 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Trouble is northwind its not remodeling the services in a sensible way
Yeah, but that's because (as in many other areas of public spending) the last lot pissed the money up the wall and committed us to all sorts of expensive stuff which would be the more logical things to cut.
I did say since I was alive.
On Bosnia its my opinion. I think the loss of life that was saved was worth the intervention. I don't think either Iraq war nor Afghanistan was.
1940s was rather different - ans we didn't have a large standing army or airforce in 1939
Blah blah blah blah blah....
We are a major economic power.
6th by GDP; [i]19th[/i] by GDP [i]per capita[/i]. So, the people of Britain are being shafted, basically. Where's the wealth going?
Who said anything about protecting democracy?
Erm, Bush. Bliar, military leaders, politicians, etc...
So last century.
And you have the temerity to accuse me of being 'ignorant'?? Here's a 'rollin eyes' emoticon for yer: 🙄
Can't be bothered arguing with those so blind they won't see.
Right:
Britain is involved in Iraq and Afghanistan because the West wants to control the flow of oil and other natural resources abundant in those lands, principally to provide enormous wealth to a limited number of people. I think we're all pretty clear on that one.
WMDs Taliban blah blah; the reality is that hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed.
Oh look, oil is far more spensive now...
There doesn't seem to be any reasonable justification for Britain to have such a huge military force. The example of other countries seems to prove that we could get by pretty well with a much smaller military. The pro-milatry brigade refuse to accept the truth on that one however. Ho hum. You can lead a horse to water...
Arguments done now. Ironically, Labby and El-Bent have proven me right, although I doubt they'll see the irony....
Anyway CSI's on.
Aracer
The reason they are not making sensible decision sis about lack of bottle. No Tory government could dare to redefine the UK armed forces role into a smaller less influential one. Thats what needs to be done to save significant money. Stop pretending we can play on the same scale as the US, Russia and China. We can't and we should not.
However this lot are clearly unable to make that sort of strategic decisions. There has been no attempt to do this - define the role of the UK forces ans what they will and will not do in future thus what manpower and equipment is needed.
elfin, again you talk about conflicts like afghan with some so called authority. Iraq may have been about Oil, though i think it was about revenge, unfinished business for the US, but afghan is about something else. ****stan is on its arse, and the Taliban in afghan would have a field day in ****stan if they had not got their handsfull with Nato in afghan.
I know people serving in afghan, one of them is a Major, he is there purely to improve literacy, not English literacy but Afghan literacy as it is below 20%. Now why would we do that? The loss of life is a disgrace, but don't think for one minute it would be any better if Nato were not there.
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"...
They were conceived that way, but by the time design was finalised they were already planned to carry SVTOL aircraft(if you're talking about the [s]two[/s]one we currently have, [s]they[/s]that was only started building after the Sea Harriers were ordered). If anything the spin was calling them "through deck cruisers" because we were supposed to have abandoned aircraft carriers.
TandemJeremy - MemberI 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"
You were born after the wall came down then were you? I'm sure all those British tanks and aircraft stationed in Germany helped to deter a Soviet invasion. Talking to old cold war warriors it is interesting to note that NATO troops nearly always practiced defence, the Soviets attack.
Ever stop to think about the important work the RN does to prevent drugs reaching these shores, or to help ensure those massive container ships & tankers carrying your clothes, bike parts and oil have safe oceans to sail in?
Not all military uses are about blowing other people up. A lot of it is just giving the impression we could 'blow them up if needed' and then being there to do other useful things like policing the high seas and search and rescue.
Granted maybe our interests could one day be served by a joint EU military or our own smaller combined armed forces but we will still need them.
BigEaredBiker - MemberEver stop to think about the important work the RN does to prevent drugs reaching these shores, or to help ensure those massive container ships & tankers carrying your clothes, bike parts and oil have safe oceans to sail in?
Trident missiles are, I take it, very useful for this?
Trident missiles are, I take it, very useful for this?
Now you are being silly.
Do you think North Korea or Iran (or other unforseen) would be happier with us having nukes or not having them?
