"May questions UK’s top tier military status.."

It seems to me that the attitude towards defence expenditure is a bit schizophrenic. On one hand there has been a growing distaste for expeditionary capability and its concomitant costs but on the other hand we’ve just landed ourselves with two whacking great aircraft carriers designed to “project power”.
I suppose that the idea was to provide these as a component of a multinational force- with the US making up the majority of the boots on the ground. Now the US is increasingly demanding that her partners do their fair share, is this model still realistic? It is obvious that serious numbers of ground troop casualties is the most politically incendiary part of any modern conflict- why would US politicians, or population, put up with a stream of body bags heading stateside when their allies’ contribution is relatively safe offshore with only a handful of pilots at risk?
If Theresa May is resigned to national defence force-type expenditure surely the carrier money would have been better spent on an army of specialists, an expanded civil defence force / militia, coastal defence vessels and nukes.
Exactly this.
 
Honestly?

A deterrent that's operated and worked since the day it first sailed.

ASW frigates frequently used on Towed Array Patrol activations. The same frigates that also have operated globally in a wider range of roles.

Amphibious platforms - Hurricane Irma/Maria (demonstrating HADR
Role), various Cougars operating with foreign militaries. CTF flag in the Gulf, migrant duties, NEO(Lebanon).

Yeah they all done nothing since 1982!

so far you've evidenced you know absolutely nothing about the post 1982 RN. What do you think an SSN could do in the straights of Dover?

what with and why? Even in the days of the BAOR it was an exercise in futility.
So you mean you understand the value of deterrence?

Interesting
 
- Really, why? What about the air policing role in Syria where modern RU aircraft and surveillance systems were used. BTW we don't operate F16 - so we're talking about operating the assets we have, not fantasy fleets. So, in an Air Force thats rationlised airframes for many valid reasons, it's Typhoon or F35b (idc).

- You pick one tiny example - but again a CVF can enforce policing with is consorts and air group over a massive area - very useful. Somali Pirate - the rotary assets and ISR from a CVF would have spoiled their day, just like the French and US assets did as they past through, not to mention the consorts. In terms of DE, I'd suggest CVF will make a huge impact.

No, I just think you're wrong.



The Army's high end capability (if you're referring to CHALLENGER2, is a great tank and has done a sterling job largely sat in their sheds. Meanwhile every single day an RAF aircraft flies operationally and a Navy ship/submarine sails operationally - thats where the argument lies and thats how its justified.

If its on the balance sheet and its not being used - what is it?
Interesting
Detterent on patrol doing its job
Typhoon air policing - acting as a detterent - doing its job
HMS X on Patrol - acting as a detterent is doing its job
This justifies their existance - All of which I agree with bye the bye

Yet the commitment of an armoured battlegroup to Eastern Europe act as a detterent, isn't doing its job doesn't justify its existence.

Ship sailing Good plane flying Good Tank driving not relevant im spotting a flaw to your logic.

I think Glad its all over is correct a smaller raid focused regulars is the way forwards
I also think Beardys correct - to many light unbrigaded units - the army needs to get a grip and lose light units and increase mechanised etc.
Of course the 2 positions are somewhat at odds but accepting that 50 - 70K army isnt enough for warfighting and thus configuring the regs for immediate light / SF medium intervention and shunting heavy armour and (high intensity) warfighting to the reserves (perhaps with a higher regs presence than present in certain Reserve units) may square that circle. With the obvious caviats*

*1) Its actually equipped and funded and not pretending a Morris minor is C2
2) everyone accepts its 6 months + to field an armoured brigade so in reality were conscripting and expanding rapidly if it looks like being used as anything other than squadron strength support for the regs
3 reserves will need to be reserves and subject to a few days per year
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that the attitude towards defence expenditure is a bit schizophrenic. On one hand there has been a growing distaste for expeditionary capability and its concomitant costs but on the other hand we’ve just landed ourselves with two whacking great aircraft carriers designed to “project power”.
I suppose that the idea was to provide these as a component of a multinational force- with the US making up the majority of the boots on the ground. Now the US is increasingly demanding that her partners do their fair share, is this model still realistic? It is obvious that serious numbers of ground troop casualties is the most politically incendiary part of any modern conflict- why would US politicians, or population, put up with a stream of body bags heading stateside when their allies’ contribution is relatively safe offshore with only a handful of pilots at risk?
If Theresa May is resigned to national defence force-type expenditure surely the carrier money would have been better spent on an army of specialists, an expanded civil defence force / militia, coastal defence vessels and nukes.
What HMG wants are the manufacturing and marketing jobs that go with defence industry, not having to actually buy the hardware itself. But it becomes a difficult sell with 'made in the UK, not used by UK forces'.
 
What HMG wants are the manufacturing and marketing jobs that go with defence industry, not having to actually buy the hardware itself. But it becomes a difficult sell with 'made in the UK, not used by UK forces'.
Yeah I do get that. But if a shipyard can make state of the art carriers it can make state of the art destroyers. And I bet there’s a bigger worldwide market for the latter.
 
I'd wager If we sold all 160+ tanks tomorrow the US would not bat an eyelid because they can more than make up the deficit. If we deleted an ASW capability, the CVF or a fast jet they'd be on the phone in a heartbeat because in some areas we add more value.
You would be entirely wrong.

