Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defence spending

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Defence spending

    Some argue spending billions on weapons is outmoded, and that we should be looking beyond weapons for security


    Good article on the state of Britain's armed forces in today's Observer. I was wondering what everyone's opinions are on defence spending.

    I've got to say I have a big interest in military hardware and I'm personally in favour of spending more on defence of the realm. However, the article raises a good point about targeting the spend. Do we really need the carriers and F-35s? I think they'd be really cool but don't think we "need" them.

    Given how over budget the type 45 detroyers are, and how the full capabilities of the first ship won't even be working when it launches (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06...cpac_slammage/), I fear we'd make the same errors with the carriers.

    Should we give up "expenditionary" wars altogether and just concentrate on defending ourselves when required?

    EDIT - Forgot to add I think we should axe the current Trident system and any proposed submarine based replacement. I don't see why we can't just have a missle based delivery system based at our bases around the world and on selected ships. Wouldn't be as quick to respond but does it really matter?
    Last edited by NW2013; 28-06-2009, 08:38.

    #2
    I think the forces are woefully under funded, sadly the situation is then made worse by the way the money is spent so incompetently. Overspends and delays are nothing new unfortunately.

    The article points out that the Typhoon was 10 years late, 10 ****ING YEARS! How can that be allowed to happen? As a result 5.4 billion wasted which could have been spent elsewhere. Someone should be held accountable for such epic fails.

    Comment


      #3
      I think the issue of wars on foreign soil and international defence spending is a very complicated one.

      There are many factors that make them necessary.
      1) For the Western system of economy and government to flourish, you need stability elsewhere. The Americans spent decades fixated with the 'open door' and 'rogue' regimes that weren't necessarily conducive to Western interests. I'm not saying I agree with this, but it's certainly one way of thinking.
      2) Britain regularly attaches itself to the world's biggest superpower, and since Bill Clinton's foreign policy started to focus on the role of being a policeman of democracy and liberty, the two countries have got involved in many situations that are difficult to simply walk away from, unless you want to threaten the ideals in the first point.
      3) Foreign/defence policy has shied away from isolationism for decades now. The notion of pre-emptive strikes and mass invlovement of foreign affairs has put various infrastructures in place that, if removed, could create threats to national defence.
      4) An increasingly minor point as the years roll on and things sort themselves out, but the legacy of Empire building leaves various responsibilites around the globe that the UK maintains an interest in.

      Alternatively, the country could be less proactive and only focus on reactive measures, ie, being attacked. This would certainly save money, but history has taught us that threats can often flourish in a period of isolationism, and countries end up getting dragged into problems anyway.

      I think a proactive/reactive balance is the best way to go.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Mr_Skinny View Post
        The article points out that the Typhoon was 10 years late, 10 ****ING YEARS! How can that be allowed to happen? As a result 5.4 billion wasted which could have been spent elsewhere. Someone should be held accountable for such epic fails.
        I think it's probably slightly longer. I remember me and two of my mates at school when we were 14/15 were really into the military and planes in particular and the Eurofighter was announced around then. We thought it would be pretty cool at the time. It's not even in full service yet and I'm 27 now!!

        I've seen it at an airshow and it does seem pretty impressive but it is only an air superiority fighter, apparently it only has a crap bolt on air to ground capability.

        Prinny: I think I probably agree with your overall viewpoint, it's difficult when there are a lot of competing factors.

        2) Britain regularly attaches itself to the world's biggest superpower, and since Bill Clinton's foreign policy started to focus on the role of being a policeman of democracy and liberty, the two countries have got involved in many situations that are difficult to simply walk away from, unless you want to threaten the ideals in the first point.
        On this point though, do you think it will always remain this way? I think Obama might reduce military spend and look more towards diplomacy. Also as the Observer article points out the demographic of the USA is shifting and they might start to feel more aligned to the Latin American countries rather than Europe.
        Last edited by NW2013; 28-06-2009, 09:16.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by StuM82 View Post
          I think it's probably slightly longer. I remember me and two of my mates at school when we were 14/15 were really into the military and planes in particular and the Eurofighter was announced around then. We thought it would be pretty cool at the time. It's not even in full service yet and I'm 27 now!!

          I've seen it at an airshow and it does seem pretty impressive but it is only an air superiority fighter, apparently it only has a crap bolt on air to ground capability.
          Yeah likewise! (only I'm 31!)

          Edit: I'm hoping to see it in a couple of weeks!

          Comment


            #6
            it may be semantics (or maybe not) but there is a big difference between defence spending and attack spending.

            since WWII we haven't actually defended ourselves at all have we, just attacked people we didn't like much ?

            presently for all our billions we are being held at bay by a relatively small local militia armed with AK's and a bit of cunning.

            personally I think the whole arms/defence thing stinks and is just another example of this country wasting billions through incompetence & a good slug of corruption.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by StuM82 View Post
              On this point though, do you think it will always remain this way? I think Obama might reduce military spend and look more towards diplomacy. Also as the Observer article points out the demographic of the USA is shifting and they might start to feel more aligned to the Latin American countries rather than Europe.
              Possibly. It's difficult to tell with North Korea flexing their nuclear muscle and Iran still being very much part of the 'Axis' how far Obama will test the diplomatic/economic options, or whether or not he maintains a high level of military industrial spending to be seen to be standing up to terror. It would be very interesting to see how far the US and GB would get involved in a war that didn't directly threaten them, like the Yugoslavian one. This may reveal how far policy objectives and their perceived role in the world has changed, and whether or not national defence/preemptive offence has nearly fully taken over from UN policeman work.

              Comment


                #8
                I'm totally with Merf on this. I'm not sure I've seen any actual defending in my lifetime. At least none I can think of off the top of my head. Some day there may well be a big Michael Douglas in Falling Down realisation.

                Still, got to have it just in case, eh?

                And I'm pretty sure the British economy is one of the ones that would be severely hit if peace broke out. It used to be anyway. I haven't seen (or looked for) arms trade and related trades figures in probably 10 years. Could be different now but I doubt it.

                Besides, feeding the paranoia keeps the people in line so it's all good.

                Comment


                  #9
                  There hasn't been any military defence of Britain itself but I'd say the Falklands and the Balkan conflicts were actual "defence" of British or Nato interests.

                  There is incompetence and corruption in the spending but this is the same in any government department, i.e. the NHS.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by StuM82 View Post
                    I've seen it at an airshow and it does seem pretty impressive but it is only an air superiority fighter, apparently it only has a crap bolt on air to ground capability.
                    The Eurofighter's history is complex, as it would be the history of any aircraft developed by various countries with different interests: France left the program to pursue its Rafale, Italy and Spain got onboard and the original English/German project called to replace different aircrafts.
                    As for A-G capabilities, yes, they are inferior to, say, a Tornado IDS but the idea was to have both Tornados and Typhoons acting together. The F-22 has a similar problem, as the original program called for a pure A-A dogfighter, like the F-15C; even the F-35 saw its A-G capabilities cut as the program progressed.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by StuM82 View Post
                      There hasn't been any military defence of Britain itself but I'd say the Falklands and the Balkan conflicts were actual "defence" of British or Nato interests.
                      Yep, there's the Falklands. Probably the Balkans too but I honestly can't remember the history there and don't remember British interests or British citizens being involved.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Dogg Thang View Post
                        And I'm pretty sure the British economy is one of the ones that would be severely hit if peace broke out. It used to be anyway. I haven't seen (or looked for) arms trade and related trades figures in probably 10 years. Could be different now but I doubt it.

                        Besides, feeding the paranoia keeps the people in line so it's all good.
                        It's very true that the economy feeds off a state of military industrial readiness, but it's also true that it needs relatively stable conditions to operate fully in, or to spread out globally in. Or at least some of the economy does, such as consumer items.

                        My proactive/reactive balance comment was referring to the best-fit practical option for the way the things are currently. Not that I approve of the way things are at all.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Dogg Thang View Post
                          Yep, there's the Falklands. Probably the Balkans too but I honestly can't remember the history there and don't remember British interests or British citizens being involved.
                          Yeah, I'm not 100% certain about the Balkans myself and was reluctant to mention that in case someone picked me up on it. I just thought it was an example of a "good" motive for war, i.e. halting genocide and to protect a Nato state.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Dogg Thang View Post
                            British interests or British citizens being involved.
                            there is alot of Falkland islander's that would hang you out to dry for that comment, hell of a lot more patriotic and 'British' than alot of people that live here thats for sure

                            managed to go there on patrol 3 times in my life during the early 90's, the people are lovely

                            defence spending has already been cut in a way since there were 12 45's mentioned and there will only be 8, the CVF's (IMO) might not happen, but the UK navy has been without a true aircraft carrier since the old Ark Royal around 30 years ago

                            Manpower is their biggest problem at the minute, due to the heavy intake of personel when i joined up there is now 'holes' in specific departments and they are having to offer career extensions to the more seasoned veteran's to try and keep experience in key roles onboard - which is good for me considering i just added another 6 years to my career

                            But to try and attract new personel they have offered good wages, which is too high, someone who is 17 just out of training can earn upto £17,000 - not alot of Civilian jobs with need experience offer that amount of money

                            young + loads of money / arseholes = me telling them to clean, paint and scrub

                            for for ships, the navy get ripped off all over the place, a civilian off the shelf system (COTS) which would normally cost X to most people, gets charged to the MOD at XXXXX

                            even though the cost of the 45's is massive, they can quite easily do the job of around 10 ships or more, so in relative terms their cost isnt so high, it's the most advanced waship around at the moment (when it works) and easily beats the tech on any of the newer US warships

                            Comment


                              #15
                              The Falklands is the only thing I can recall as well. If Argentina decided to have another pop at the Falklands I imagine there's very little we could do about it, we just don't have enough ships anymore. Perhaps if we pulled EVERYTHING from all other commitments, including patrolling UK waters there might be enough but I can't see that happening.

                              I think there needs to be a proper review of armed forces spending and commitment etc, we seem to be buying expensive new kit like the type 45's, new carriers & subs etc but what use are they in the current non-conventional wars we are involved in? I know we have to be prepared for all eventualities but in the event of a lenghty conventional war against a country with reasonable armed forces we don't have enough in terms of numbers anyway. Didn't the government say not too long ago that they didn't envisage fighting any future wars without the americans, or something like that? Sounds like a bad situation to be in if you ask me

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X