it would be far cheaper to create pilotless fighter aircraft and they'd be no expensive to train pilots to lose in battle. The xbox generation Will protect us 😛

Modern drones like the Predator and Global Hawks are not cheap alternatives, the hawks cost something like $30million +.

[i] a few months ago a top American airforce chappy said fighter aircraft will all ways have a pilot in them. He said drones are useful for certain situations but not all.[/i]

That's because he's an airforce chappy, and they like flying things 🙂
But they work better when they not allowed to.
[url] http://www.stripes.com/news/official-air-force-losing-more-drones-than-army-1.90858 [/url]

The xbox generation Will protect us

And the Geeks shall inherit the Earth....

I think one of the modern problems with such high value ships is the threat from hypersonic missiles. There is very little defence apart from WW1-style armour cladding.

Except our high value ships will be defended by the PAAM system on the type 45 destroyers. It cost a lot of money, but it's designed to shoot down hyper sonic missiles.

A lot of ignorance(as usual) from people here on what having armed forces actually does for you.

A lot of ignorance(as usual) from people here on what having armed forces actually does for you.

Please explain what exactly our armed forces do for 'us' then, as I'm a bit ignorant of this. I can't see a great deal of benefit to me personally, as a British citizen, from the actions of various military outfits around the Globe. I'm assured that there are British troops in far flung foreign lands, fighting for my 'freedom', when the shop downstairs from me gets robbed at gunpoint, and many elderly folk are too frightened to leave their homes...

Except our high value ships will be defended by the PAAM system on the type 45 destroyers. It cost a lot of money, but it's designed to shoot down hyper sonic missiles.

Except the PAAMs system hasn't actually been tested against a supersonic target. And there are no plans to do so.

Still, it might work...

Except the PAAMs system hasn't actually been tested against a supersonic target. And there are no plans to do so.

Very few ship borne anti-air/missile systems have. The Americans have only tested their sm-2 missiles from their AEGIS destroyers on a couple of occasions against supersonic targets due to the cost. Everyone uses computer modelling to do so nowadays.

British troops in far flung foreign lands, fighting for my 'freedom'

They are fighting for your interests whether you like it or not. We didn't become a major economic power with all its associated benefits by adopting the foreign policy of Finland now did we?

Please explain what exactly our armed forces do for 'us' then, as I'm a bit ignorant of this.

If you want an explanation, go and find out for yourself, because A: You'll learn something and B: you won't clutter up the forum with more ignorant claptrap.

They didn't have PAAMs when my dad served on HMS Indomitable
[img] [/img]

They are fighting for your interests whether you like it or not. We didn't become a major economic power with all its associated benefits by adopting the foreign policy of Finland now did we?

No they are not. How is the invasion and occupation of Iraq "in my interests"

It has ruined a country, radicalised a population, made terrorism more likely.

Major economic power? Get real. This is the 21st century not the 19th.

It's a right bugger for us lefties though- I'm all in favour of a reduced and repurposed military for the UK, and the realisation that we're not a military superpower, and the end of the capability to exert military force in futile ways around the world. I'd be even more in favour if they'd bin the nonindependant nondeterrant. But it would be nice if it was someone else that had done it. Still according to that nice Mr Cameron Labour can still claim full credit so that's something.

It won't be long before the pilot's redundant in fighter aircraft, they'll e flown remotely.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_Defence_White_Paper ]I am sure someone said that in about 1957[/url], resulting in the trashing of the British aircraft industry. They were apparently wrong.

Andy

Trouble is northwind its not remodeling the services in a sensible way

Firstly they need to be clear what they services are intended to do then build a military to do so

I would like them to defend these islands. put some troops into a european defense force and thats about it. Teh debatre about what we want to acheive with the services needs to be done before the spending review. A basic lack of honesty here

They are fighting for your interests whether you like it or not.

Are they? So, the British Military have my interests, as a British Citizen, at heart do they? Really? Is that why over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died, is it? To protect my interests?

I am aware that many brave and dedicated service personnel do an amazing and selfless job, helping protect innocent people from tyranny and evil. And that there are projects such as the buildings of schools and medical centres, which help people in areas desperately in need of such facilities.

HOWEVER

The British Military has grown to such a size, because of Colonialism, and to protect British economic interests abroad. Often, at a colossal Human cost to those nations colonised. Indeed, the country my father comes from is impoverished today, partly as a result of such colonistion. So don't tell me the British military is protecting [i]my[/i] interests.

