NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Murphy's Law Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

The Army-Navy Game In Britain

June 8, 2009: In Britain, the commanders of the army and navy are feuding over the defense budget. Army commander General Sir Richard Dannatt has pointed out that only ten percent of spending on new equipment goes to the army (based on actual and planned spending between 2003-18). This, despite the fact that it's the army that is doing most of the fighting during this period. Although the army recently pulled out of Iraq (where it had been since 2003), it is still in Afghanistan, and more troops are headed there. The navy has not been involved in active combat since 1982 (in the Falklands).

The British armed forces have 191,000 on active service. Of those, 38,000 are in the Royal Navy, 109,000 in the Army, 41,000 in the Royal Air Force, and the rest in joint staffs and operations. The annual defense budget is about $58 billion.

While the army gets the largest portion of the budget, because most of the money goes to personnel, the navy and air force get most of the procurement money to pay for ships and aircraft. What annoys the army the most is the continued effort to maintain Britain as a major naval power. The generals can understand the need for destroyers, frigates and submarines to defend the seas that surround the British isles, but they chafe at the nearly $40 billion spent on four SSBNs (ballistic missile nuclear subs) and two aircraft carriers (and their escorts). To fund this, on a shrinking defense budget, the army is starved for modern combat equipment. This is allowed to happen while thousands of British troops are in combat.

The army wants Britain to recognize that, in the last century, the United States replaced Britain as the dominant naval power. U.S. naval power is stronger, compared to every other fleet on the planet, than the Royal Navy ever was. The U.S. has more nuclear weapons (in ICBMs and SSBNs) than everyone else (many of Russia's are technically in service, but are not fit to use.)

While many Britons like the idea of the country having its own nuclear deterrent (the nuclear missiles on the SSBNs) and aircraft carriers, the army commanders point out that the nation's first duty should be to troops are in harm's way. So far, the government does not agree.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article INTELLIGENCE: Chinese Mystery On The Russian Border


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

faawebbie    The (Royal) Navy   6/8/2009 5:58:27 AM
"The (Royal) Navy has not been involved in active combat since 1982 (in the Falklands)"

This statement is FALSE, the British Royal Navy has been involved in many conflicts since the Falklands War, including but not restricted to Iraq and Afghanistan and remember the Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy who transport them to and from conflict zones by "Sea & Air".
 
Quote    Reply

kalatzi       6/8/2009 11:00:59 AM

 "The (Royal) Navy has not been involved in active combat since 1982 (in the Falklands)"


This statement is FALSE, the British Royal Navy has been involved in many conflicts since the Falklands War, including but not restricted to Iraq and Afghanistan
 
Indeed, kinda like the Canadian Navy.
 
How long will it take for the Brass Hats to figure out that Afghanistan doesn't have a coast line????
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Beats me.   6/8/2009 11:25:39 AM


 "The (Royal) Navy has not been involved in active combat since 1982 (in the Falklands)"





This statement is FALSE, the British Royal Navy has been involved in many conflicts since the Falklands War, including but not restricted to Iraq and Afghanistan

 

Indeed, kinda like the Canadian Navy.

 

How long will it take for the Brass Hats to figure out that Afghanistan doesn't have a coast line????


We have idiots in the US who stranded a US Army there without assuring a LOC to the sea!
 
You need the NAVY.
 
Quote    Reply

Newton       6/8/2009 4:43:39 PM
Bearing in mind the general lousy treatment that members of the British armed forces receive in their own country, does this really come as any surprise?
 
If you're going to fight for a country, at least choose one that's worth fighting for.
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       6/9/2009 6:55:18 AM
Not actually from Britain I take it?
 
There are issues with treatment of disabled war veterans, but I've seen similar comments about US forces too. In the main, UK armed forces are respected and well supported by the British population. 
 
I don't think the three services should be in competition with each other for funds - the government needs to fund them as required, not steal from one to pay another. There's an argument for not replacing Trident as currently it seems an expensive system to have and never really use or need - but the carriers and escorts should be funded, with at least two wings of F-35's. The ability to put a sizeable strike force 12 miles off the coast of any potential hostile country is too valuable to miss out on.
 
Ian
 

 
Bearing in mind the general lousy treatment that members of the British armed forces receive in their own country, does this really come as any surprise?

 

If you're going to fight for a country, at least choose one that's worth fighting for.


 
Quote    Reply

John G    Press tosh   6/9/2009 8:20:56 AM
As usual people are reading the tabloids too much. British forces are some of the best equiped in the world, they proportionally are at the top end of the scale when you look at the amount spent on individual troops. Britain spends the most in defense bar a handful of countries (most of those have much larger populations). I agree that at the moment there is a crisis in regards to funding in defense. Britain is at a cross roads now of either being a great power with the expeditionary forces to match or a regional player with medium sized defensive force with little expeditionary capability. In the long term (carriers aside) it looks as though we are heading for the later in my opinion.
 
Quote    Reply

Dave_in_Pa       6/9/2009 11:56:32 AM
Here's one suggestion to increase available funding for the UK military: 
 
If Britain were to withdraw from the EU, they could take the approximately 14 billion pounds per year thrown away by sending it to Brussels, spend half of that for military infrastructure and equipment; then give the other half back to the long-suffering British taxpayers.
 
Just my opinion ...
 
Quote    Reply

kirby1       6/14/2009 1:40:09 PM
The British military branches are proud and professional organizations who are well supported and respected by the British people, their allied nations, and most importantly, me. Kind of odd considering that I'm an American and whatnot.
 
The Current squabbles are not a result of any failures in the Army, Navy, or Air Force, its a failure of the government to realistically guage the capabilities needs of the military.
 
The Royal Navy needs carriers. Sure would have been nice to have back during the Falklands. If the Brits had a real CV back then, instead of thru-deck cruisers, their air coverage would have been much better. You wouldn't have lost a half dozen or so surface combatants. You also probably wouldn't have lost the Atlantic Conveyer, and its critical load of chinooks. You may have had additional helos on board to take the place of those Chinooks had the Atlantic Conveyer still got sunk. 
 
The Royal Army is indeed currently pulling most of the firepower in the current ops. But from what I hear, the primary challenge right now, is a lack of air logistics. Heavy Lift Helos are owned by the RAF, along with the C-130s and C-17s. I'd be in a better position right now, if the Army
 
So the Army needs some new equipment, the Navy needs its two carriers, (along with CATOBAR equipment and either F-35Cs' , F-18s, or F/A-18 Super Hornets, IMHO) and the RAF needs some more Chinooks, (Which are being delivered) and more C-130s, or C-17s. (Fat chance, but I can still dream before the line closes permanently.)

If the Army can convince parliament to recognize that the USN is the dominant Sea power nowadays, then Parliament can very well turn around and realize that the US army is the dominant land power nowadays. Why not scrap the whole military and let the Americans defend Europe? Sounds like a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy