FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > UK defence budget
UK defence budget
Jump to: Newest in thread
Maybe shutting the stable door after the hors has bolted.
But does this current situation show that the UK should increase its defence budget increasing the numbers of military personnel back to a level that will allow us to defend ourselves rather than relying on allies such as the USA should the worse happen?
Our annual budget doesn't reflect the amount of personal, which makes me think that where is all the money actually going??
I suspect it's probably red tape and bureaucratic nonsense rather than actual people and military equipment.
I for one would prefer this to spending on smart motorways and pointless projects such as HS2. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Its complicated military equipment does cost a lot of money and you have to bear in mind we do fudge the numbers a bit so a lot of moneys going to stuff like pensions.
However we should never allow our personnel numbers to fall below 100,000 given our countries size so agree there,Think the budget should be increased to 3% with pensions removed from that total.
Do agree that we should realistically be able to at least be able to hold out in the event of a war but you’ve got to bear in mind our position especially with the US complicates things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe shutting the stable door after the hors has bolted.
But does this current situation show that the UK should increase its defence budget increasing the numbers of military personnel back to a level that will allow us to defend ourselves rather than relying on allies such as the USA should the worse happen?
Our annual budget doesn't reflect the amount of personal, which makes me think that where is all the money actually going??
I suspect it's probably red tape and bureaucratic nonsense rather than actual people and military equipment.
I for one would prefer this to spending on smart motorways and pointless projects such as HS2."
BAE will be lobbying hard for more public money, absolutely.
So I wouldn't be surprised. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"Maybe shutting the stable door after the hors has bolted.
But does this current situation show that the UK should increase its defence budget increasing the numbers of military personnel back to a level that will allow us to defend ourselves rather than relying on allies such as the USA should the worse happen?
Our annual budget doesn't reflect the amount of personal, which makes me think that where is all the money actually going??
I suspect it's probably red tape and bureaucratic nonsense rather than actual people and military equipment.
I for one would prefer this to spending on smart motorways and pointless projects such as HS2."
a huge part of our defence budget is spent on Trident another large bill of late has been for our two shiney new aircraft carriers and the planes to fly from them and we havent had sufficient military to defend ourselves alone since ww2 . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
This is really the point of nato every country does not need a massive army if every country spent the required 2% of gdp it should be enough of a deterrent.
Trump love him or hate him was complaining about this when president other nato countries not spending the required amount and living of the backs of those who did. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is really the point of nato every country does not need a massive army if every country spent the required 2% of gdp it should be enough of a deterrent.
Trump love him or hate him was complaining about this when president other nato countries not spending the required amount and living of the backs of those who did."
Absolutely. Trump was representing the interests of Lockheed Martin, Boeing etc etc etc.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe shutting the stable door after the hors has bolted.
But does this current situation show that the UK should increase its defence budget increasing the numbers of military personnel back to a level that will allow us to defend ourselves rather than relying on allies such as the USA should the worse happen?
Our annual budget doesn't reflect the amount of personal, which makes me think that where is all the money actually going??
I suspect it's probably red tape and bureaucratic nonsense rather than actual people and military equipment.
I for one would prefer this to spending on smart motorways and pointless projects such as HS2."
Defence spending might increase but it'll be more likely to be held at 2%; especially given the current economic situation.
Even if it goes up, say, to 3% - it won't make any significant difference to actually defending the UK, certainly from any conventional attack.
The USA is the only nation on Earth with the ability to even attempt invading the UK - and it doesn't need, or want to.
Trident takes care of the nuclear threat.
Cyber defences really should be front and centre because serious damage to us via electronic means are possible from China, Russia, N. Korea, etc.
Recruiting lots of extra squaddies - IF you even can - might become, in tough economic times, slightly easier; but what for?
The Russians are currently proving the soldiers we already have are, undoubtedly, up to the task. More sailors and pilots might be money better spent; for actual defence.
Another side to defence spending, is defence procurement. The UK has an utterly lamentable record on this; from the Crimean War to the present day.
There is absolutely no guarantee that the defence budget will be wisely spent, to equip our personnel with what they really need. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
With the recent budgets cuts, are we still a viable fighting force.