I'l re-iterate; the principal role of the British Military abroad is to protect British Economic Interests. Much of this has little or no effect on my life. In fact, recent military involvement has in fact had a negative effect on the lives of most people on Earth; energy costs spiralling upwards being just one. Britain maintains such a needlessly huge military force, simply to retain it's position as a Global Superpower. And in no small part, because the USA tells it to. Don't fool yourself with all the bullshit propaganda of 'protecting democracy', when the very democracy so many fought to defend in two World Wars is being eroded by our own government. And now, we see that such institutions as our Health, Education, Housing and Legal Aid systems are threatened with being dismantled, with no positive benefits and manifest negative consequences guaranteed. Major economic power? Where's our industry? Employment is rising. The pound has taken a pounding against other currencies. We pay some of the highest prices in the World for things. Our position as a World leader is rapidly diminishing.

This nation has a standing military of 130,000, with a reserve of nearly twice that. For what? Do we need such a huge expense? Do we? Really?

As mentioned; other nations seem to thrive on having much smaller military forces. Switzerland isn't a poor country...

you won't clutter up the forum with more ignorant claptrap.

You accuse me of being ignorant, yet obviously know nothing about me, or what I really know. Yeah, that makes sense...

That I have a different opinion to you doesn't make me ignorant.

The armed forces perspective is mental. A man-in-command today on Radio 2 was saying the funds for the armed forces should be cut from Health and Education!

And only an 8% drop in funds for defence but we have to half the money for social housing?

What the chuff???? The conservatives are insane as well as dangerous.

Well put [b]Elfinsafety[/b]

+1

I think the 'protecting our interests' runs slightly deeper than a quick search on google.

Atleast I hope it does.

Will use the said quick google search to see how our military compares to Germany and France as 2 other large european nations.

So when is an aircraft carrier not an?..................................................................................................................................................When the Tories get back in power with the spineless Lib Dems

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

THe UK is the 3rd largest spender on 'defence'. And the 22nd largest nation by population.

Higher spending than Germany or France, despite those nations having larger populations than ours.

the principal role of the British Military abroad is to protect British Economic Interests. Much of this has little or no effect on my life

I want to agree with everything Elf says. What I don't really know is what would change if the UK had the military power of Belgium, and how that would impact on life as we know it. I vaguely suspect it would be noticeable, but it seems to be rather a big question.

And it doesn't seem to be something that can be taken in isolation. At present, the UK does actually spend enough and have enough troops to be a worthwhile member of NATO. If it decided to drop that spending away and ceased to bother, would that result in the US ceasing to bother about NATO? Would that make a war on the fringes of Europe (Russian takeovers of Estonia and the Ukraine for example) much more likely? I suspect so. Would we care? At what point, if war edged back towards the heartlands of Europe, would we start caring again?

Don't know. On balance, I'm inclined to back more defence spending rather than less, but that's essentially because I don't really know what my world actually looks like in 30 years time when the UK no longer matters in global military terms, and I'm a bit scared of the idea. :-/

See Fred - you make such a good effort and then go and nix it in one simple splurge of bollocks

As mentioned; other nations seem to thrive on having much smaller military forces. Switzerland isn't a poor country...

Thing is... Switzerland has on one of the biggest military forces in the whole of Europe, thanks to compulsory military service for adult males STG90's under every bed.. Although to be fair they don't have a huge need for expensive and complex naval forces...

It's BigDummy! 😀

Where the thingy have you bin???

Do you want a packet of Wotsits?

Thing is... Switzerland has on one of the biggest military forces in the whole of Europe

Which is involved in how many overseas conflicts?

Confuddling, as Switzerland has an 'active' militia, rather than a standing army. I'm seeing conflicting figures ranging from 22,000 to about 130,000.

Switzerland's military spending as % of GDP is 0.8%. And none of their troops are involved in any armed conflicts, only peace-keeping missions.

Strangely, this doesn't seem to have a particularly negative effect on the nation's economy...

Hmmm my Elfin comrade...

Maybe the reason Switzerland's spend has such a small effect is that they're still living off the investments that were made last time Britain's colonialist armies went on the economic rampage across Europe in '44. Switzerland has a higher GDP than the UK!

UK has roughly eight times the population of Switzerland , the per capita actual spend is approx 2/3 the UK spend... ($350 vs $530 per capita annually) Guess what, Army, Air Force, and, erm, oh yes, as mentioned, they don't need a navy do they...

So, the Swiss military spend is proportionately roughly the same as the UK spend, despite the fact that we apparently spend so much time running round the world...

British Economic Interests.

Ok, so which of Britain's interests would you feel were appropriate for it to defend? I don't really seem to recall Britain being particularly heavily financially involved in Bosnia or Kosovo, nor in Sierra Leone for that matter, or to be honest the huge financial interest we had in a bunch of Southern Atlantic islands, the gateway to the Mediterranean, Aden, Palestine, Belize...

or for that matter the huge financial interest in spending over fifty years camped in Germany as an "occupying power"....