Very useful Druidh - you know the principles of deterrence. They do a very good job deterring people
Whats the acronym again for deterrence - ah yes MAD.
1940s was rather different - ans we didn't have a large standing army or airforce in 1939
Maybe if we'd had a large standing army in 1937 and the will to use it WW2 could have been completely avoided. Hitler kept on pushing and given no signals by either Britain or France that they would stop him kept pushing. When the German army reoccupied the Rhineland they expect France to act and were prepared to run away.
Anyway the present world is different to the 1930's and having a small professional military [i]you are[/i] prepared to use is a dam sight more effective than a large one you are not. However a small proffesional military is quickly over stretched by Governments with delusions of of their place in the world.
bigeared makes a good point, the RN do much more than just blow stuff up, as do the army, but hey we dont need to be doing that shit, unless it affects you personally that is.
si_progressivebikes - MemberDo you think North Korea or Iran (or other unforseen) would be happier with us having nukes or not having them
Do you think Iran is gonna give a shit if we have them or not?
but afghan is about something else
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10311752 ]Oh yes. Oh yes indeed...[/url]
'Oh look, we've discovered enormous economic potential in Afghanistan, what a surprise, eh?'
What a surprise indeed....
The loss of life is a disgrace, but don't think for one minute it would be any better if Nato were not there.
It's possible tens of thousands of people might still be alive, however. The monthly death toll was considerably lower before the invasion.
And do you really beleive the propaganda about a bunch of radical nutters being truly capable of posing a significant threat to the West?
the Taliban in afghan would have a field day in ****stan if they had not got their handsfull with Nato in afghan.
So why aren't the NATO forces in ****stan, then? Why waste time in Afghanistan? Ooh, look: vast untapped mineral resources....
Do you seriously believe that the West would steam into a country like Afghanistan if it weren't about securing resources and supply routes? Really? Do you truly believe that it was all about the ordinary people of that country? So, what about the people of Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Chechnya, DR Congo, etc?
Sierra Leone....mmmm.....diamonds.....
Have a look at where the West has intervened militarily. Then have a look at those areas' resource potential. Spot the link?
Come on. Wake up and think for yourself....
Big eared biker - I was born in 1961 and I am certain there was no threat of land invasion by troops from the USSR swince then. After all that was what the nukes did wan't it? deterrence and all that.
anyway - that was defending germany not these islands.
Interceprtion of drugs? a very minor role and again not defending these islands.
Ship protection - not doping a great job off somalia. Again not defending these islands.
Elfin, have you seen what is happening in ****stan? It looks to me like whatever is really happening you just hide behind the big evil conspiracy. Maybe we should chance it and let things unravel and hope for the best.
Anyway the present world is different to the 1930's and having a small professional military you are prepared to use is a dam sight more effective than a large one you are not. However a small proffesional military is quickly over stretched by Governments with delusions of of their place in the world.
Quite agree with you. I am not suggesting and end to the UK armed forces. Waht I am suggesting is a honest appraisal of our place in the world and what the role of our military should be. Then you budget to achieve this. You dont say - "we have this much money but want you do do this" YOu say " we want you to be able to do this. What will it cost?"
I personally believe we should be defending these islands only with a small contribution to an integrated european army. A much smaller armed forces and without all the vanity projects such as nukes
Ship protection - not doping a great job off somalia. Again not defending these islands
So if its not in our back yard leave them to it? Somalia is a tough place you know, not easy to police with limited resources....
Elfin, have you seen what is happening in ****stan?
No. Have you?
Si - do you really think your presence in afghanistan has helped the cause of the west in any w2ay?
Wow, a lot of opinions on here, every one right in their own way. But, i can see they (those in power) have chosen massive scything cuts now, to prepare us for whatever may come in the future-the whole point of SDSR. Don't get me wrong, i personally do not agree with their reasons for chopping what they have done, as i believe their facts to be wrong ('tornado fleet are more sustainable and capable than the harrier fleet'-oh really Mr Cameron)
We as a country need a more precise military rather than a 'hordes of baddies rolling over the horizon' repellant. The whole idea of 'war on terrorism' was a ridiculous concept, only dreamt up by a complete chiseller like bush. The real way to offset and counteract terrorism is by the use of intelligence and espionage -not forgetting precision strikes 😉
Yes, we do seek to have 'influence' around the world as that is the remit of the armed forces-to protect Great Britains investments and assets around the world.
oops
I personally believe we should be defending these islands only
Define [i]defending these islands[/i]!