How long before the Falklands are in Argentina's cross hairs, would we be able to defend them as well as the last time.
I hope we are only going to be used as a peace keeping force, or help with refugees if we are pulled into this war. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Comrade corbyn has been a bit quiet these days, as I recall he was campaigning for nuclear disarmament since before he was labour leader  "
Interesting video from 2014, he makes a good point, until the powers sit down & negotiate this will keep going on. Not sure if this link will work but Google "should the west corbyn stop the war"
https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/the-history-lurking-behind-the-crisis-in-ukraine-by-jeremy-corbyn-mp/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"With the recent budgets cuts, are we still a viable fighting force.
How long before the Falklands are in Argentina's cross hairs, would we be able to defend them as well as the last time.
I hope we are only going to be used as a peace keeping force, or help with refugees if we are pulled into this war."
We didn’t defend the islands last time . We took them back. The force on the islands including fast jets would today do an awful lot of damage to any invading force, unlike last time when we only had a survey ship and 50 Marines.
Taking the Falklands back would be more difficult today given we can only muster one carrier attack force at a time and that’s with help from other nations. Our surface fleet is almost non existent . I remember being shocked when HMS Sheffield was taken out with just one missile. Our anti missile systems were absent from most ships due to cutbacks at the time. One of the carriers was actually being sold to India at the time and we delayed the sale as we needed it to fight.
History repeating itself. Cutbacks before we realise we do need to arm ourselves.
Boris said last November . Ground wars with tanks in Europe are a thing of the past . Seems he and our strategic defence planners are incorrect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"With the recent budgets cuts, are we still a viable fighting force.
How long before the Falklands are in Argentina's cross hairs, would we be able to defend them as well as the last time.
I hope we are only going to be used as a peace keeping force, or help with refugees if we are pulled into this war.
We didn’t defend the islands last time . We took them back. The force on the islands including fast jets would today do an awful lot of damage to any invading force, unlike last time when we only had a survey ship and 50 Marines.
Taking the Falklands back would be more difficult today given we can only muster one carrier attack force at a time and that’s with help from other nations. Our surface fleet is almost non existent . I remember being shocked when HMS Sheffield was taken out with just one missile. Our anti missile systems were absent from most ships due to cutbacks at the time. One of the carriers was actually being sold to India at the time and we delayed the sale as we needed it to fight.
History repeating itself. Cutbacks before we realise we do need to arm ourselves.
Boris said last November . Ground wars with tanks in Europe are a thing of the past . Seems he and our strategic defence planners are incorrect. "
the argentine navy is in an appalling state with one of theyre two destroyers having sank at its moorings due to lack of maintainance incedently these two destroyers are of the same class as HMS Sheffield having been sold to them by ourselves |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Bring back national service instead of encouraging young people to get in debt by taking pointless degrees. National service wouldn't have to be military. Civil engineering could benefit and we may end up with pit holes to ally be fixed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"With the recent budgets cuts, are we still a viable fighting force.
How long before the Falklands are in Argentina's cross hairs, would we be able to defend them as well as the last time.
I hope we are only going to be used as a peace keeping force, or help with refugees if we are pulled into this war.
We didn’t defend the islands last time . We took them back. The force on the islands including fast jets would today do an awful lot of damage to any invading force, unlike last time when we only had a survey ship and 50 Marines.
Taking the Falklands back would be more difficult today given we can only muster one carrier attack force at a time and that’s with help from other nations. Our surface fleet is almost non existent . I remember being shocked when HMS Sheffield was taken out with just one missile. Our anti missile systems were absent from most ships due to cutbacks at the time. One of the carriers was actually being sold to India at the time and we delayed the sale as we needed it to fight.
History repeating itself. Cutbacks before we realise we do need to arm ourselves.
Boris said last November . Ground wars with tanks in Europe are a thing of the past . Seems he and our strategic defence planners are incorrect. the argentine navy is in an appalling state with one of theyre two destroyers having sank at its moorings due to lack of maintainance incedently these two destroyers are of the same class as HMS Sheffield having been sold to them by ourselves "
Yes but their navy didn’t play a part last time apart from the initial landings. The landings today would be decimated by the limited forces on the Falklands.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Better spending wouldnt go amiss either.
