UK Armed Forces

The reasons to keep military spending down are numerous, probably to numerous to count and you can look at us "yanks" and our military spending in the face of record debt and laugh, oh yes hahahahaha, but seriously I think the reasons to keep a big robust defense force, the ones you can't think of are the exact reasons why it's needed.

Just imagine if the brits stoped using the "TV TAX" to subsidize BBC or some of the other silly taxes and put that $$$$ into the defense budget, whamo you got the money for some nice independent research, no need to collaborate with the frogs or us yanks.

I will now accept hostile comments from anyone with a union jack in their avatar, however whining by peoples with a maple leaf or french stripes will not be tolerated

WOW. im beginning to seriously regret even making this topic... I was a little bit concernedd at the start about how there was only supposedly gonna be 20 operational fighters..

i know this to be bullcrud now... i know someone in the RAF and the new squadrons of eurofighters are currentley being set up.. from what i've heard...the eurofighter is an amazing aircraft to fly..and nothing compares to it... i even heard somewhere it was given the best fghter in the world award..i can't back that up... obviously when the f22 becomes operational....that will change..but... as for the person who was knocking the eurofighter...your talking out of your *** man.. And regarding the tornado as being old...it's not that old..compared to many american fighters such as the a-10 which is a fine aircraft.. the tornado is the finest low level ground attack aircraft in the world...if you can find another that's better..Please tell me about it

as for the newspapers...im never reading them again.. remember a few weeks ago when they said there was a situation in the falklands? and we were sending out finest naval ships there? well it's all bull crap too... the reason it went there was for another reason... the people on the falkland islands couldn't believe it when they saw that in the daily mail.. ah well... bring on the eurofighters and f-35's i say... although i hope they keep the tornado for low level ground attack!



[edit on 18-6-2005 by clashrock]

Looking4truth, here's some truth for you. There is no such thing as TV TAX and neither is the BBC subsidised.

However the BBC is WHOLLY FUNDED by the TV Licence, which is not the same at all really. It means above all that the BBC is totally independant and has no need to push the party line for either side or pander to the wishes of advertisers, this is invaluable when it comes to news and current affairs but also has beneficial effects on all programming. Therefore to carry out your suggestion I would have to continue pay my TV Licence whilst the BBC was shut down and I was left only with crappy ITV and Sky (both of whom recieve no money from the TV License anyway) to watch, I don't think so. However that is way off topic but I couldn't resist.

I don't think having a new plane is that important unless it can defend itself against the new generation of missiles that can be fired from hundred of miles away.Dog fighting is dead, so why bother developing a plane to do that, what we need are smart missiles that can be launched from any aircraft. The Eurofighter will still be needed to do acrobatics at air shows, so we have not wasted all those Euros.

I don't think having a new plane is that important unless it can defend itself against the new generation of missiles that can be fired from hundred of miles away.

We “Yanks” already though of that it called Stealth, and all our aircraft to come out since the 80’s have stealth.

I'm with you West Point, the magic Eurofighter has no stealth capability so its a forgone conclusion that it will be shot down by smart missiles from a plane many miles away.

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
I'm with you West Point, the magic Eurofighter has no stealth capability so its a forgone conclusion that it will be shot down by smart missiles from a plane many miles away.

You really are full of it, every point you have made is wrong! With the AMRAAM and PIRATE the Typhoon can get off a shot at "around" 45 miles dependant on hight speed etc etc.

That will increase with the BVRAAM, that WILL be in service in a little time.

To be fare only the use have a real stealth cap and we will not ever be up against the us so that is a mood point. The falklands will never re-run as the T man has made the deal over the oil, and the F3 really could take out the rest of the ag airforce (only 4 F3's) but that's enoungh.

Then there is the FOAS that will take over from the tornado in 2012 - 2015 and that will be stealth and a range of solutions to best meet the UK's needs. But the truth be told Bulldog the UK is more than up to any treat that may appear in the near future, and let's be totally honest you would whine C££p loads if asked to pay more taxs for defense in time of no real theat.

To only major possable theat is from some mad terriot group and with the best will in the world they cannot be countered using thr army, airforce or the navy they can only be countered by making the rest of the people hate them and forcing them back the there F555ing caves.

also BULLDOG do the math best case we buy the F22 @ $100 million a pop * 232 then / by 45% to get the poundage come back if you work it out, or to make your life simple assume we will only need 100 F22's at 100 million each. then put in the UK alone around 60K people out of work.

The simple fact is it'll never happen and your out of it, so go home and have a beer and forget it bulldog as you full of c£££, bit like my local mp.

RAB

Two theories, Bulldog 52 is either a troll on a mission, or a Sun reader, as his 'views' on the UK armed forces and their equipment seem to have been culled wholesale from the tabloid press and show no understanding whatsoever of whats really out there. Says it all, I think.

To waynos, a tax is a tax is a tax, that tv "liscense" is a tax. And regardless of what B.S. the BBC brass tells the people, they are completely viable without the "fee" coming out of old age pensioners checks. It's the same with PBS here in the US only a little bigger tax in the UK, trust me if the people knew how much of their tax money was wasted on those channels and how actually viable they could be independently, then like I said, there's a bunch of $$$ for defense. But this is way off topic.

This is kinda silly don't ya think? At a time when most western nations are bleeding jobs and whole industries out to the east, why cut a vital part of your national infrastructure? The defense industry, like it or not, provides alot of high tech and high skilled jobs to alot of people. Don't forget the $$$ alot of those jobs pay, even if it means spending less on the BBC crooks it should be at least considered how much long term impact on a nation this can have.

I don't think anyone in the UK would complain about having a rather large military if it ever becomes needed. It's easy to say cut the military to save money but that money is gonna get spent on something anyway. It's also easy to say that a large military is not needed, well what happens if it ever is needed, it wouldn't have been a waste that's for sure.