Is protecting merchant shipping at sea protecting these islands? and how far from the shore do you stop protecting the merchant fleet? 100 miles, other side of the world?
protecting the UK airspace from foreign nations aircraft entering without permission to carry out reconnaissance?
protecting our waters from foreign submarines seeking to carry out recce missions?
protecting our fishing waters from foreign fishing fleets?
interdiction of ships smuggling drugs, weapons and/or people? in which case, where do you call the line there, is it better to stop those drugs being produced, stop the weapons being loaded onto ships, or wait till they're nearly here and hope you can stop them?
Is it better to prevent through deterrence the possibility of a Russian invasion of western Europ, or wait till they reach Calais?
can you define "defending these islands"?
By the way, which Islands? The UK you mean? So on that basis we shouldn't protect the Channel Islands, a crown protectorate? or the Isle of Man?
TJ - Do you think we should protect offshore islands that are part of the crown protectorate? are they part of "these islands"?
TandemJeremy - MemberBig eared biker - I was born in 1961 and I am certain there was no threat of land invasion by troops from the USSR swince then. After all that was what the nukes did wan't it? deterrence and all that.
anyway - that was defending germany not these islands.
Interceprtion of drugs? a very minor role and again not defending these islands.
Ship protection - not doping a great job off somalia. Again not defending these islands.
Well no way to prove it outright but the troops were there to deter small scale invasions and then slow down a full scale invasion for a few days/weeks to hopefully let cooler heads prevail. If the cooler heads didn't them third shock would have to be halted on the German plain by tactical nuclear weapons and it would rapidly go down hill from then on. Remember just because you are at war does not mean you have to deploy everything. (Great episode of Yes, Minister about that).
Still that's besides the point, if you can't see that a stable Europe is in the UK's best interests then not lot I can say on this forum will change your mind. It is the reason we fought WW1, WW2 & the cold war and why we are in the EU & NATO. If we cannot guarantee stable countries on our doorstep a country of 60+ million which imports a very substantial amount of food will soon go hungry and won't itself stay stable for long.
You can nit pick over the other bits and pieces but they are useful functions and if the RN stops one boatload of Heroin that probably means one less druggie for me to trip over in Camden for a few days. With regards to Somalia, do you think India, China, Canada, EU, USA, Russia etc would all have vessels in the Indian Ocean at the moment? It's in all our best interests and if they were not there what sort of message would that send?
"defending these islands" includes influence all over the world...
I cannot think of once since I was alive that UK forces travelled away from these islands to defend them.
So when were you born? 1990? What were those grey things sailing away from these shores, oh, they 're warships off to the Artic and Atlantic to keep tabs on those pesky Russian subs that could have cut off our sea lanes with the USA for supply purposes, all those RAF aircraft and army forces away from these shores in places like Germany, and on and on...
Britain is involved in Iraq and Afghanistan because the West wants to control the flow of oil and other natural resources abundant in those lands, principally to provide enormous wealth to a limited number of people. I think we're all pretty clear on that one.
This is about military spending, not your petty class war.
Erm, Bush. Bliar, military leaders, politicians, etc...
Well done for realising now what pretty much everyone who wasn't watching Fox news realised several years ago. Give yourself a brownie point.
And you have the temerity to accuse me of being 'ignorant'?? Here's a 'rollin eyes' emoticon for yer:
Where are these colonies we still have then? Oh that's right, we left back in the 20th century.
Oh look, oil is far more spensive now...
China, India...everythings more expensive now because raw materials are being sucked up these two countries, China in particular. Of course we could just let them continue to suck up these resources and not get involved...hang on a minute, where do we get the resources we need from?