There's, or was a time an awful lot of good equipment was thrown away.
I did a stint in stores, endlessly helping to throw away shit loads of equipment like unused boot, uniforms that could have been sold.
Other items were ridiculously expensive too, clearly a of the of suppliers ripping off the government |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"With the recent budgets cuts, are we still a viable fighting force.
How long before the Falklands are in Argentina's cross hairs, would we be able to defend them as well as the last time.
I hope we are only going to be used as a peace keeping force, or help with refugees if we are pulled into this war.
We didn’t defend the islands last time . We took them back. The force on the islands including fast jets would today do an awful lot of damage to any invading force, unlike last time when we only had a survey ship and 50 Marines.
Taking the Falklands back would be more difficult today given we can only muster one carrier attack force at a time and that’s with help from other nations. Our surface fleet is almost non existent . I remember being shocked when HMS Sheffield was taken out with just one missile. Our anti missile systems were absent from most ships due to cutbacks at the time. One of the carriers was actually being sold to India at the time and we delayed the sale as we needed it to fight.
History repeating itself. Cutbacks before we realise we do need to arm ourselves.
Boris said last November . Ground wars with tanks in Europe are a thing of the past . Seems he and our strategic defence planners are incorrect. the argentine navy is in an appalling state with one of theyre two destroyers having sank at its moorings due to lack of maintainance incedently these two destroyers are of the same class as HMS Sheffield having been sold to them by ourselves
Yes but their navy didn’t play a part last time apart from the initial landings. The landings today would be decimated by the limited forces on the Falklands.
"
They tried to manoeuvre into position for an attack, that is until we sun the Belgrano. Then their navy wisely returned to port. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is really the point of nato every country does not need a massive army if every country spent the required 2% of gdp it should be enough of a deterrent.
Trump love him or hate him was complaining about this when president other nato countries not spending the required amount and living of the backs of those who did."
Yet point that out and you get abuse |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"This is really the point of nato every country does not need a massive army if every country spent the required 2% of gdp it should be enough of a deterrent.
Trump love him or hate him was complaining about this when president other nato countries not spending the required amount and living of the backs of those who did.
Yet point that out and you get abuse"
Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"This is really the point of nato every country does not need a massive army if every country spent the required 2% of gdp it should be enough of a deterrent.
Trump love him or hate him was complaining about this when president other nato countries not spending the required amount and living of the backs of those who did.
Yet point that out and you get abuse
Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day."
It turns out it was one of those times. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"This is really the point of nato every country does not need a massive army if every country spent the required 2% of gdp it should be enough of a deterrent.
Trump love him or hate him was complaining about this when president other nato countries not spending the required amount and living of the backs of those who did.
Yet point that out and you get abuse
Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.It turns out it was one of those times. "
Trump said a fair few things that were right but it was overshadowed by the huge amount he got wrong.
AND the way he said things! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Bring back national service instead of encouraging young people to get in debt by taking pointless degrees. National service wouldn't have to be military. Civil engineering could benefit and we may end up with pit holes to ally be fixed."
The state is supposed to serve citizens, not to have ownership over them. Those days are gone, thankfully. Young people nowadays wouldn't stand for national service. My body, my agency. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The government were to caught up in the GWOT (Global War On Terror) and adapted the forces esp army to fight counter insurgency warfare, at the sacrifice of conventional war fighting, and gave the smaller less effective army sexy names like rapid deployment force ect.
We became to reliant on Russian oil and gas sold at cheaper rates to feed that dependancey, everyone in power in the west didn't want to belive that Russia was a threat dispite the signs, the assassination with radioactive material in a cup of tea in a hote, chemical weapon strike in Salisbury, the quite build of Russian conventional forces, all under a leader who is "ex" kgb and now the longest serving Russian head of state since 1917,he has been planning this for over 10 years.
The solution will ultimately come down to a military show of force and then who either backs down first or loses the fight.