Yes, a tax is a tax. But the TV License isn't one. Tax is levied over and above the normal charge for whatever vthe goods are, ie VAT is charged at 17% of the actual price of the goods, Income Tax is 22% of what you earn etc etc. The TV Licence is a flat fee you pay it ion order to recvieve TV broadcasts in the UK, the whole of which funds the BBC. Its a completely different kettle of fish.

Also how do you reckon the BBC is viable without it? The BBC has no other income other than merchandising which is hardly enough to fund a huge corporation like that.

Also your labelling of 'BBC crooks' shows a great misunderatanding of what the BBC is, It is certainly the most unbiased and trustworthy network there is IMHO.

It makes me laugh how people (not you obviously) baulk at paying around £2 a week for their TV License but happily pay £10 a week for Sky

I KNOW that the BBC is viable on it's own because they have BBC channels in many countries (BBC America) and the profits from that alone could make a huge dent in what the UK public pays. Unless ofcourse the British public is paying for me to watch a program here that I pay for in my cable bill anyway, that would tick ya off I would think. And besides, wouldn't you rather have a few commercials between shows than pay for the BBC, I know it's annoying but really.

Also, I appoligize for it waynos but I really don't consider any big media source "unbiased", not even the BBC, and especially not the US's PBS.
I like some BBC programs I have seen here on BBC America but really, unbiased? Nah, I don't live in the UK so I can't vote there but I don't like public funded TV, I'm not a raging conservative but I think public money is for roads, ambulances, and a defense not TV.

The British Armed forces are being scaled down into a more mobile tatical role instead of huge conventional armies. Remember , modern warfare does depend on troops, however is relying more heavily on more technological instruments, such as the new fleet of Apaches. In order, the less number of troops mean more investment into the remaining, concluding a better trained professional force, equipped with technological advance weapons.

BBC America is a minority channel and while your PBS fees certainly fund it how do you imagine they will fund the WHOLE BBC? BBC America is a very tiny part of the jigsaw, here in the UK the BBC has four TV channels and eight radio stations, none of which are fee paid (outside the TVL) and none of which carry commercials. I understand your viewpoint of public funded TV and arguing viewpoints is a waste of time but, for me, with over 200 channels of advertising funded pap the BBC offers a refreshing alternative. Also for me it is not about the inconvenience of having ad breaks but rather the influence exerted by those with the cash, something the BBC is unique in being free of.

Also, I never said unbiased, I said the MOST unbiased, meaning in relation to the rest. Why do you think most of the world trusts the word of the BBC World Service ahead of their own local networks? Not just because it is British surely?

[edit on 19-6-2005 by waynos]

Wasn't an attack on the BBC programming quality, besides I don't even live in the UK so my opinion is rather pointless. Also I don't want to give the author of this thread more points arguing something that should be in the media forum anyway.

Another thing I was thinking about though, immigration is changing the face of our two nations and as the population shifts from a majority of one race to a bigger mix you also have to figure the nature of the conflicts we may be required to act on are going to change. If India and Pakistan go at it than the UK is going to have a real internal dilemma as immigration from those two countries id huge there. Both the UK and the US are gonna need fairly large militaries in my opinion as we are the only nations that have the willpower and the skill to fight the many battles of the 21st century. The Middle East, Eurasia, East Asia, Africa all those regions are at near boiling points and you know, no matter how much people deny it, alot of nations are gonna beg for our help or drag us in somehow.

NATO is as relevent as a complaint box at the local K.F.C., in this yanks mind the EU is a socialist experiment that is gonna fade out, and the UN has a thing for requiring the unabaided bashing and downtalking of any concerns the US or UK have. So where do we turn if a problem breaks out? Each other, and the people of the UK and the US would be wise to remember those points when talking about cuts in the defense forces.

I have all the respect for the British in the world and the UK military is world renown for it's bravery and effectiveness. It'd be a shame to damage that by cutting the forces down now. Too many major conflicts could be looming do to the proliferation of WMD's, poverty, energy use, economic confrontations, and Islamic fundamentalism.

Originally posted by waynos
Two theories, Bulldog 52 is either a troll on a mission, or a Sun reader, as his 'views' on the UK armed forces and their equipment seem to have been culled wholesale from the tabloid press and show no understanding whatsoever of whats really out there. Says it all, I think.

Sorry I'm neither, but if i was having to face expensive choices i would buy the American plane as its had more thought put into it. They are harder to shoot down because of inbuilt stealth that makes the airplane virtually invisible. The Euro fighter might be the best Europe can do , but its still behind the times. Europe is a waste of space ever thing it does costs a fortune and is still years behind America in aircraft technology.

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Sorry I'm neither, but if i was having to face expensive choices i would buy the American plane as its had more thought put into it.

What plane though?/
The JSF?

They are harder to shoot down because of inbuilt stealth that makes the airplane virtually invisible.

What plane?

The Euro fighter might be the best Europe can do , but its still behind the times. Europe is a waste of space ever thing it does costs a fortune and is still years behind America in aircraft technology.

Ok thats it your an american, no way can you be british...

How about we get this topic back on track?

What are others peoples opinions on these new budget cuts?

For further on the above quote, please re-read the original topic comments.
UK Armed Forces

Thanks.




seekerof

In a effort to help this thread back to the land of the norml people, I've got a link to the UK MOD's website:

www.mod.uk...

It's a big list of all current UK MOD projects.

Also this may interest: www.mod.uk...

RAB

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Sorry I'm neither, but if i was having to face expensive choices i would buy the American plane as its had more thought put into it.

Could you please back that up with fact?

Ok thats it your an american, no way can you be british...

I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism?