Britain's PM claims

[Commander CMG]

• Britain does not have 'full spectrum capabilities', Robert Gates warns
  
• He 'laments' defence budget cuts on both sides of the Atlantic
  
• But ex-UK Defence Secretary Liam Fox insists Britain still pulling its weight
  

View: Read more

[Space Commander Travis]

yes, did you hear the ********* of a Politician explaining that the UK's defence* Budget is still the fourth largest in the world.

That may well be true, only what do they spend it on? They spend it on tier upon tier upon tier of utterly useless Managers and Consultants and civil servants at the MoD, don't they, while meanwhile the only thing that idiot Osborne and his boss and whoever the Minister may be at the moment can think of is 'cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts and cuts'. But this is what happens when the Government knows that it's going to have to go through the tedious pantomime of 'elections' shortly, it knows that such an idiotic bunch of incompetents as they have no chance of getting elected again, so it doesn't matter what kind of shambles they leave, since the other Lot will have to pick it up. It's really little short of criminal negligence.

* or 'defense'

[stevewinn]

He attacks Defence of both the US and UK - so this isnt UK specific. Its true defence cuts have happened, but Britain is not in a bubble of isolation from the outside world. as we face cuts so do others. France is a prime example, and the United States can also be included. hence their plea in November at a NATO meeting for members to take more responsibility for the Caribbean, Atlantic and Mediterranean, while they refocus on the Asia-Pacific, some 70% of US Naval assets are to be tasked to that region by 2020. so maybe America knowing the United Kingdom is the only NATO ally capable of sustained force projection around the globe is sending a gentle reminder to the British Government not to reduce the armed forces to minimal levels or the Yanks will be left stretched and unable to be in every place at once leaving NATO unable to meet its obligations. or maybe the short answer is Gates has a book to sell and what better way to get publicity?

As a military force the United Kingdom is still a first class military power far from toothless. if in any doubt ask the question who currently does what we do? deployed around the world in 80 countries. we have one of the largest military foot prints in the world. over 23 overseas bases at strategic points. patrol all the major trade routes. presence in every ocean, including Arctic and Antarctic.

http://www.europeang...countries-2014/

No doubt the MoD can spend money better, theres no question about that. a lot of waste is down to political interference. but no one can say the equipment for the British Armed forces is second rate. we have some of the most update and sophisticated equipment in the world. just a short list. Two New super carriers Queen Elizabeth class. Six New type 45 Destroyers. 7 New Astute nuclear powered submarines. planned 13 to 23 New type 26 Global combat ship. (frigates)

New fifth generation Joint strike Fighter F35 in collaboration with partners. Upgraded Eurofighter typhoon Tranche 2, New Lynx wildcat helicopters. New Merlin Mk2 Helicopters etc...all high-end stuff. there was a post on here the other day about Germany building submarines for the Far east. diesel Electric. compared to our Astute Class their mickey mouse. so like i say were building proper high end equipment retaining key skills and capability. Cost - priceless.

*snip*

and the list goes on.... If we are a second rate, third rate or fourth rate power i'd hate to see what a global power looks like.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Saru
Removed images due to copyright

[Leonardo]

He attacks Defence of both the US and UK - so this isnt UK specific. Its true defence cuts have happened, but Britain is not in a bubble of isolation from the outside world. as we face cuts so do others. France is a prime example, and the United States can also be included. hence their plea in November at a NATO meeting for members to take more responsibility for the Caribbean, Atlantic and Mediterranean, while they refocus on the Asia-Pacific...

Which would have nothing to do with Asia/Pacific being an area with many natural resources still able to be exploited, while the 'Caribbean/Atlantic/Mediterranean' is basically exhausted?

The Caribbean is the US's back yard, while they have as much, if not more, exposure to the Atlantic theatre than any other NATO member.

This is just the US saying "We want the prime areas with the rich pickings. You guys can have the dregs."