But ultimately we allowed this to happen |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amish SMan
over a year ago
Eastleigh |
Having worked in and alongside the UK military, BAE, Lockheed Martin and the US DOD in the USA, our output for the budget we have is considerable. The value the US get for every $ they spend is appalling. When you compare what the UK military spend is compared with other NATO countries, and what the output is from that spend it is amazing. Some super bits of kit over the years, SA80, yes was crap but a super bit of kit now - ask the Americans, AW50, body armour. Dillion aero Mk44 improved by the UK to the extent the US then started to use it.
CAMMS land, sea, air system, T45 radar, Merlin, Spearfish. Plus no doubt some could add more. Don't knock the UK, we have some excellent kit. Might take some time to produce but pretty good.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *amish SMan
over a year ago
Eastleigh |
As for the novichok in Salisbury, be a spy by all means, defect if you so wish, but never double cross your countrymen. He was a target for good reason and rightly so, his words lead to the death of others, if the Shoe was on the other foot we would expect them to be taken down. Why they did not just shoot him one evening, is anyone's guess, they had the means and opportunity, would have been less messy than Novichok. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As for the novichok in Salisbury, be a spy by all means, defect if you so wish, but never double cross your countrymen. He was a target for good reason and rightly so, his words lead to the death of others, if the Shoe was on the other foot we would expect them to be taken down. Why they did not just shoot him one evening, is anyone's guess, they had the means and opportunity, would have been less messy than Novichok. "
Because whilst Novichok was applied in a targeted fashion, it's still indiscriminate in who it kills and that was the point. It creates fear.
Sure a bullet is quick and clean. I expect most defecting spies expect that at some point. Resigned to it probably.
Novichok is a big FU. It says, "We are ruthless, we don't care who we take out, we will get you. Collateral damage means nothing to us".
And whilst that may be the way the GRU work, I believe we are also rapidly catching on with similar realignment operationally and tactically. We cannot afford not to.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Having worked in and alongside the UK military, BAE, Lockheed Martin and the US DOD in the USA, our output for the budget we have is considerable. The value the US get for every $ they spend is appalling. When you compare what the UK military spend is compared with other NATO countries, and what the output is from that spend it is amazing. Some super bits of kit over the years, SA80, yes was crap but a super bit of kit now - ask the Americans, AW50, body armour. Dillion aero Mk44 improved by the UK to the extent the US then started to use it.
CAMMS land, sea, air system, T45 radar, Merlin, Spearfish. Plus no doubt some could add more. Don't knock the UK, we have some excellent kit. Might take some time to produce but pretty good.
"
What you mean like the land rovers with zero ability to stop bullets or pretty much useless against explosion.
May as well been driving around in a convertible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yron69Man
over a year ago
Fareham |
"As for the novichok in Salisbury, be a spy by all means, defect if you so wish, but never double cross your countrymen. He was a target for good reason and rightly so, his words lead to the death of others, if the Shoe was on the other foot we would expect them to be taken down. Why they did not just shoot him one evening, is anyone's guess, they had the means and opportunity, would have been less messy than Novichok. "
I suppose you think his daughter was a fair target too? Jesus. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"As for the novichok in Salisbury, be a spy by all means, defect if you so wish, but never double cross your countrymen. He was a target for good reason and rightly so, his words lead to the death of others, if the Shoe was on the other foot we would expect them to be taken down. Why they did not just shoot him one evening, is anyone's guess, they had the means and opportunity, would have been less messy than Novichok. "
I have to say it is a useless military grade nerve agent, 5 people infected one person dies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Having worked in and alongside the UK military, BAE, Lockheed Martin and the US DOD in the USA, our output for the budget we have is considerable. The value the US get for every $ they spend is appalling. When you compare what the UK military spend is compared with other NATO countries, and what the output is from that spend it is amazing. Some super bits of kit over the years, SA80, yes was crap but a super bit of kit now - ask the Americans, AW50, body armour. Dillion aero Mk44 improved by the UK to the extent the US then started to use it.
CAMMS land, sea, air system, T45 radar, Merlin, Spearfish. Plus no doubt some could add more. Don't knock the UK, we have some excellent kit. Might take some time to produce but pretty good.