Still, I suppose you would have creamed yourself over the prospect of a greater Soviet Socialist republic of Europe...

not that im blaming the military- the blame lies quarely with tony imho- but all i see that our wars in iraq and afgahnistan have achieved is a lot of dead civillians & servicemen a huge rise in the price of oil and a group of bradford lad radicalised into blowing themselves up on the tube

Ok, so which of Britain's interests would you feel were appropriate for it to defend?

The shop downstairs what got robbed. Oh, but that's the police, sorry. Oh, but they don't have the resources to patrol effectively...

British Interests seem to be focussed on controlling resources in the Middle East and Afghanistan. For the benefit of who? My energy costs are higher, and I'm told my food costs more because of the rising cost of oil.

Tell me exactly what the 1000 British troops in the Falkland Islands are doing there? Nowt to do with vast reserves of oil in the South Atlantic, is it? No, silly me- can't be, surely?

About 25,000 troops or so are stationed in Cyprus, Germany, etc? And what's Gibraltar all about? Surely the Spanish can look after the Strait?

Still, I suppose you would have creamed yourself over the prospect of a greater Soviet Socialist republic of Europe...

Pathetic. A reasonable criticism of British imperialism, and you come out with that tired old shite? I see Maggie's still pulling your strings...

Please. Try a bit harder Labby. 🙄

the per capita actual spend is approx 2/3 the UK spend..

.............
So, the Swiss military spend is proportionately roughly the same as the UK spend,

No - its 2/3 - you can't say they dont have a navy so that the spending ins proportionate Just nonsense. They spend 2/3 per person that we do on "defense"

As I said earlier the key thing is you must decide what our forces are for before you decide budgets. I'm a swords to plughshares sort of chap myself.

No they are not. How is the invasion and occupation of Iraq "in my interests"

You use oil? There you go.

It has ruined a country, radicalised a population, made terrorism more likely.

I'd agree with you. I support the military forces of this country, but not always the political decisions on how they are used.

Major economic power? Get real. This is the 21st century not the 19th.

We are a major economic power. It is the 19th century in 21st century form. People tend to forget that the cold war was the exception to the norm. We are simply reverting back to what we were doing before. Fighting over resources.

I would like them to defend these islands.

They are. Defending these islands is also done away from these islands, something you will have to get used to.

The British Military has grown to such a size, because of Colonialism, and to protect British economic interests abroad. Often, at a colossal Human cost to those nations colonised. Indeed, the country my father comes from is impoverished today, partly as a result of such colonistion. So don't tell me the British military is protecting my interests.

So last century. 🙄

I'l re-iterate; the principal role of the British Military abroad is to protect British Economic Interests. Much of this has little or no effect on my life.

Of course it doesn't. 🙄

energy costs spiralling upwards being just one.

Of course China and India industrialising wouldn't have anything to do with increases in energy costs, oh no. 🙄

And in no small part, because the USA tells it to

More leftist claptrap. I'm quite left wing myself, but this takes the biscuit. If we did what the US wanted we wouldn't be cutting our defence budget would we? 🙄

Don't fool yourself with all the bullshit propaganda of 'protecting democracy', when the very democracy so many fought to defend in two World Wars is being eroded by our own government. And now, we see that such institutions as our Health, Education, Housing and Legal Aid systems are threatened with being dismantled, with no positive benefits and manifest negative consequences guaranteed.

Who said anything about protecting democracy? Our institutions are being eroded because people don't feel they are necessary anymore. That's because of a change in the class system in this country. I think it will take a major crisis for this country for people to re-assess what's being thrown away, including the military.

Where's our industry?

we are still one of the largest manufacturing economies in the world, we just don't do mass manufacture, we left that for the Chinese. And of course we still makes ships and submarines and aircraft carriers...

Switzerland's military spending as % of GDP is 0.8%. And none of their troops are involved in any armed conflicts, only peace-keeping missions.

Strangely, this doesn't seem to have a particularly negative effect on the nation's economy...

That's because the only people invading Switzerland are hedge fund managers.

I cannot think of once since I was alive that UK forces travelled away from these islands to defend them.

There has been much milatary adventurism overseas and some such as the intervention in Bosnia was right IMO

However none of it was in any way "defending these island"

"That's because the only people invading Switzerland are hedge fund managers."

who's invading us?

Tandem, for some reason it irks me that you can decide that it was OK to go to bosnia but every other conflict was just us posturing. It's a good job we had a good sized army in the 40's eh?