[Space Commander Travis]

He attacks Defence of both the US and UK - so this isnt UK specific. Its true defence cuts have happened, but Britain is not in a bubble of isolation from the outside world. as we face cuts so do others. France is a prime example, and the United States can also be included. hence their plea in November at a NATO meeting for members to take more responsibility for the Caribbean, Atlantic and Mediterranean, while they refocus on the Asia-Pacific, some 70% of US Naval assets are to be tasked to that region by 2020. so maybe America knowing the United Kingdom is the only NATO ally capable of sustained force projection around the globe is sending a gentle reminder to the British Government not to reduce the armed forces to minimal levels or the Yanks will be left stretched and unable to be in every place at once leaving NATO unable to meet its obligations. or maybe the short answer is Gates has a book to sell and what better way to get publicity?

As a military force the United Kingdom is still a first class military power far from toothless. if in any doubt ask the question who currently does what we do? deployed around the world in 80 countries. we have one of the largest military foot prints in the world. over 23 overseas bases at strategic points. patrol all the major trade routes. presence in every ocean, including Arctic and Antarctic.

http://www.europeang...countries-2014/

No doubt the MoD can spend money better, theres no question about that. a lot of waste is down to political interference. but no one can say the equipment for the British Armed forces is second rate. we have some of the most update and sophisticated equipment in the world. just a short list. Two New super carriers Queen Elizabeth class. Six New type 45 Destroyers. 7 New Astute nuclear powered submarines. planned 13 to 23 New type 26 Global combat ship. (frigates)

New fifth generation Joint strike Fighter F35 in collaboration with partners. Upgraded Eurofighter typhoon Tranche 2, New Lynx wildcat helicopters. New Merlin Mk2 Helicopters etc...all high-end stuff. there was a post on here the other day about Germany building submarines for the Far east. diesel Electric. compared to our Astute Class their mickey mouse. so like i say were building proper high end equipment retaining key skills and capability. Cost - priceless.

and the list goes on.... If we are a second rate, third rate or fourth rate power i'd hate to see what a global power looks like.

... and how long will it take to train aircrews in the art of carrier operation once again, now that the continuity has been lost thanks to the idiot Cameron's scrapping of the Ark Royal and the Harrier fleet? To get back to the level of operational standard they had? And we should just hope that the circumstances won't arise before they're ready that they might be needed. That's the point; they've neglected it all, let the skills be lost, neglected all these things and expecting that they'll be able to simply pick up where they left off after a gap of five or six years. Surely the sensible thing would have been to keep fixed wing capability, and hence the skills involved, until the new ones were ready. It wasn't as if Ark Royal was worn out, for heavens sake; she was only commissioned in 1985. And however sophisticated individual ships may be, there's still not much point if there's simply not enough of them because the idiot Cameron has cut back the numbers without replacement. That's the whole point of the argument; all these things may well be incredibly sophisticated, but that means they're incredibly expensive, take a long time to build and work up, and they can never afford anything like sufficient numbers of them.

[stevewinn]

Which would have nothing to do with Asia/Pacific being an area with many natural resources still able to be exploited, while the 'Caribbean/Atlantic/Mediterranean' is basically exhausted?

The Caribbean is the US's back yard, while they have as much, if not more, exposure to the Atlantic theatre than any other NATO member.

This is just the US saying "We want the prime areas with the rich pickings. You guys can have the dregs."

Thats a cynical view, not saying your right or wrong. but how many have benefited directly or indirectly from US led global economic prosperity and security enabling a world with free flowing trade. - The warning from the US to step up for NATO members is due to the fact spending on defence by members is getting to the treaty abiding minimum. for far to long the US as taken on the responsibility of maintaining world peace. so now with the US armed forces having to face cuts, and a growing threat in the Asia pacific region. look no further than Nr Korea, China they can only be in one place at one time with a full spectrum capability. it reminds me of when china tried to impose that defence zone in the south china sea. the US response was to condemn the Chinese, but then proceeded to fly two bombers through the zone in a act of defiance. who else as the ability to do such, putting china back in its box.

[stevewinn]

... and how long will it take to train aircrews in the art of carrier operation once again, now that the continuity has been lost thanks to the idiot Cameron's scrapping of the Ark Royal and the Harrier fleet? To get back to the level of operational standard they had? And we should just hope that the circumstances won't arise before they're ready that they might be needed. That's the point; they've neglected it all, let the skills be lost, neglected all these things and expecting that they'll be able to simply pick up where they left off after a gap of five or six years. Surely the sensible thing would have been to keep fixed wing capability, and hence the skills involved, until the new ones were ready. It wasn't as if Ark Royal was worn out, for heavens sake; she was only commissioned in 1985. And however sophisticated individual ships may be, there's still not much point if there's simply not enough of them because the idiot Cameron has cut back the numbers without replacement. That's the whole point of the argument; all these things may well be incredibly sophisticated, but that means they're incredibly expensive, take a long time to build and work up, and they can never afford anything like sufficient numbers of them.

The Royal Navy have crews onboard US carriers retaining the skills in preparation for carrier operations. Ark Royal was coming to the end of her service in 2016. with no more refits/upgrades in the pipeline - they brought that decommissioning date forward to 2011. the Harrier was also facing its final days subsonic and dated. even though the US Marines still choose to operate them. As for numbers its hard a balancing act what is sufficient, will people accept social / benefit cuts in exchange for extra ships / military hardware. plus the strike capability of the Harrier in part was superseded by Tlam as a strike capability a capability we didn't have for instance in the Falklands war..

[TopToffee]

I agree with most of what you say but we dont need the

budget to be spent on the Navy.The future wars we are going to face will be more of the Guerilla Warfare type.

[Space Commander Travis]

I agree with most of what you say but we dont need the

budget to be spent on the Navy.The future wars we are going to face will be more of the Guerilla Warfare type.

And how would we get the equipment to these far away lands? You could transport Land rovers by air, but anything bigger it'd be much more cost effective to transport by sea. And since we import nearly everything these days, and a good 90% of it comes by sea, wouldn't it be sensible to give priority to protecting sea trade? I think that's what the major role of navies should be now, protecting trade from piracy, which is after all a form of terrorism.

[TopToffee]

And how would we get the equipment to these far away lands? You could transport Land rovers by air, but anything bigger it'd be much more cost effective to transport by sea. And since we import nearly everything these days, and a good 90% of it comes by sea, wouldn't it be sensible to give priority to protecting sea trade? I think that's what the major role of navies should be now, protecting trade from piracy, which is after all a form of terrorism.

Same way we have always done, by having heavy machinery already in place via Hercules. We have 'Machinery' dotted all over the place.SBS and Dolphins are the way the Navy should be run.

[Eldorado]

Sadly, the UK PM is a liar.

[Frank Merton]

It's a quandary; the city that doesn't maintain its walls is soon enslaved, but the same can happen if you spend too much and don't deal with other problems. Your economy suffers and soon you don't have the resources to maintain the walls.

[Space Commander Travis]

Same way we have always done, by having heavy machinery already in place via Hercules. We have 'Machinery' dotted all over the place.SBS and Dolphins are the way the Navy should be run.

Having it already in place? What, stockpile this heavy machinery everywhere around the world just in case it might ever be needed in that locality? Really practical and cost effective way of doing it there. How many AFVs can you get in a Hercules? It may have been practical in the days of Empire when there were colonies and bases all around the world, but the only why such an extravagant plan would work would be if they decided to reconstruct the Empire.

And what would it need to police that? That's right. There does seem to be a school of thought, I suppose prompted by Politicians and media who believe that "well, everyone flies everywhere these days", that, well, everything can be flown everywhere, but I'm afraid that's not how it works and it's not practical to rely on that.

But then, I'm suspecting that you're not being altogether serious anyway, unless Dolphins are in fact some secret kind of Special Forces.

[TopToffee]

Having it already in place? What, stockpile this heavy machinery everywhere around the world just in case it might ever be needed in that locality? Really practical and cost effective way of doing it there. How many AFVs can you get in a Hercules? It may have been practical in the days of Empire when there were colonies and bases all around the world, but the only why such an extravagant plan would work would be if they decided to reconstruct the Empire.

And what would it need to police that? That's right. There does seem to be a school of thought, I suppose prompted by Politicians and media who believe that "well, everyone flies everywhere these days", that, well, everything can be flown everywhere, but I'm afraid that's not how it works and it's not practical to rely on that.

But then, I'm suspecting that you're not being altogether serious anyway, unless Dolphins are in fact some secret kind of Special Forces.

Christ you are naive.The way the worlds going, the Americans will need us more for our base.

[stevewinn]

I agree with most of what you say but we dont need the

budget to be spent on the Navy.The future wars we are going to face will be more of the Guerilla Warfare type.