You fail to understand why coalitions happen. Physical equipment is a very small part of the reason.
 
You seem to be advocating a joined up policy of of education, preventative testing, taxation and advertising restrictions, and so on.... Standby for 'nanny state' cries...
Of the proper sort, not of the the socialist 'Do as we say' variety. Yes, I've no objection to admitting to that.
 
[QUOTE="Lindermyer, post: 8636941, memb
**If were looking at 50K regs 90K reserves[/QUOTE]

90k reserves: I know its Friday, but you must have started early!:p
 
We won’t. If NATO does not want to pony up Joe six pack is not going to want to send his kid off to die, while Europeans do **** all. The US will fight for it’s interest only, and if they don’t include you guys oh well.
You can’t say that. The ARRSE narrative is that we will have a boat off doing DE somewhere and the US will be so delighted with that they won’t mind US men doing all the getting killed.
 
You can’t say that. The ARRSE narrative is that we will have a boat off doing DE somewhere and the US will be so delighted with that they won’t mind US men doing all the getting killed.
That is a great theory. But it is 2018 not 1958. If your defense budget is hacked to bits Europe will follow. Then that will lead to some serious debate over here.
 
Interesting
Detterent on patrol doing its job
Typhoon air policing - acting as a detterent - doing its job
HMS X on Patrol - acting as a detterent is doing its job
This justifies their existance - All of which I agree with bye the bye

Yet the commitment of an armoured battlegroup to Eastern Europe act as a detterent, isn't doing its job doesn't justify its existence.

Ship sailing Good plane flying Good Tank driving not relevant im spotting a flaw to your logic.
Exactly! Apparently it’s only things that sail, dive and fly that deter. @A2_Matelot is displaying cognitive dissonance at its most obvious.
 
And again I challenge you on your concept of a Navy solely utilised for Home Defence, thats an incredibly blinkered view. An island nation with previous little strategic stock of food, POL, energy and consumables we absolutely rely on having an ability to keep open sea lines of communication. It only took Somali pirates a short while to disrupt tankers in the IO/Gulf and that created a huge impact on UK fuel pricing. We are strategically linked to sea trade and a coastguard wouldn't hack it.
Last time I sat in a brief from the RN on the subject, there were 10 (iirc) maritime choke points in the world. 6 x T45, 13 x T23, 7 x Astute, 4 x V Boat, 2 x QE.

First of all, substitute from the whole, the escort package for QE class. Then substitute how many SSN have a war role of FP on a V Boat. Then substitute how many Pusser's Grey are unserviceable in Guz or Pompey.

If we had a map, showing all the maritime choke points, and considered the planning ranges of those vessels available to assign to each, how effectively are we protecting the SLOCs against likely opposition?
 
Fair point

But it does mean that "the people voted for X" is not synonymous "with the people want X" as there is no way of establsih how many actually read (let alone checked / understood) the relevant policy

Which is, IMHO, why the adoption of party politics and people (allegedly) voting for a manifesto is a poor substitute for representational democracy, where an electorate vote for a person whose judgement and integrity they trust...
I wouldn't trust my MP with anything, as her short track record is firmly Party Line, rather than addressing the concerns of her constituents.
 
And what platforms are you going to mount the anti tank systems on?
Are you going to go all out on air launched, which presumes you have a superiority, or at least no Surface to air threat.
Man portable? How many men do you need to stick in front of the incoming armour?
Or artillery?
How many guns do you need? How do you move them around?
Some kind of cross country vehicle with a proven A/Tk weapon would be ideal, plus protection for the crew from enemy fire, including of course the tanks they're taking on.
I wonder what we could call it...:wink:
 
I disagree, @Glad_its_all_over made a fair point that unless we plan on invading someone or rushing to defend someone why keep armour - The very armour we've had doing very little for a long time.

And you can't in any way equate the role of Armour to that of any aspect of the Navy, or Air Force - Armour like Infantry is all about land objectives, taking and securing.

Do we really need MBT or more modern AFV, with more broad utility, better local area Air Defence and CAS capability? If we keep tanks we certainly need the rest otherwise they're just exposed targets.
Yes, IMO we need MBT as part of our commitment to NATO.

Perhaps the real question should be more about our continuing commitment to NATO, or possibly some serious questioning of other's commitment - especially those closer to the main potential threat (can you hear me Germany...?)
 
Yes, IMO we need MBT as part of our commitment to NATO.

Perhaps the real question should be more about our continuing commitment to NATO, or possibly some serious questioning of other's commitment - especially those closer to the main potential threat (can you hear me Germany...?)
I think Germany may feel it has less need for NATO than the UK
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Some kind of cross country vehicle with a proven A/Tk weapon would be ideal, plus protection for the crew from enemy fire, including of course the tanks they're taking on.
I wonder what we could call it...:wink:
See, I presume you mean "a tank", but the problem with this conversation is that half the people having it are primed to think you mean "AJAX".
 
I think Germany may feel it has less need for NATO than the UK
I think Germany is quite happy sitting there reaping the "peace dividend" whilst the rest of NATO/Europe coughs up for its defence.
They've been playing that game for nigh on 30 years now & it's well past time they put something more than a token amount into the kitty, though I can't see that happening under Merkel.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top