Of course you don't care, you have already said its nothing to do with you.
Arguments done now. Ironically, Labby and El-Bent have proven me right, although I doubt they'll see the irony....
All you have done is proven how ignorant you really are...we had people like you in charge in the 1920's/30's and it almost cost us our Democracy.
The loss of life is a disgrace, but don't think for one minute it would be any better if Nato were not there.
I'm sure Elfin has conveniently forgotten about who ran the country beforehand and what they were doing.
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
Ouch! In fact I [b]developed[/b] naval air defence systems between 1995 and 2000 (although not PAAMS specifically). I know something about their limitations - more than I can say without getting a knock on the door.
Incidentally, PAAMS uses Microsoft Windows 2000. 😉
Waht I am suggesting is a honest appraisal of our place in the world and what the role of our military should be. Then you budget to achieve this. You dont say - "we have this much money but want you do do this" YOu say " we want you to be able to do this. What will it cost?"
<takes deep breath, stands up>Actually I agree with you, TJ<phew that's got that embarrassing admission out of the way>
This exercise appears to be completely different to the normal defence review - purely about where they think they can get away with saving money.
Where are these colonies we still have then? Oh that's right, we left back in the 20th century.
The legacy of British Colonialism still affects places today. A point you've spectacularly missed.
All you have done is proven how ignorant you really are...
Have I? Ok then. Proves me right about you missing the irony... 😆
This is about military spending, not your petty class war.
Dear oh dear. Almost as piss-poor as Labby. Try to think up something a bit more original, please.
BTW; there's not really a lot of point in continuing to try to argue with me, as I am right and you are wrong. Which you know already, yet I can understand your need to try to save some face. It's ok, I won't hate you for it. 🙂
Ta aracer. No doubt our views of what that role is would be be somewhat different but I do not believe defence should be cash limited. WE need to make the political decisions first then[pay for them = as much or as little as it needs
El-bent - Member"I cannot think of once since I was alive that UK forces travelled away from these islands to defend them."
So when were you born? 1990? What were those grey things sailing away from these shores, oh, they 're warships off to the Artic and Atlantic to keep tabs on those pesky Russian subs that could have cut off our sea lanes with the USA for supply purposes, all those RAF aircraft and army forces away from these shores in places like Germany, and on and on...
And this is an example of defending the UK how exactly? A whole load of willy waving on a huge scale. There was no chance of a Russian sub starting to blow up uk merchant shipping.
I thought the nuke deterrent was supposed to have kept the ruskies away anyway - by that MAD doctrine no conventional forces were needed
Biogeared biker. Of course a stable Europe is in the UKs best interests and I do think a contingent to a European army is right. However I am not convinced the army of the rhine did a great deal to stabilise europe.
A bit of googling turns up the Russian/Chinese SS-N-22 anti-ship missile:
speed: Mach 2.5-4
flight time: 25-35 seconds
cruise altitude: 15 feet above sea
evasion: violent end manoeuvres
payload: 320 kg
They make ACs and other large warships a bit redundant. The Chinese are reckoned to have about 100 of these. If it kicks off over Taiwan, the yanks can kiss goodbye to their entire battle group IMO.
And this is an example of defending the UK how exactly? A whole load of willy waving on a huge scale. There was no chance of a Russian sub starting to blow up uk merchant shipping.
Apart from the Russian subs themselves being willy waving - they didn't need to blow anything up in order to scare people that they might.
The legacy of British Colonialism still affects places today. A point you've spectacularly missed.
As a reader of history I know full well the legacy of colonialism. I also know that if you don't learn from history it has a habit of repeating itself, something you seem to have forgotten when it comes to the fate of nations. So what's the legacy of colonialism got to do with todays defence spending?
BTW; there's not really a lot of point in continuing to try to argue with me, as I am right and you are wrong. Which you know already, yet I can understand your need to try to save some face. It's ok, I won't hate you for it.
I'd be a little embarrassed if I had to write that to extract myself out of losing an argument. What a cop out.
