Can the British afford a strong National Defense?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by NEO_CON, Oct 28, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Here is a article I found about British military cutbacks.

    CVF is a flagship programme for the UK and central to the commitment in the Strategic Defence Review to modern, flexible and highly capable forces. The two larger and more capable vessels will replace the current Invincible class aircraft carriers. Assessment work is investigating aircraft carrier design options. These include designs capable of accommodating short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) and conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft.
  2. To be brutally honest, with all the money being flung at the NHS (which is rapidly bleeding to death before everyone's eyes) i would say it is going to be unlikely that the UK will be able to afford very much of anything in the near future as Gordon the Goon bankrupts everything to keep the facade going that he can manage an economy.
  3. Maybe after we pay you off for lend-lease.
  4. It's baffled me for years where the defence budget goes.
    The army is too small but does it's job, the navy does not have first class warships (Nuc subs excepted) and the crabs are stuck with last generation aircraft and Eurofighter will be second best at best.
  5. I don't have the numbers to hand (pls correct me if I'm mistaken) but isn't it the case that there are more civil servants in the MoD than actual army personnel...?

    I don't suppose this helps much in the budget allocation equation - does anybody know what sort of percentage of the budget actually goes on defence capability as opposed to the civilian support element?

  6. PTP wrote

    Lend-lease was not a bad deal.

  7. Lend Lease was an appalling deal but it was the only deal we could get.
  8. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye (as always). What is concerning is that the media does not seem to be interested. See here. Also letter to the Telegraph.
  9. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    Ah yes....the last £215M due by 2015 isn't it ?

    The original agreement included a 'Sale or return' clause...did any of those WW1 destroyers survive to 1945 ?

    Le Chevre
  10. I'll agree with mushroom, N_C. Lend-Lease was appalling, if for no other reason than the piffling value your predecessors ascribed to reverse L-L items. Such as working radar systems (ground- and air-mounted), a jet engine, ULTRA encrypts and a not insignificant contribution to the Manhattan Project - as Tube Alloys - the results of which the US then refused to share (as per agreed terms) with HMG.

    Small stuff really. I could go on pretty much ad infinitum, getting increasingly petty, but I really can't be arsed. Yes, the UK desperately needed secure large-scale manufacturing aid and received it from the US, but please don't try and tell us that the terms were favourable to anyone other than the US.
  11. If the reason for the delay is to bring the 'system' as a whole (JSF and Carrier) online at one time, then ok. not a lot of point in having a big boat with nothing to put on it!

    If the reason is "where can we save a few bucks - Lets just cut the defence budget, we don't get any press 'flak' for that". Then we should all be VERY worried. The world is not a stable place, and the surest way to precipitate WWIII is for the democratic nations to be weak. -- Eternal Vigilance and all that! It seems economists don't learn from history.

  12. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    here we go again.....check this

    ( data correct as at June 2003 - if you want more recent numbers phone Defence Analytical Services Agency)

    Service and Civilian Personnel 294,990

    Service Personnel 206,440
    Officers 33,280
    Other Ranks 173,160
    Civilian Personnel 88,550


    Full Time Trained Strength 102,500

    It's a nice Service urban myth LancsLad - and total c0ck like most of them.....the other one we used to see pushed out EVERY YEAR during a slow news week by the Soaraway Sun was


    - which when you examined it they had determined by deciding that Second Sea Lord and Commander-In-Chief Naval Home Command are two people - he ain't - and defining ships as anything bigger than 2,200 tonnes (that wasn't a submarine)

    Le Chevre
  13. Goatman

    Goatman LE Book Reviewer

    Referendum you are a one trick pony and a member of the Fourth Estate and I claim my ten pounds 8)

    Not everything can be laid at the door of the monomaniacs in Brussels and the great Euro conspiracy....anymore than it can be ascribed to the cunning plans of the Elders of Zion to turn us all into blood donors for the alien lizards who really run things......sometimes sh1t just happens....

    ( I'll just get my ally hat then)

    Le Chevre
  14. Goatman, those figures are (as you pointed out) for 2003. The number of MOD civilian staff has increased since then and the number in the Army has decreased since then. I recall seeing actual figures (relatively recent) that the number of MOD staff has now surpassed the army's population.

    In fact i have just found the stats (and they are 0ct 2005)

    Total number of MOD employees: 106,260 (-2370 for the RFA)
    Total number of army employees: 102,040 (which is -2,130 below the projected total requirement)


    Whilst that seems quite conclusive, i am more than willing to be proved wrong by someone who knows better. Darth, you there???? :D