Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Military Reformation?
Yimmy    4/20/2007 11:51:02 AM
Does anyone here think it would be wise for the government to debate the actual role of the armed forces, and create new mission statements for the services accordingly? I say this, as although we are very close to the US, we obviously can not afford the funding that America can, and so we will never be able to keep up with America across so many different capabilities. Is it time we sacrificed some capabilities in order to be able to afford to sustain other capabilities? An instance which springs to mind, is the manner in which the RN are selling their souls (along with everything else) in order to gain these two carriers. The war in Iraq is clearly a very expensive mistake (not the actual invasion, but our staying there with no end in sight), and as such our military budget is going to be in the red for some time to come. What can we do, to ensure a well trained and effective fighting force, without it costing us financially? I believe our nuclear deterrent in our SSBN's is a must have, as do I our SSN and naval amphibious fleet. Do we need the RN to have carriers? Do we need both Portsmouth and Devonport? Now that we have long left East of Suez, do we need to many expeditionary RFA support assets? With a highly trained army, do we need the RM's as their own seperate entity? As for the RAF (not going into my crave to dissolve them altogether), we obviously don't need so many short-range Eurofighters. However can our land based fast jets protect the RN as well? Or alternatively can we get rid of all the RAF's fast jets, in favour of a RN carrier force and FAA fast jets? We clearly need more transport aircraft and helicopters (at least now those 8 special forces Chinooks are being converted into transport versions and pushed into service). We also clearly need our AWACS and tanker assets. But do we really need the Nimrods? What about the army? Again, clearly I think we need to improve on the standard of housing, but what can we cut? Do we still need our heavy forces in Challenger and Warrior (I say we do)? Do we need to retain a para ability? Of course these are just a few questions and opinions off the top of my head. But realistically, what can we cut in order to afford the rest? Do we need duplications in capabilities, such as the Infantry and the RM's, and FAA and RAF fast jets? Do we need carriers? Do we need amphibious ships?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
perfectgeneral       4/21/2007 11:22:17 AM
All these robbing Peter to pay Paul decisions would be unneccessary if the 2.5% of GDP defence budget didn't include a £2bn a year ticket for Iraq and Afganistan.

I wouldn't make any radical changes in the force mix of UK armed forces. I don't think FRES should equip any more than a battalion of air mobile armour. Air transport is overtaxed as it is. Seven more C-17s should be ordered, while the production line is still open. The 25 A400Ms might never happen.

 The Typhoon orders are enforced by cancelation fees. We may as well make full use of them. It might be nice to navalise the last tranche if the CVF are capable of using them, but it would probably be cheaper and more practical to order more F-35s, should we need them. Long term we still need an aircraft manufacturing base. New designs and orders should reflect this at a just above minimal level.

We should build a nuclear sub every twenty months to maintain our indiginous build capability. Given the current lifetime of an SSN or SSBN that amounts to fifteen boats (four of them SSBN).

I'm not sure what level of surface vessel build is required by the Maritime Industrial Strategy, but I would advocate a small margin of error over the minimum (as with submarine production).

The budget for a larger army is not there, but with COIN operations in two countries, both with large populations, we should be gearing up a bit. We need about 3000 extra personnel, mainly specialists (eg dog handlers) to overcome bottlenecks. If anyone should get an extra battalion it should be the RM. They recently lost a battalion to a new role and their recruitment levels are good. More transport helicopters will allow a greater ampibious assult footprint. A long term increase in Merlins and Chinooks is needed.

The biggest equipment shortage after general stores and parts (the hidden cutback) is for transport helicopters. Any more deals to buy Merlins in a hurry would be very welcome. Perhaps Japan could spare a few until the production line can replace them?



 
Quote    Reply

Armchair Private       4/21/2007 8:15:20 PM

All these robbing Peter to pay Paul decisions would be unneccessary if the 2.5% of GDP defence budget didn't include a £2bn a year ticket for Iraq and Afganistan.

I wouldn't make any radical changes in the force mix of UK armed forces. I don't think FRES should equip any more than a battalion of air mobile armour. Air transport is overtaxed as it is. Seven more C-17s should be ordered, while the production line is still open. The 25 A400Ms might never happen.

 The Typhoon orders are enforced by cancelation fees. We may as well make full use of them. It might be nice to navalise the last tranche if the CVF are capable of using them, but it would probably be cheaper and more practical to order more F-35s, should we need them. Long term we still need an aircraft manufacturing base. New designs and orders should reflect this at a just above minimal level.

We should build a nuclear sub every twenty months to maintain our indiginous build capability. Given the current lifetime of an SSN or SSBN that amounts to fifteen boats (four of them SSBN).

I'm not sure what level of surface vessel build is required by the Maritime Industrial Strategy, but I would advocate a small margin of error over the minimum (as with submarine production).

The budget for a larger army is not there, but with COIN operations in two countries, both with large populations, we should be gearing up a bit. We need about 3000 extra personnel, mainly specialists (eg dog handlers) to overcome bottlenecks. If anyone should get an extra battalion it should be the RM. They recently lost a battalion to a new role and their recruitment levels are good. More transport helicopters will allow a greater ampibious assult footprint. A long term increase in Merlins and Chinooks is needed.

The biggest equipment shortage after general stores and parts (the hidden cutback) is for transport helicopters. Any more deals to buy Merlins in a hurry would be very welcome. Perhaps Japan could spare a few until the production line can replace them?




Agree with Perfect. The current funding problems are caused by operational requirements in Afganistan and Iraq. Just to add though the Typhoon's being so late and over budget has had a decade long impact on other procurement, the early difficulties with Astute and Nimrod haven't helped either.
 
We're at a funding bottle neck at the moment which will pass inside of a few years. I'd still argue that 3% of GDP is sensible though. (anyone know where you can find GNP figures?)
Having said that looks like 70 odd Typhoons are going to S Arabia, I bet they come from the numbers earmarked for the UK taking our levels down to 160 odd which seems more reasnoble, if that is true however I'm surprsed that we seem to have also gone from 150 F35s to 130.
 
On an aside if (unlikely I guess) the Japanese decide to go with Typhoon for their next fighter will we be verging on making a profit from the whole endeavour? Not too far off I'd imagine?
 
To answer Yimmy's valid questions:
 
The first and only rationale for having a military is to defend you nations interests, the first and only real national interest is the survival of the nation. As such all defensive systems are a priority, this includes in my mind SSBN, Typhoon, SSN the entire army Nimrod etc etc.
 
If you're talking about losing entire capabilities then it has to be the power projection stuff, that is an added bonus that importantly you CHOOSE to do or take part in. So if you're gonna drop anything it's the Marines along with all their boats, and the Carriers.
 
You should never design a military to take part in wars you have the choice to fight in or not, that's madness, you should design it to fight wars you don't choose to fight, the sort of war where your nations survival is at stake.
 
I'm worried that people seem to think we should be recasting the army to primarily deal with COIN type operations  - the justification being that thats all we do these days anyway.
 
Well yes it is, but we CHOOSE to take part in Iraq, and Sierra Leone, and Afganistan and Bosnia etc. We could choose - if we wished  - not to. We can't choose to take part or not take part in a high intensity full blown conventional war in Germany if the next guy after Putin (who will by the way probably be a constitution breaking Putin) is more of a nutter than a particularly drunk Ye
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics