Originally Posted by BedIn

Jesus wept. Sometimes ARRSE is like Groundhog Day.

- Argentina cannot invade the Falklands. They no longer have an amphibious capability. There airforce is the remnants of the one they had in 1982: approx 40 airworthy 1950s jets.

- We spend the 4th most on defence in the world. Although no doubt people will talk about procurement blunders etc you do get some bang for your buck. 4 x Typhoons on the FI could shoot down all of the Argentine airforce in one go. One Type 45 destroyer could track and engage the entire Argie Airforce. Two SSNs could sink the entire Argentine navy and using TLAMs could hole every airforce runway in the country. 16AA Bde is off the HERRICK treadmill and back on high readiness for contingency. Via Ascension we could have their lead BG on the FI in 24hrs.

The trouble with having small numbers is that the Goering observation applies: "Nicht einmal eine Spitfire kann gleichzeitig im Norden und im Sueden sein"

Originally Posted by nanotm

we do but the majority of the money the uk spends on defence is spunked up the wall on consultancy fees, capital projects and uor's if we had an army the size of those other countries no doubt we would actually spend more on pay but we dont ...

But BedIn's point is that we are not individually badly paid. I wouldn't be surprised if wages and pensions don't make up a very large portion of the MOD's spending infact.

We might like to whinge about our paypackets but we're paid like Kings compared to most country's soldiers and well above the national average for most ranks.

Look at:

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/...hTime=09:30:00

Salaries and pensions are the single largest part of defence expenditure.

The UK spends £57 billion a year on Defence. China spends £114 billion: exactly twice what we pay. However, we currently have an Army of (with reserves) approx 110,000. With reserves China was an Army of 4.6 million. Comparatively we as British soldiers are very expensive.

And ref low numbers of platforms meaning you can't be lots of places at once: true, but you do prioritise. Afghan isn't a big draw on destroyers and submarines. Even if Iran starts denying the Straits of Hormuz the Yanks will be all over it: our presence would be a gesture . But the FI are our problem alone, so would be priority.

Originally Posted by BedIn

Look at:

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/...hTime=09:30:00

Salaries and pensions are the single largest part of defence expenditure.

The UK spends £57 billion a year on Defence. China spends £114 billion: exactly twice what we pay. However, we currently have an Army of (with reserves) approx 110,000. With reserves China was an Army of 4.6 million. Comparatively we as British soldiers are very expensive.

And ref low numbers of platforms meaning you can't be lots of places at once: true, but you do prioritise. Afghan isn't a big draw on destroyers and submarines. Even if Iran starts denying the Straits of Hormuz the Yanks will be all over it: our presence would be a gesture . But the FI are our problem alone, so would be priority.

ok asside from the link not working it also refers to an 09 relased document, however a more uptodat 2011 document was available and shows that total personel spending is 12.8 billion of which is a total not just militarty but includes pensions and it also includes civilians and contractors and thee pensions as applicable.

in start contrast china does not pay any benefits to any of its post service personel, nor does it give them relocation or provide post service reintegration training.

the cost per soldier is similarly high in the uk at an average of 49k per year which is roughly a 50/50 split on wages and everythign that goes with employing htem), china does nothing other than paythem there food and some pocket change, it doesnt count the cost of treatment or provision or medical and other services which if it did would probably make there force almost as expensive as ours.

i'll conceed the point that we are the 3rd most expensive standing military force in the world per capita and that were we a monsterously large force like the usa or china we would be cumulativly cheaper in such numbers oweing ot the fact all our support stuff like clothing and farming would be done inhouse not contracted out (infanteers need something to do when not fighting so its possible ot say its more a case our gvt is not as clever sa other gvts and as such we cost significantly more than other forces do.

Just use the Flatlands for Infantry training, basic footslogging infantry training, pack off a Brigades worth at a time and no sweat.

john

That's what there doing in Cyprus isn't it?

but with current ops training geared at the med climate as opposed to the south Atlantic and that coupled with the extra expense I doubt it would happen even if it is a good idea.

Originally Posted by jimmys_best_mate

But BedIn's point is that we are not individually badly paid. I wouldn't be surprised if wages and pensions don't make up a very large portion of the MOD's spending infact.

We might like to whinge about our paypackets but we're paid like Kings compared to most country's soldiers and well above the national average for most ranks.

Well, I noticed that "American squaddies" wasn't mentioned, or the fact that our UN pay was seconded by the government, or that we had an "Irish" pay rise in 1977, but we digress from the thread.

At least they are earning a wage, being a soldier use to be just another way of avoiding poverty or prison. I look forward to them getting a preformance related bonus.

Originally Posted by mad_mick

Well, I noticed that "American squaddies" wasn't mentioned, or the fact that our UN pay was seconded by the government, or that we had an "Irish" pay rise in 1977, but we digress from the thread.

I believe we're better paid than US servicemen as well.

I've just had a quick look and the US equivalent of a British Corporal (US Sergeant) with 12 years plus service is on base pay of $3013 a month which comes out to £1,915. That's less than I earn as my gross monthly wage.

Originally Posted by jimmys_best_mate

I believe we're better paid than US servicemen as well.

I've just had a quick look and the US equivalent of a British Corporal (US Sergeant) with 12 years plus service is on base pay of $3013 a month which comes out to £1,915. That's less than I earn as my gross monthly wage.

but they get significant additions ot there basic pay, every course gives a few extra $, there base housing is lower, there very existance is subsidised by a much larger ammount and thats without getting into allowances for being overseas or taxation issues. were well paid but thee are far better paid professional forces out there

Originally Posted by jonwilly

Just use the Flatlands for Infantry training, basic footslogging infantry training, pack off a Brigades worth at a time and no sweat.

john

Question for those in the know. Does John's idea float? What will happen after 2014 in terms of training areas? Apparently, the B.A.R. will need more space as they take on more of the load, a retreat from Afghanistan and the drawdown from Germany will mean some 60 - 80K of regulars plus the cough 30K of TA all needing training venues on this sceptred isle.

This isle being somewhat crowded, would it make sense to send a brigade down to the Falklands and use it as a 6 month training venue?

What might be an additional benefit would be that the RN would no longer be able to bring up the Falklands in distress fear when it comes to budgets.

Kromeriz