I thought the nuke deterrent was supposed to have kept the ruskies away anyway - by that MAD doctrine no conventional forces were needed
Not really. MAD just prevents anyone undertaking a first-strike nuclear conflict. You can still go crazy with conventional warfare. It gets edgy when you use battlefield/tactical nukes tho.
And this is an example of defending the UK how exactly? A whole load of willy waving on a huge scale. There was no chance of a Russian sub starting to blow up uk merchant shipping.I thought the nuke deterrent was supposed to have kept the ruskies away anyway - by that MAD doctrine no conventional forces were needed
Biogeared biker. Of course a stable Europe is in the UKs best interests and I do think a contingent to a European army is right. However I am not convinced the army of the rhine did a great deal to stabilise europe.
😯
I'm not into religion but...Jesus, do you actually believe that?
What a cop out.
You haven't proven me wrong. More, you've reinforced my views.
This has reached the stage of 'You're stupid' 'No you're stupid'. I really, really can't be bothered arguing any more. I've expressed my opinions, you've attempted (and failed) to discredit and dismiss them, I have little respect in any thing else you have to say, therefore I see little point in continuing this petty childishness. Don't you?
Nighty night.
(You might see me responding to other posters. That's possibly because they don't go calling me 'ignorant' without justification. Please don't be offended if I don't respond to your comments any more)
ss-n-22???, more worrying, what about this? [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval ]fast![/url] that would worry me more!
Elbent - rtemeber the context is in from 1960 onwards - you really believe that a few UK warships prevented Russian subs blowing UK ships out of the water? That the UK force on teh rhine prevented Russian invasion and stabilised europe? Post 1960??
Buzz - that claim made is that the presence of the nukes kept the peace since 1945.
Could Big Society not step in a la RNLI and help defend this great nation?
Ouch! In fact I developed naval air defence systems between 1995 and 2000 (although not PAAMS specifically). I know something about their limitations - more than I can say without getting a knock on the door.Incidentally, PAAMS uses Microsoft Windows 2000.
Every system has it's limitations.
A bit of googling turns up the Russian/Chinese SS-N-22 anti-ship missile:speed: Mach 2.5-4
flight time: 25-35 seconds
cruise altitude: 15 feet above sea
evasion: violent end manoeuvres
payload: 320 kgThey make ACs and other large warships a bit redundant. The Chinese are reckoned to have about 100 of these. If it kicks off over Taiwan, the yanks can kiss goodbye to their entire battle group IMO.
The yanks wouldn't maneuverer a battle group into range of these Chinese weapons.
(You might see me responding to other posters. That's possibly because they don't go calling me 'ignorant' without justification. Please don't be offended if I don't respond to your comments any more)
Fair enough. Sorry to ruffle your feathers because I tell it how I see it.
They may not have that choice!
That the UK force on teh rhine prevented Russian invasion and stabilised europe? Post 1960??
Well obviously if the UK had pulled out there would still have been some other military there - though it would have been a little hairy. The Russians invading if there was no military presence there? Well I wouldn't like to have taken the chance - August 1968 is after all post 1960.
blah blah blah 3 pages of political/military/economic muterings on STW that have no doubt moved on to the legality of war and if pilots should wear crash helmets and other bizare issues etc (what tyres for an aircraft carrier landing)
So Excuse me if like the majority I ignore all that
and simply point out
[b]British Engineering [/b]
Developed with no backing from HM Treasury in a time of financial cutbacks & powered by Rolls Royce Engines.
or
44 years on this is the best the [b]Americans[/b] can do
A friggin' transformer with a limp dick for an engine!
from a purely non military view I know which one I prefer
RIP 'The Harrier' 1966-2010
They may not have that choice!
They are equipped to deal with this threat and not wanting to get into the doctrine of the US navy it would take a significant number(a swamping attack which is difficult to achieve) of these weapons to destroy one battle group. The US navy can have up to five battle groups at sea all at once.
Now the threat from Submarines is something else...
"a significant number(a swamping attack which is difficult to achieve) of these weapons to destroy one battle group"
It depends: you see if you disable the AC by attacking with say, 5 sunburn missiles, then the air defence and anti-ship capabilities are down leaving the rest of the BG very vulnerable to follow-up attack. The Chinese are thought to have about 100 of these missiles. And while the US has 5 BGs, they can't all be committed to one theatre of war.
Another disturbing prospect is China selling these missiles on to really dodgy outfits, possibly to "friends" in Africa. But maybe the Russians made them promise not to.
Good point, iain1775. It would be worth lamenting the passing of a pioneer in much the same way as lamenting the passing of Concorde, except:
RIP 'The Harrier' 1966-2010
Not quite. Even ignoring the fact it will stay in service with the RAF until next year, the US, Italy and Spain will still be flying them after that 🙄
And while the US has 5 BGs, they can't all be committed to one theatre of war.
They have 11.
TandemJeremy - Member
The reason they are not making sensible decision sis about lack of bottle. No Tory government could dare to redefine the UK armed forces role into a smaller less influential one. Thats what needs to be done to save significant money. Stop pretending we can play on the same scale as the US, Russia and China. We can't and we should not.However this lot are clearly unable to make that sort of strategic decisions. There has been no attempt to do this - define the role of the UK forces ans what they will and will not do in future thus what manpower and equipment is needed.
TJ - I would just like to point out the complete lack of context to your post here. Please have a quick look into the history of defence reviews - since the 60s would be a good start. Have a look at the decisions made, who made them and how they changed things.
You may notice a gaping chasm that the last government left - that of not reviewing the forces during their tenure. That of avoiding the decisions you say have been badly made this week. The last government abdicated that responsibility. You think the multi billion pound deficit in the defence budget appeared a few months ago? That particular government department was allowed to do that over the last 10 years by those in charge at the time.
Sometimes you have a point - history proves this one rather invalid.
And while the US has 5 BGs, they can't all be committed to one theatre of war.
If a US carrier battle group is attacked, I think you'll find the other battle groups coming over the horizon very quickly regardless of commitments elsewhere.
It depends: you see if you disable the AC by attacking with say, 5 sunburn missiles, then the air defence and anti-ship capabilities are down leaving the rest of the BG very vulnerable to follow-up attack.
That's theorethical. And unlikely.
They have 11.
They have 10, because one of the carriers is usually in RCOH, but five are at sea and the other five are in harbour.
Tootall - the cowardice over (lack of )decision making in the MOD has gone on for decades.
As for this current lot tho - making the cuts without defining the strategic role is just stupid. I particularly like the fact we have 10 years when we don't need carrier borne aircraft. We Either we need them or we don't - its simple nonsense to suggest we don't need them for the next ten years
Purely political construct. teh bills got paid.You think the multi billion pound deficit in the defence budget
A bit of googling turns up the Russian/Chinese SS-N-22 anti-ship missile:speed: Mach 2.5-4
flight time: 25-35 seconds
cruise altitude: 15 feet above sea
evasion: violent end manoeuvres
payload: 320 kgThey make ACs and other large warships a bit redundant. The Chinese are reckoned to have about 100 of these. If it kicks off over Taiwan, the yanks can kiss goodbye to their entire battle group IMO.
This and the subsequent arguments demonstrates the needs for a balanced military - or a very much smaller military.
The SS-N-22 is only as good as it's own launch platforms, which are as vulnerable as any other. The range of the SS-N-22 is quoted as 220-240km, which is gives a pretty good stand-off, but in a naval chess game to commit and loose these assets would consierably weaken the attacking force.
Why do you think its called a battle group? The carrier might be deploying the strike capability (or rescue, or humanitarian, or defence, etc) available through its aircraft, but the frigates, destroyers and submarines are vital for mutual defence of that group...
Ordering 2 new carriers also preserves the need for much of the rest of the Navy.
And why 2? Well sooner or later one will need to pop in to the garage for a service - and that's not a 2 day turnaround
Purely political construct. teh bills got paid.
You really have no idea about this subject. Please, please just accept that it has been a monumental mess and those in government allowed it to happen. It was not political construct - it was negligence at the highest level.