Is The UK going backwards in Military Strength?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

interestedamateur RE:Is The UK going backwards in Military Strength? 1/23/2006 6:32:23 AM

Yes, in some sense is going back in strength. Since the late 80's it has less tanks, less ships and less planes. However, before we start to despair perhaps we want to bear these questions in mind: 1. We are spending half the amount of %GDP on defence than we were in the 1989. As Donk points out, that means more hospitals, job creation schemes etc. 2. Do we need all those big shiny toys anyway? If we still maintained a fleeet of 50 ships, 27 combat sqns, and British Army of the Rhine what would they all do? There are no threats that these big ticket items can help us with. So why waste the cash. 3. Most other countries have also reduced their defence capabilities. This includes Europe, Russia and the US. The only countries that are increasing them are China and India and they a long way away. We are still equal with the other major European powers and are still pulling our weight defence-wise. 4. In some areas we have actively increased capabilities. The amphibious fleet is one example, but the new carriers (which will come eventually), the new UAVs, Apache helicopters, mass-production of PGMs and land-attack missiles are others. I know the services would like more money, but as things currently stand they're simply not that important compared to other things that the country needs (such as schools etc).

Quote Reply

BRoger RE:Is The UK going backwards in Military Strength? 1/25/2006 6:33:00 AM

Whilst I agree that there's no current requirement to return to 1989 levels of defence spending and that the British public certainly have different priorities when it comes to spending taxpayer's money, I do think there are some strong arguments for a significant rise in defence spending: 1. The last 5 years have witnessed a dramatic decline in world stability, if our armed forces were the right size for the geo-political environment 5 years ago, then surely they require increased resources now? 2. The issue of access to resources is rapidly rising up the international agenda, sooner or later we will need the ability to secure our trade routes and access to natural resources and potentially independently from the US. 3. We are now in a unique position to get a massive relative return on a relatively small amount of money. For instance a 50% rise in defence spending right now, would put the UK in a hugely pre-eminent position within Europe, effectively having the ability to make or break any largescale military intervention - now that is a superb strategic lever available to pull. Secondly, with such an investment, the UK would be the clear world leader in global power projection after the USA and be the only country other than the US with the ability to deploy independently and globally largescale armed forces. Again, another very powerful strategic lever to use at the international table and one that should not be underestimated. I cannot think of any time in recent history when such an opportunity presented itself. For instance if, during the 1980s the UK had trebled its defence spending, it would have witnessed a very marginal return. Her conventional forces would still have been insufficient to defeat those of the Warsaw Pact and any increas in nuclear capability would have yielded very little benefits. Furthermore, I believe that the political climate in the UK is on the turn. People are becoming more and more aware that throwing massive resources at public services does not return the results that people hope for. As such while I don?t think we will witness swinging cuts in the budgets for the Health Service or Schools, I think spending will start returning to levels lower than GDP growth. This will free up money, some of which I?m sure will go to tax-cuts (if the Tories return to power), but not all of it.

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral RE:Is The UK going backwards in Military Strength? - BRoger 1/25/2006 9:38:05 AM

You make a good arguement for having a strong navy, but we will never have ground forces as large as Germany and France, so it is questionable if they would be swayed over general defence policy. I agree that, taking on the majority of the task, a larger expeditionary naval force would give us greater say in european interventions overseas. I just can't think of any since Suez. Perhaps france will seek greater influence too? With 3 CVF(UK) and 2 CVF(france) and CharlesdeGaulle, europe could poke her head above the parapet at least.This is still half the US carrier contingent (a local superiority perhaps?) with very little behind it in logistics and escorts.

Quote Reply

jamesbaf 2/11/2007 12:33:40 PM

The British military still packs a strong punch but it's SO small and all the regiments with a lot of history are being emerged.
The British military has hardly anything left.

Quote Reply

eldnah 2/11/2007 1:50:19 PM

Perhaps if the British government spent enough money to provide adequate close air support resources the resultant integration and training would lessen the incidence of friendly fire incidents, like the one being reported this week. When a nation relies on an ally for a basic need, even one that speaks the same language and even with the best of intentions the likelihood of error increases because of national differences in equipment, training, doctrine, tactics etc..

Quote Reply

AdamB 2/19/2007 4:40:26 PM

"The British military has hardly anything left."

Britain is the strongest military power in the EU, and its bigegst military spender.

Quote Reply

Garrigo Going backwards 7/21/2008 3:15:09 AM

The RN has been going backwards for years, have you had a look at the "Reserve Fleet of the RN" non existant, Reserve Navy locations "Mostly Grand old Buildings" not a ship in sight! As for the Fleet the once pride of the UK, mostly docked or side lined. Decomissioned Aircraft carriers, sell them to India or scrap them! Decommissioned Destroyers sell them to Argentina or scrap them. How about developing the "Navy Reserve" and the like! UK has not one Museum Battleship to show for all her past might. Have a look what the US does with its grand old ships. Yes a Reserve Fleet!!!!!!!!!!!! Or Museums or Training Ships. "The War Lords" Old men sticking to old traditions and the lot of them should be given early retirement. The strength of the RN is however not unlike the rest of the Military in the UK, small and proffessional ! very small indeed. Polies have slashed the UK Armed Forces to pieces, and they are now in decline. Yes you were perfectly correct they are going backwards.

Quote Reply

Padfoot 7/22/2008 12:14:57 AM

For what's worth, the UK military budget is 3rd largest in the world (after the US and China).

Also, for what's worth, I'd rather have the RN of 2018 than the RN of 1982. It's a no-brainer if you ask me.

: )

Quote Reply

LB RN 2018 7/22/2008 9:59:17 PM

The RN in 2018 will have 6 type 45's and 13 type 23's to protect a CVF with no air defense fighters and ancient Sea King AEW. Maybe 3 destroyers could deploy at once. The RN lost the 3 Type 42's they inititally sent down (2 sunk and 1 damaged). The RN sent in around 3 ships every night to bombard enemy positions. They had escorts in 3 groups- the amphib group, carrier group, and support force group as well as the inshore bombardment force mentioned. The RN is too small to do 1982 over again and saying. Numbers do matter. Not to mention the little notion that there will be perhaps 7 SSN's in 2018. How many will be available for the south Atlantic? The RN is no longer large enough to be called a Navy. The entire surface force in terms of numbers was called a flotilla in 1982 commanded by a two star. It's been rather sad to see this happen.

Quote Reply

Padfoot 7/22/2008 10:36:58 PM

Yes. All those numbers in 1982, and they barely hung on for dear life. Are you saying that a Type 42 is as capable as a Type 45? Serious question? How many sorties would an air force fly against a Type 45 if they're taking serious losses?? The RN of '82 couldn't see anything coming.

Common sense would tell you that I'm including a full complement of Lightnings (and other air assets) in my analysis. Surely they'll be better at bombarding enemy positions than a frigate?

Furthermore, surely the amphibious element of the RN today is light-years ahead of the 1982 navy?

How many SSN went in '82? Also, factor in tomahawk IV II

As for numbers? I suppose the RN could do what the French do and build 10 or so small 1200 ton corvettes, and call them escorts. I guess this is where the FSC might come in.

Just my thoughts, don't mean to cause offense.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 NEXT