Personally i dont think we should be getting entangled in any type of guerrilla warfare its far to costly and our rules of engagement mean we'll always be fighting with one hand tied behind our back, and with conventional forces we'd likely lose or be drawn out into a long costly conflict with no end goal. - Land wars are extremely costly to both fight and maintain, we've seen it with Afghanistan and Iraq, and based on the performance of a number of NATO allies in Afghanistan shows just how unreliable they are, and shows we should never plan to ever depend upon them in times of crisis.

As a island nation we should play on that strength, countries who are not islands have to maintain a large land army, which is costly, this generally means with limited funds their Navy is small in comparisons to their Nations size. obviously there is exceptions to the rule, but these exceptions can be counted on one hand.

We've always needed a strong Navy and this will still be true in the future. the Army doesn't have to be the biggest in the world. look at our possessions around the world and our future plan should be to protect and defend them and the ability to retake them by force if necessary. were never going to invade another country seeking to annex/control it. the only way we'll ever invade another country is being in a coalition, UN or NATO.

Its said whoever controls the seas has the ability to control the world. The Royal Navy has the ability to reach 190 of the worlds countries and in times of crisis effectively can blockade many countries if needed into submission or negotiation. obviously we'd need to increase the Navy to achieve most of this today. but shows the possibility compared to the army.

As we look around the world at the likes of China we'd never be able to beat them in a land war, as the book of war says: rule 1 on page 1 states, do not march on Moscow, Rule 2 do not go fighting with your land armies in China. So with that said the only way we can defend ourselves in a worse case scenario is to have a strong Navy,

The British Army should aways be seen as a projectile fired by the Navy.

I'd like to see the Royal Navy increase especially as the Russians on Thursday of last week announced - they are to build 40 new ships/boats of various sizes for their Navy. and we're nearly at the minimum required to fulfill our commitments.

Standing Royal Navy deployments:

Although the majority of the United Kingdom's Royal Navy fleet, unless required, remains training and exercising in and around Home Waters, the Navy has a number of standing commitments, including those held for contingent operations, to provide ships for various missions around the world:

1 Response Force Task Group

2 Fleet Ready Escort (FRE)

3 Nuclear Deterrent (Trident)

4 Atlantic Patrol Task (North)

5 Atlantic Patrol Task (South)

6 Falkland Islands Patrol Task

7 East-of-Suez

8 Combined Task Forces

9 NATO Response Force

10 Mine Countermeasures Force (MCMFOR)

11 Fishery Protection Squadron

Response Force Task Group

RFTG is a new initiative announced in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review and is intended to be the heart of the UK’s maritime contingent capability, held at very high readiness to respond to unexpected global events. The RFTG will be poised to respond to short-notice tasking across a diverse range of defence activities such as non-combatant evacuation operations, disaster relief, humanitarian aid or amphibious operations.

Fleet Ready Escort (FRE)

This is a single warship maintained at high-readiness around the UK on short-notice standby for deployment anywhere in the world. The FRE destroyer or frigate has rapidly deployed for counter-narcotics operations as far away as the coast of Spain, embargo operations in the Adriatic Sea and short-duration training in the Caribbean, Africa and the Mediterranean.

Nuclear Deterrent (Trident)

The Royal Navy regularly deploys a nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) maintaining a continuous at-sea deterrent. The four boats of the Vanguard class submarines are each armed with 16 Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles and 48 nuclear warheads.

Atlantic Patrol Task (North)

This is the United Kingdom's contribution to the North Atlantic and Caribbean areas, intended to protect British interests in the region.

The deployment supports counter narcotics role and can provide humanitarian assistance where required; following the regular hurricanes and tropical storms.

Atlantic Patrol Task (South)

This deployment provides a British presence in the South Atlantic and West Africa and consists of a single warship accompanied by an RFA vessel. The patrol is tasked with maintaining the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, and supporting the British forces in the South Atlantic.

Falkland Islands Patrol Task

The Falkland Islands patrol ship is an Offshore Patrol Vessel that is permanently stationed around the islands, as part of the naval element of British forces in the South Atlantic. The Royal Navy's Ice Patrol Ship is deployed to the South Atlantic and the British Antarctic Territory. HMS Clyde is the permanent Falklands Island Patrol Vessel.

East-of-Suez

The Armilla Patrol was established to ensure the safety of British shipping in the Persian Gulf and is also responsible for maintaining a British presence in the region. A single warship and supporting RFA vessels are on-station as part of Operation Oracle another aspect of the UK's contribution to the War on Terror. The vessels are at-notice for deployments anywhere East-of-Suez. Currently UK Operations in the Gulf are under the United Kingdom Maritime Component Command.

Though the permanent RN presence in the Far East and Pacific regions has ended, the RN regularly deploys ships for task specific operations or as part of the Five Powers Defence Arrangements (FPDA).

Combined Task Forces

The UK contributes to the US-led Combined Task Forces (CTF) Combined Task Force 150and Combined Task Force 151. These are to combat terrorism and piracy respectively in the Gulf region and the Horn of Africa.

The UK also contributes to the EU-led Operation Atalanta, which increasingly has taken the lead against piracy off Somalia.

NATO Response Force

The Royal Navy provides a single warship to the NATO Response Force (NRF), part of the Standing NRF Maritime Group 1 in the Atlantic and Standing NRF Maritime Group 2 in the Mediterranean.

A latest parliamentary reply has confirmed that there has been no Royal Navy ship assigned to Standing NATO Maritime Group 1, Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 or Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group 1 since 2012.

Mine Countermeasures Force (MCMFOR)

MCMFOR (Group 1) is a standing commitment to NATO to provide a Mine Countermeasures vessel to the Baltic, Northern Europe and Atlantic areas.

Fishery Protection Squadron

The Fishery Protection Squadron protects both the United Kingdom fishing fleet and the oil and gas fields in the British areas of the North Sea.

Though today the Ships/boats are more capable such as the New type 45 destroyer is as effective as Three combined old type 42's. a ship/boat can only be in one place at one time. comparison graph. bit, well not a bit depressing but a National Shame. but also has to be in the context, in 1990 the Cold War had just ended so militarily we was geared towards that end.

Ideally we need the Government to order 23 of the New Global Combat ships. (Frigates) decision on the number to be built to made after 2014.

*snip*

Edited January 20, 2014 by Saru
Images removed due to copyright

[Eldorado]

It's a quandary; the city that doesn't maintain its walls is soon enslaved, but the same can happen if you spend too much and don't deal with other problems. Your economy suffers and soon you don't have the resources to maintain the walls.

And like all Empires, they will fall. Greed, complacency and arrogance will kill any dream.

[TopToffee]

Chest Puffing is no good.We are well under kitted out over in Muslim conflicts...

[stevewinn]

i cannot believe the moderator saur as removed the images. stating copyright. all images are released to the public. and for public use four of the images where taken by a mate who ae his own flicker page. the time it took me to post them now wasted. if you dont like naval ships posted just say.

[TopToffee]

i cannot believe the moderator saur as removed the images. stating copyright. all images are released to the public. and for public use four of the images where taken by a mate who ae his own flicker page. the time it took me to post them now wasted. if you dont like naval ships posted just say.

Maybe its cause your a Kopite mate....

[Eldorado]

Maybe its cause your a Kopite mate....

btw... that was a pure dive by Suarez!

[Saru]

i cannot believe the moderator saur as removed the images. stating copyright. all images are released to the public. and for public use four of the images where taken by a mate who ae his own flicker page. the time it took me to post them now wasted. if you dont like naval ships posted just say.

Several of the photographs had copyright watermarks on them and were hotlinked from mainstream news sites.

[Space Commander Travis]

It really is a minefield with all this business about pictures. How on earth is one expected to know whether they might Violate Copyright? Particularly if they have a watermark thing on them, surely everyone can see where they came from. And surely if they were official MOD PR pictures they'd want everyone to see them. Why's it all so confusing?

Edited January 20, 2014 by Colonel Rhubarb

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

If it's confusing for you, it's equally confusing for us. However if someone is going to the lengths of copyrighting their work, then we're have to respect that they do not want it used without their expressed consent.

[Saru]

The golden rule of thumb is to assume that every image is copyrighted unless it is stated otherwise.

[Oppono Astos]

Just a reminder that an author/creator does not have to explicitly claim copyright - copyright subsists in a work at/from the time it is created