"
I agree we have sone good kit but sone appalling procurement processes. We should never consider buying support ships being built in another country. We over pay on kit and under pay for the support service of the personnel. Also the Type 45 had been a catastrophic waste of cash. Virtually a full rebuild for each ship. Why isn’t the supplier picking up the tab?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Having worked in and alongside the UK military, BAE, Lockheed Martin and the US DOD in the USA, our output for the budget we have is considerable. The value the US get for every $ they spend is appalling. When you compare what the UK military spend is compared with other NATO countries, and what the output is from that spend it is amazing. Some super bits of kit over the years, SA80, yes was crap but a super bit of kit now - ask the Americans, AW50, body armour. Dillion aero Mk44 improved by the UK to the extent the US then started to use it.
CAMMS land, sea, air system, T45 radar, Merlin, Spearfish. Plus no doubt some could add more. Don't knock the UK, we have some excellent kit. Might take some time to produce but pretty good.
"
The reason the UK military "bang for buck" is so good is because they're used to having to deliver the goods with appalling kit. Most squaddies used to buy their own kit - be it windproof smocks, goretex boots, decent bergens... the issued stuff was always crap. I imagine things haven't got much better since I left. And don't get me started on spares - the amount of times I had to go cap in hand to the Americans or Aussies when on ops because we didn't have what we needed was embarrassing.
And as for procurement - let's buy a completely pointless aircraft (A400M) then retire one of the most versatile, proven platforms ever produced (C130).  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Having worked in and alongside the UK military, BAE, Lockheed Martin and the US DOD in the USA, our output for the budget we have is considerable. The value the US get for every $ they spend is appalling. When you compare what the UK military spend is compared with other NATO countries, and what the output is from that spend it is amazing. Some super bits of kit over the years, SA80, yes was crap but a super bit of kit now - ask the Americans, AW50, body armour. Dillion aero Mk44 improved by the UK to the extent the US then started to use it.
CAMMS land, sea, air system, T45 radar, Merlin, Spearfish. Plus no doubt some could add more. Don't knock the UK, we have some excellent kit. Might take some time to produce but pretty good.
"
This is the optimistic view. It's barely justified. As I said in my earlier post, UK defence procurement has been dire since the Crimean War.
The delay in giving the RAF its first jet aircraft, the Nimrod AEW farce, the snatch landrover, the Clansman radio; currently, the Ajax IFV.
That's only a few - but leave aside the sub-standard kit; the cost inflation and ridiculously long delays and our "bang per buck" is woeful. That the USA's is worse, is irrelevant.
Eisenhower warned his fellow Americans about the "military/industrial complex" and he was right. The US military is the best funded welfare system in the world - until you leave it.
I suppose, if all this decades long ineptitude regarding requirements and the financial incompetence in meeting them has been lining your pockets, you'd take a less critical view of it.
As a former serviceman, I'm sure you attend Remembrance Day to consider the thousands who died because their kit let them down.
Sadly, there will definitely be more to come - because humanity never learns. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Having worked in and alongside the UK military, BAE, Lockheed Martin and the US DOD in the USA, our output for the budget we have is considerable. The value the US get for every $ they spend is appalling. When you compare what the UK military spend is compared with other NATO countries, and what the output is from that spend it is amazing. Some super bits of kit over the years, SA80, yes was crap but a super bit of kit now - ask the Americans, AW50, body armour. Dillion aero Mk44 improved by the UK to the extent the US then started to use it.
CAMMS land, sea, air system, T45 radar, Merlin, Spearfish. Plus no doubt some could add more. Don't knock the UK, we have some excellent kit. Might take some time to produce but pretty good.
I agree we have sone good kit but sone appalling procurement processes. We should never consider buying support ships being built in another country. We over pay on kit and under pay for the support service of the personnel. Also the Type 45 had been a catastrophic waste of cash. Virtually a full rebuild for each ship. Why isn’t the supplier picking up the tab?? "
Agreed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Having worked in and alongside the UK military, BAE, Lockheed Martin and the US DOD in the USA, our output for the budget we have is considerable. The value the US get for every $ they spend is appalling. When you compare what the UK military spend is compared with other NATO countries, and what the output is from that spend it is amazing. Some super bits of kit over the years, SA80, yes was crap but a super bit of kit now - ask the Americans, AW50, body armour. Dillion aero Mk44 improved by the UK to the extent the US then started to use it.
