Britains Armed Forces too small?

The UK opposition defence spokes man Dr Liam Fox has once again brought up the question of the capability of Britains armed forces , in dealing with the security threats that face Britain at the present and in to an uncertain future.

"By the time we finish the new Wembley Stadium, we will be able to seat the ranks of the whole of the British Army inside it.

"The entire Royal Navy will be smaller than the task force we sent to the Falklands.

"And the RAF Museum at Hendon will have more attack aircraft than the RAF does now."

For the full article news.scotsman.com...

When put in to theese terms it just shows the the kind of stress that with reduced numbers that the British armed forces are under in dealing with threats in Iraq, Afghanistan aswell as possible future deployments.

I don't advocate a huge increase in defence spending , how ever I would say that with the UK probably in the most danger at home and abroad (from terrorism) that it has faced since WW II an increase from the current 2.2 % of national income is justified , I want to see the British armed forces, able to defend Britain from threats , at home aswell as abroad with as little danger to actual personel as possible.

So lets discuss how best Britain can boost its defensive capabilities and strategic power projection, is it just a case of more money? or is a new philosophy needed? , do we need huge numbers of troops?

mostly more money and less Cuts

Originally posted by bodrul
mostly more money and less Cuts

Do you think that there is the political will for more money? , would you be in favour of an increase in defence spending, if it took money from for example hospitals?

UK isn't actually under a conventional war threat, or is it?
So unless you want to play world police with your big brother, you only need relatively small elite army backed up by large reserves...

If UK wants to maintain power projection capabilities it's only hope is to increase funding and manpower in order to avoid troops fatigue due to long deployments and at the same time increase the abilities of RN to support these expeditionary forces.


Conscription is allways a good thing if you want to maintain good defence, it allows countries like Finland to maintain credible defences (Nation of

britain should keep the size of its millitary the same. our forces are man for man the most highly trainned & elite in the world. the royal marine commandos/SBS, paras & SAS are the best of the best. there nothing small about britains forces. whats wrong with the forces is where relient on american technology. like the f-35 and america is refusuing to give us codes. britain should increase its defence budget just slightly and use that extram money to become self dependant like france and no longer require american technology becuase americans treat britain like a dog we share all our technology with america even nuke, stealth, air craft, engines, guns & missiles yet america hides and denys britain technology thats not fair. we should increase the budget and reach a level of self sufficency which will increase the strength of our armed forces also it would stop us running behind america every where around the world.

thumbs up to self sufficency
thumbs down to being americas dog

Originally posted by buckaroo

Do you think that there is the political will for more money? , would you be in favour of an increase in defence spending, if it took money from for example hospitals?

if they want to send people head first into fights then yea
since the MOD is abit scanky with under funding things

and our hospitals are already shambles

and last time i read the goverment seems to have large bugdet which seems to go into projects that dont bennifit jackall which could be usefull in many area's (deffence,hospitals ect)

I do tend to agree with iqonx on the quality of the Armed forces personnel, however they are stretched thinly in Iraq .

should the MOD invest more heavily in high tech , for example ucavs, to the detriment of say disbanding infantry battallions, because we can see that in a campaign like Iraq, after the initial regime is toppled , what counts is boots on the ground ,

Well the RAF spent more money on aircraft than the entire RN budget combined.

You do the math on it..

We also spent something like 3- 2 million on ammo last year.

good point on the Ammo devilwasp, also one of the main things that gets my back up is the well publicised lack of proper funding for what should be really simple things like good boots , radios things like that , although the MOD do get an awful lot of bad PR about things like that .

I suppose it is just about acieving the right balance of tech and numbers with in the budget, (which i think could stand to be increased)

What I dont get though is this: We spend a massive bugdet on planes, aircraft and varios other RAF toys yet they cant hit anything outside europe without a tanker. Forgive me for saying this but what is the point in wasteing money on planes that defend us agaisnt our ALLIES?

I don't think they need more money.

More money is the standard answer, but only rarely is it the solution. It's a perpetual problem, symptom relief instead of a true remedy, to use the body analogy.

So, what exactly does Britain need its armed forces to do? That's the question being considered, always, by men more esteemed than ourselves. I don't know enough about Britain's defense needs to paraphrase their musings.

I can, however, sum up the threat in one word - asymetric.

I think making it a budget issue is a cop-out. Most governments can't squeeze a penny out of a dollar. Making them more efficient is the way to properly save money, rather than cutting programs and research simply for the sake of financing inefficiency, and certainly compared to spending through the roof trying to find the point at which all actual needs are met.

I don't see that there's any other solution but the one that's the easiest.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne


I think making it a budget issue is a cop-out. Most governments can't squeeze a penny out of a dollar. Making them more efficient is the way to properly save money, rather than cutting programs and research simply for the sake of financing inefficiency, and certainly compared to spending through the roof trying to find the point at which all actual needs are met.

I don't see that there's any other solution but the one that's the easiest.

I agree 100% im sure if efficiency was increased and bueaocracy cut back(some hope ) im sure millions would be freed up .

Id like to hope that the men tasked with determining the threats for Britain ,will get it right but they have been so wrong in the past ( i know they dont have a crystal ball) eg cancelling carriers in the 70's.

I agree also with Devilwasp , although I would like to see the RAF not loose the capability to defend our airspace , I do think that the numbers of fighters is slightly excessive , and that money could be used elsewhere, like on more carries which can actually project power , which I think will be important in the future global climate.

Clearly our armed forces are too small but what can you do? Offer higher pay, more perks such as inbedded strippers, and mabye, (this is controversial) engage in less invasions!

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
and mabye, (this is controversial) engage in less invasions!

Good point , or maybe limit our participation in invasions , although if that happend then im sure the Armed forces would be cut even more!

Yes true bit of a catch 22 situation really. Where can you see the British army being used next? And can we ever go solo again, say into Zimbabwae?

The most common threats in the modern world are seeing alot of countries move away from huge military forces to smaller better equiped forces that can be deployed quickly and effectively.

Even the Juggernaut of military troop levels China has been downsizing for years. Their not cutting spending by any meaning they are increasing spending but yet they have been cutting troop levels.


A country should always mantian the ability to draft millions and create a huge war machine if the need ever arises.

Even as small as it is the British army is still the most capable army in the world in any event. Be it hostage(SAS) Bombing(RAF) Amphibious or mass tank assault for pure skill and tenacity you cannot look any further.

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
Even as small as it is the British army is still the most capable army in the world in any event. Be it hostage(SAS) Bombing(RAF) Amphibious or mass tank assault for pure skill and tenacity you cannot look any further.

Yes but IMO over stretched look at this article

The Commons public accounts committee (PAC), in a hard-hitting report, said high-level demands were putting "worrying signs of strain" on the forces.
Equipment had to be cannibalised from materiel left at home in order to keep fighting units up to strength and there were fears the priority placed on re-equipping the Army and the RAF might have hit the Royal Navy's capabilities

For full article www.theherald.co.uk...

They can't be every where at once (and some would say they don't have to be) but they are under strain, and that leads to deaths , accidents , low morale.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by buckaroo]

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
Even as small as it is the British army is still the most capable army in the world in any event. Be it hostage(SAS) Bombing(RAF)

Ill give you Hostage sitiuations with the SAS they are goof, But most capable in Bombing? Over the USAF you have to be kidding right?

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
... Bombing(RAF) ...

With which bombers?

...Amphibious ...

With how many ships?

...or mass tank assault ...

Where´s the mass of tanks?

Quality is all good and well, but it means nothing without the equipment in reasonable numbers.