Defence spending

[buster_broon]

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.

we have more people and units including air and sea assets down there to stop any incursion more so than all those years ago

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.

Type 45's have been created for this exact measure, what they can do on paper is quite impressive - most of our modern kit is nuclear hardening with additional EPM

The Astute's were necessary, the UK's SSN fleet was dying and needed replacing

Good example, my first ship was a type 21 frigate:


These ships were laid down in the 60's and ready for active service in the 70's - i am on the upper deck near the funnel btw

The original idea of these ships was as an interim unit to wait for the newer ships that had already been planned, so they were given a life of 10 years before they would be paid off, the ship i was on last for 20 years before she was sold and is still in active service with the Pakistan Navy

moral of the story is that we do get value for money and units are given alot longer than they really need, my last Minesweeper was active for over 30 years until she was paid off

i do agree with the comment about size though, During the queens golden jubilee we had to ask other navies to help with ships just so the solent looked busy, during the Silver jubilee and the spithead review the amount of ships was incredible and 95% of the ships were ours



vs

[Dogg Thang]

Sorry, Buster, just to clarify, if you reread my post it was the Balkans, not the Falklands, where I didn't remember British being involved. Your lynching is premature.

[buster_broon]

Sorry, Buster, just to clarify, if you reread my post it was the Balkans, not the Falklands, where I didn't remember British being involved. Your lynching is premature.

no lynching at all, just me being a douche

but just 1 UK person makes it important for the UK's involvement

lets not mention genocide etc etc

[NW2013]

Another interesting story in the Observer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ju...wk-helicopters

Apparently we've had a few opportunities to buy some helicopters at good prices but turned them down flat. The MoD excuses are pretty laughable, claiming it would result in fewer helicopters when training surely wouldn't take that long!

I really believe buying British results in higher costs but not a better product.

[smouty]

We went to the Balkans as part of NATO ;-) and I use we as I actually did go and have the ridiculous medal to prove it.
I thought about the issue this morning and came to the conclusion that the british public only really care about defense spending when our military personnel start dying in large numbers which I find a bit sad.
Regarding helicopters which is my specialisation, our two main workhorses, the Puma and Chinook are 40 and 30 years old

[NW2013]

More defence spending malarkey in the news this week. It seems the defence budgets are going to be raped going forward. I'd like to see more procurement from overseas rather than creating British jobs for political reasons regardless of how much more that costs.

I wish people would stop saying "there is no longer such a thing as state-on-state wars" too. Just because the last two wars have been "counter-insurgency" affairs does not mean there will never be a state-on-state war again. When the resource wars kick off and China and Russia are on our doorstep we'll see what they say.

[MisterBubbles]

Waste of money and good service men and women, cut the lot , get out Iraq and Afganistan plus cut trident our debt would disappear.

[NW2013]

I do agree about Trident, we don't need it and there are far cheaper alternatives.

The good thing is they seem to be acknowledging that there needs to be a total review and we have to decide what exactly our armed forces want to achieve and be used for.

[Team Andromeda]

Waste of money and good service men and women, cut the lot , get out Iraq and Afganistan plus cut trident our debt would disappear.

Never letting Labour get in again , is a far better option to stop the debt (Twice they've left the country Bankrupt in the last few decades ) .
We need our Armed Forces more than ever , and need to increase spending not cut it . Until there's not a single Nuclear missile in the world , we'll be mad to give up ours

[fishbowlhead]

More defence spending malarkey in the news this week. It seems the defence budgets are going to be raped going forward. I'd like to see more procurement from overseas rather than creating British jobs for political reasons regardless of how much more that costs.

I wish people would stop saying "there is no longer such a thing as state-on-state wars" too. Just because the last two wars have been "counter-insurgency" affairs does not mean there will never be a state-on-state war again. When the resource wars kick off and China and Russia are on our doorstep we'll see what they say.

Personally id rather the items our forces rely on, isnt and never will be made to the lowest bidder in taiwan .

The budget amount isn't the issue, its the amount of d*ck heads that stand in the way of it being used properly, just like the nhs, bbc etc. Its all bull**** spread by incompetent politicians to cover up their own uselessness.

[NW2013]

I was thinking more like made in the USA, provided they don't gimp the stuff before selling it to us.

[saif]

which they always do....

[dataDave]

I wish people would stop saying "there is no longer such a thing as state-on-state wars" too. Just because the last two wars have been "counter-insurgency" affairs does not mean there will never be a state-on-state war again. When the resource wars kick off and China and Russia are on our doorstep we'll see what they say.

Those wars would be over in seconds. Not that I think it'll ever come to that, it would have happened already.

[averybluemonkey]

I wish people would stop saying "there is no longer such a thing as state-on-state wars" too. Just because the last two wars have been "counter-insurgency" affairs does not mean there will never be a state-on-state war again. When the resource wars kick off and China and Russia are on our doorstep we'll see what they say.

China and India are such economic powerhouses that given a couple of decades I strongly doubt they would be very worried about our small little island.

When we can't even afford to police our own streets (not to mention the dire state of higher education funding - something which actually helps bring money into the country ) I can't help but think military spending should be the least of our concerns.

[abigsmurf]

There will never be a land war in China or mainland USA. China has the world's largest army, the USA has millions of gun nuts.

Although we spend a lot of money on the army, a good deal of the army is kept inside the country and is eventually recovered through taxes. Meanwhile soldiers have jobs, BAE and co. make a fortune (weapons manufacture is one of the few major manufacturing industries left in the UK).