CAMMS land, sea, air system, T45 radar, Merlin, Spearfish. Plus no doubt some could add more. Don't knock the UK, we have some excellent kit. Might take some time to produce but pretty good.
The reason the UK military "bang for buck" is so good is because they're used to having to deliver the goods with appalling kit. Most squaddies used to buy their own kit - be it windproof smocks, goretex boots, decent bergens... the issued stuff was always crap. I imagine things haven't got much better since I left. And don't get me started on spares - the amount of times I had to go cap in hand to the Americans or Aussies when on ops because we didn't have what we needed was embarrassing.
And as for procurement - let's buy a completely pointless aircraft (A400M) then retire one of the most versatile, proven platforms ever produced (C130). "
Agreed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"With the recent budgets cuts, are we still a viable fighting force.
How long before the Falklands are in Argentina's cross hairs, would we be able to defend them as well as the last time.
I hope we are only going to be used as a peace keeping force, or help with refugees if we are pulled into this war.
We didn’t defend the islands last time . We took them back. The force on the islands including fast jets would today do an awful lot of damage to any invading force, unlike last time when we only had a survey ship and 50 Marines.
Taking the Falklands back would be more difficult today given we can only muster one carrier attack force at a time and that’s with help from other nations. Our surface fleet is almost non existent . I remember being shocked when HMS Sheffield was taken out with just one missile. Our anti missile systems were absent from most ships due to cutbacks at the time. One of the carriers was actually being sold to India at the time and we delayed the sale as we needed it to fight.
History repeating itself. Cutbacks before we realise we do need to arm ourselves.
Boris said last November . Ground wars with tanks in Europe are a thing of the past . Seems he and our strategic defence planners are incorrect. the argentine navy is in an appalling state with one of theyre two destroyers having sank at its moorings due to lack of maintainance incedently these two destroyers are of the same class as HMS Sheffield having been sold to them by ourselves
Yes but their navy didn’t play a part last time apart from the initial landings. The landings today would be decimated by the limited forces on the Falklands.
"
There are only 4 Typhoons down there. Yes they completely outmatch the 18 upgraded A4s the Argentinas have at air combat, but the lack of numbers makes them vulnerable to sabotage or raids. A direct attack is unlikely anyhow. Incremental encroachment by soft power is the way to do it  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
"With the recent budgets cuts, are we still a viable fighting force.
How long before the Falklands are in Argentina's cross hairs, would we be able to defend them as well as the last time.
I hope we are only going to be used as a peace keeping force, or help with refugees if we are pulled into this war.
We didn’t defend the islands last time . We took them back. The force on the islands including fast jets would today do an awful lot of damage to any invading force, unlike last time when we only had a survey ship and 50 Marines.
Taking the Falklands back would be more difficult today given we can only muster one carrier attack force at a time and that’s with help from other nations. Our surface fleet is almost non existent . I remember being shocked when HMS Sheffield was taken out with just one missile. Our anti missile systems were absent from most ships due to cutbacks at the time. One of the carriers was actually being sold to India at the time and we delayed the sale as we needed it to fight.
History repeating itself. Cutbacks before we realise we do need to arm ourselves.
Boris said last November . Ground wars with tanks in Europe are a thing of the past . Seems he and our strategic defence planners are incorrect. the argentine navy is in an appalling state with one of theyre two destroyers having sank at its moorings due to lack of maintainance incedently these two destroyers are of the same class as HMS Sheffield having been sold to them by ourselves
Yes but their navy didn’t play a part last time apart from the initial landings. The landings today would be decimated by the limited forces on the Falklands.
There are only 4 Typhoons down there. Yes they completely outmatch the 18 upgraded A4s the Argentinas have at air combat, but the lack of numbers makes them vulnerable to sabotage or raids. A direct attack is unlikely anyhow. Incremental encroachment by soft power is the way to do it "
would have to be a very very secret atack slightest sign of a military build up and we can quickly reinforce the islands defences |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
