welsh1 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) welsh1-hard to attack land based targets and destroy an enemy such as the Taliban using a sub-lets just have a quick peep at our subs record. First Nuke powered sub to attack an enemy target was "Conks" in a questionable attack on the Belgrano-she then hid for the rest of the conflict acting as an underwater spy, a few years later she collided with a Yacht before being scrapped. They also have the capability to destroy a fair bit of the world,so hardly weaker than before ww2. Our Army is not designed to take on the might of the Russians and even in the cold war BAOR was just to slow them up a bit,my expected battle life when i was in Germany didn't even stretch to hours,we were there to destroy as much infrastructure as fast as possible,German bridges are even designed to be blown up. Russia has size on her side,a vast country with 143 million people,we can never hope to compete with that,and so we have the Nuclear deterrent,mutual assured destruction holds all the major powers in check,and they "arm wrestle" in proxy wars around the world. As for the taliban,you cannot defeat an enemy such as that,their structure is fluid and we and other countries have tried by brute force and hearts and minds,but to no avail. Do you not think that it may be better to stop interfering in some countries and wasting money we do not have,and British lives that do not deserve to die? Edited February 22, 2015 by welsh1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth82 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 There's always one vanguard at sea providing the nuclear deterrent, the submarine service will always be an invaluable service from intelligence gathering, tlam strikes and the deterrent they always provide. As for the rest of the armed forces I find it sad to see that the whole of the army's personnel can sit inside wembley and seats would still be empty, navy are operating ships after drastic cuts without full complements, and the raf have lost squadrons and bases throughout the country. The mod were banking on reservists and those that were leaving or made redundant to enlist as a reserve but that's well and truly back fired. As an ex servicemen i miss the crack but I am so glad I left when I did. Lions led by donkey's springs to mind! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 The military spending for the UK mostly goes into wages, either directly for personnel or to provide jobs in suppliers like Land Rover or the ship yards (indirect jobs) and the money filters back into the economies in towns like Aldershot and Colchester through shops and garages etc where service families live and shop. Hundreds of companies depend on MOD contracts Plus all those people pay tax, VAT etc as do the suppliers of everything from boots to food. Government protocol dictates everything has to be supplied from within the UK so that supplies cannot be witheld. So the actual defence cost to the country is a big fat zero. Cut defense budgets and all you do is tip people out of jobs for which they have immense pride and self esteem and put them on a life of benefits and low self esteem. You dont actually save any money you just move it from one budget ie defense to benefits, and then to the NHS to deal with the fallout. Close the shipyards and you can never re-open them. Better to keep all those fine young men and women wearing shiny boots and make use of them. In the US forces they have fantastic education programmes. My friend Rick in Tennessee has a son who joined the USAF aged 18 but came out as a fully qualified aircraft engineer with all his papers to work on not only military aircraft but also all civilian aircraft and a degree in aeronautical engineering. He walked straight out of the military into a well paid job with one of the air lines. Thats fairly standard in the American forces, why not here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRYAN3 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 During the Falklands war ships were taken-up from the commercial fleet. I forget the term used. But what if we get involved with anything serious,not that Falklands was not-it was a close shave. All the ships will be too busy taking the Imigrants back to safety,as they won't be rushing to the recruiting offices to enlist. I really don't see much hope for us,even us civilian sports shooters will have our firearms taken from us at the first sign of trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triumph_Dave Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) The issue is numbers, sure the Russian Tech may be lower than ours, but not by that much in the areas that count and they have more ability ( forces/equipment ) to absorb losses,. When our numbers of high tech kit have been destroyed, then there is no time to build new kit. We have a one shot defense.. When its gone that's it.. Not a good position to be in.. We have a sub force with nuclear armed missiles, always one at sea.. If ( and it's a big if ) it is detected and destroyed prior to firing its missiles.. Then what do we do. Resort to the long bow!!.. The Uk has been in similar positions though history regarding lack of preparation and small fighting ability and due to some degree of luck and timing we have managed to survive, but it's been a very close call. I despair regarding the amount of armed forces and equipment we have, there is no way it should have been reduced to the level it is now. There are many counties which are a real threat to our security. The responsibility lies completely with our politicians and it's all the parties. Not just one. Edited February 22, 2015 by triumph_Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandalf Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 . There are many counties which are a real threat to our security. We in North Suffolk have always been a bit worried about our long border with Norfolk. However, we have increased the numbers of boy, and girl, scouts and the WI are on permanent standby... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OJW Posted February 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 The issue is numbers, sure the Russian Tech may be lower than ours, but not by that much in the areas that count and they have more ability ( forces/equipment ) to absorb losses,. When our numbers of high tech kit have been destroyed, then there is no time to build new kit. We have a one shot defense.. When its gone that's it.. Not a good position to be in.. We have a sub force with nuclear armed missiles, always one at sea.. If ( and it's a big if ) it is detected and destroyed prior to firing its missiles.. Then what do we do. Resort to the long bow!!.. The Uk has been in similar positions though history regarding lack of preparation and small fighting ability and due to some degree of luck and timing we have managed to survive, but it's been a very close call. I despair regarding the amount of armed forces and equipment we have, there is no way it should have been reduced to the level it is now. There are many counties which are a real threat to our security. The responsibility lies completely with our politicians and it's all the parties. Not just one. I agree with you on tech point. As I asked before, if the UK think 160 war heads will do the job, should push come to shove, then why does Russia feel they need 1600? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) The issue is numbers, sure the Russian Tech may be lower than ours, but not by that much in the areas that count and they have more ability ( forces/equipment ) to absorb losses,. When our numbers of high tech kit have been destroyed, then there is no time to build new kit. We have a one shot defense.. When its gone that's it.. Not a good position to be in.. We have a sub force with nuclear armed missiles, always one at sea.. If ( and it's a big if ) it is detected and destroyed prior to firing its missiles.. Then what do we do. Resort to the long bow!!.. The Uk has been in similar positions though history regarding lack of preparation and small fighting ability and due to some degree of luck and timing we have managed to survive, but it's been a very close call. I despair regarding the amount of armed forces and equipment we have, there is no way it should have been reduced to the level it is now. There are many counties which are a real threat to our security. The responsibility lies completely with our politicians and it's all the parties. Not just one. Thats absolutely right, in WW2 the whole German army could not defeat the Russians. In 1945 the very small allied army looked at the massive Russian army to the East of Berlin and thought "Oh **** !" if they want to just keep on coming we are toast. Don't ever think that we won WW2, the Russian army won WW2 and beat the Nazis. We just turned up in time to have a few photos taken Edited February 22, 2015 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 I agree with you on tech point. As I asked before, if the UK think 160 war heads will do the job, should push come to shove, then why does Russia feel they need 1600? Probably because we are aiming at Russia. Russia are aiming at USA ,Britain,France,Germany,Poland,Saudi Arabia,Canada,Australia,oh heck the rest of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriBsa Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 One thing noboby has mentioned is internal security. If memory serves the maximum number of troops in Northern Ireland was 23,000. What if it kicked of in our cities now, say an imigrant group. Could we handle it, or if Northern Ireland kicked off again? ooops silly me all those guns were "put beyond use". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Quite a bit of Russian military technology is more advanced than what we have. The difference is that they have been spending on new capabilities whereas we have spent our money on rehashing old equipment and designs, or telling ourselves that we are only ever going to bother ourselves with asymetric warfare from now on and so dont need high technology symetric capabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OJW Posted February 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Quite a bit of Russian military technology is more advanced than what we have. The difference is that they have been spending on new capabilities whereas we have spent our money on rehashing old equipment and designs, or telling ourselves that we are only ever going to bother ourselves with asymetric warfare from now on and so dont need high technology symetric capabilities. Do you think that if we wanted to could we rebuild our forces then? I'll need to google what symetric capabilities are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vole Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I think in terms of force projection against the likes of Iran or Pakistan we would have huge problems without a major alliance . These countries have huge standing armies with a fair bit of hardware and on their own turf we would be overcome easily . That makes our nuclear card all the more important . We cant even field an air craft carrier which the French are doing at present . We need to get real or get out of the world policing game . The nukes are the only ultimate veto but do not seem to scare our present enemies anyway . Our forces have been slashed at a time when the world is at its craziest . Compaired to the 70s we have been reduced by 2 thirds . We seem to emphasise the high tech when all we need to do is drop bombs on insurgents like the a 10s do really well . Not seen many Typhoons in Afghanistan . 6 Tornadoes against IS does not inspire confidence either . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Symetric and asymetric refer to the matching of forces. Our armour versus Iraqi Republican Guard Armoured units = symetric. Light mechanised troops vs the Taleban in Afghanistan = asymetric. Our forces could be rebuilt to previous levels if there was the political will and cash, but that would need a serious and real threat of a war of survival against a foe capable to bringing the battle to our shores. We went on about how Afghanistan was a major campaign, but we only ever had a Brigade sized force on the ground, which is nothing when you compare it to WWII, and the amount of ground we actually dominated was miniscule. We rely on our nuclear deterrent, which is the Trident armed submarines, for our global power projection. In terms of numbers, one intercontinental nuclear delivery system is as good as 100 - as soon as you use one everyone is dead anyway. In terms of conventional fighting forces, we have a tiny amount of high quality equipment, which suits us well enough for cooperation in coalition operations, but would get swatted aside in a confrontation with a sizeable modern force with heavy armour and artillery (most of which we have just got rid of). Our armed forces are terribly, terribly top heavy, and the ratio of fighting personnel and equipment is tiny compared to the support arms and the amount of high level command elements that seem to spring up. As a result, we have a vast array of deskbound functions being taken up by extremely expensive uniformed personnel while core combat capability is stripped out in the name of cost saving, and it is the military themselves who are driving it so that sizeable chains of command and therefore opportunities for promotion are retained now Afghanistan is over. It wouldnt surprise me at all if we end up with a home defence force in time unless a major conventional conflict occurs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Northern Ireland kicked off again? ooops silly me all those guns were "put beyond use Its OK we are all friends now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vole Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I would willingly pay more tax if it meant having a properly salaried and more capable armed forces at this point in time . 100, 000 does not seem enough with only a fraction of that combat soldiers . The countries who oppose us can field many more . Cant help recalling the Iranians capturing uk sailors making us look like pussies . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 The problem isn't the amount of money going into the pot, our defence budget is very large. It is a combination of disjointed political thinking and vested interests within the military taking advantage of it for rather short term reasons that has led us here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vole Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I agree , I think we have almost the highest defence expense but a small army in comparison . Maybe because we finance the high tech stuff when all we need is to drop bombs on insurgents . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triumph_Dave Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Politically I believe we are in one of the low periods of our countries history.. There is not one party that shows any indication to wake up and realise that we have to look long term at our overall defence forces and the real need to defend ourselves. All they want is to gain political pecking order by making cuts.. Our nuclear deterrent has somehow managed to survive.. a case of last man standing.. if some our political parties had their way this also would be gone. Our air force, ground forces and navy have been decimated. . I just wish I could see a political party I could trust.... simply there is not one.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandalf Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 While we have the current, antiquated, political 'party' system things will not change. There is no long term planning about anything. Four years is the maximum then it's a 'giveaway period' running up to the next election. Many of the problems we have in this country can be traced back to giveaways. If we could only get away from political parties, career politicians, complete personnel changes of our leaders every 4/5 years (Why not stand down 25% of the MP's every year, say), corruption in politics and, above all, adopt a long term plan for all our major departments - NHS, Education, Defence, Etc. We might then get some of the right people to run the country who actually want to serve the nation instead of their selves and their parties. The defence problem we currently face has repeated itself over and over in our little countries history - Politicians will never act in the nations interest when they have their eyes firmly on the next election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Some great points well made, BUT, I fear we are more likely to see flying pigs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandalf Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 I'll get the shovel... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 There is also the cost of development of new hardware. ... Budget overruns are scary. I've yet to see any other business run like that. Obviously if a request to change spec arrives half way through then that's different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandalf Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 There is also the cost of development of new hardware. ... Budget overruns are scary. I've yet to see any other business run like that. Obviously if a request to change spec arrives half way through then that's different. But the change of spec halfway through is mandatory with the MOD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 duck and cover KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.