Britains Armed Forces too small?

i just said 12 because theres a potential of 12 (6 have already been ordered).

Originally posted by buckaroo

hmmm i doubt we will see 12 type 45 's I reckon 6 or 8

Originally posted by st3ve_o
i just said 12 because theres a potential of 12 (6 have already been ordered).

Originally posted by buckaroo

hmmm i doubt we will see 12 type 45 's I reckon 6 or 8

Yeah heres hoping that the RN can get 12, but replacing the old type 42 's one for one is out of the question i reckon, theese 45's cost a serious chunk o' change

[edit on 24-3-2006 by buckaroo]

Originally posted by st3ve_o
well if we can't win another falklands, why don't the argentines invade then?

afterall the falklands is of great importance to them (probably because of the oil surrounding it).

Well A) we have a naval warship in the area or within 3 days reach at all times (Usually a nuke sub)
B) Several tornado units there.

C) stores and weapons for thousands of troops only needing to be flown in.

I never said we couldnt win a war at the falklands, I just said we couldnt fight another war similar to the orignal war.

but what you said above is just a matter of 'opinion', but i believe what you listed below is still MORE than a country such as argentinas!!

You think the argentinians are frightened of a few harriers with stingers?

the trouble is with us brits we are born MOANERS, we always want something to complain about!!

Uh we dont "want" we "NEED"!

if we arn't equipt enough to beat a (3rd ish world) country such as argentinas then why do we have the 2nd highest defence budget in the world?

Because we spend most of it on a non existant aircraft as of yet, and on other aircraft projects that will not defend us past europe.

. why are we the worlds 2nd highest funders into 'military research and development?'

Ever asked how much of those projects we are going to put into ful production?

if the british armed forces are so 'poorly' equipt where does the money go?

A) Stupid air projects

B) Wages.

Originally posted by st3ve_o
12 type45's, 'the greatest warship in the world' (according to google research).

Wich isnt ready to recieve weapons yet or for another year acording to the commander of all 4 bay class ships.

new carriers in develpment

Not for another decade.

new subs

All four of them.

f-35 (if that doesn't happen), dassault rafael

WOOOh rafael or the F-35.....wont be able to do much on the ark royal.

other nice projects in development (uav's, ucav's) etc.

UAV and UACV are part of the solution...not the entire thing.

in 5/10 years time (2010+) the british armed forces should have a good shape to it.

Yeah but what about NOW.

but as said, things take time.
[edit on 24-3-2006 by st3ve_o]

Yeah they said that back in 1930's....1980's....and now again.

posted by st3ve_o: “ . . the government will never decrease a military to make it 'weaker' . . how many troops were in the Falklands - maybe 4000? - what is the manpower of the UK armed forces now? . . the RAF have 52,000+ men so I suspect the TOTAL NUMBER is over 100,000. [Edited by Don W[

Uniformed personnel are one thing, costs of armed forces are yet another. By the mid 1960s, the US was deep into putting civilians into many tasks formerly done by lower grade enlisted personnel. Kitchen police. Housekeeping. Simple maintenance tasks. It is hard to know how many people work for the Department of Defense. But it is a lot more than are in uniform.

Anti-government hysteria in America has caused most administrations since 1980 to either claim they have reduced the number of government employees or to promise they will. Americans equate “good” government with small numbers.

ASIDE: The Department of Energy website explain they have 18,000 employees and 110,000 on contract. So how many work for the government? Aren’t all paid by the same taxpayers?

I heard that with Army, Navy and Air Force, the UK had either 10,000 or 15,000 persons at the Falklands.

Britan needs to sort its self out now, not waste money on aircraft and ships that are coming in 7-8 years time. We've all seen on the news troops in Iraq wearing greens, whats that about!? My uncle is in the royal marines he told me when in afghanistan his boots melted, when in Iraq looking after Engineers he only had 30 rounds of ammunition for 3 and a half months. And in both countries when his weapon was needed, the rifle the MOD has just spent millions on revamping still jammed constantly. It does make you think where all the money goes.

The Argentinian military is not anything like it was during the Falklands.
Its a mess. They had a real chance in 82'. They screwed up big time.

EDIT: Infact as we are discussing on the a/c forum, they screwed up many times in a wide variety of things. They could've been where China/India are today.
Real sad..

[edit on 25-3-2006 by Daedalus3]

Still the British S.A.S are the best Special Forces in the world and they have proved it they even trained other Special Forces of other countrys,I think most British money the Army get goes on wages as they can get quite high for high army ranks.

Buckaroo, nice topic! This is something which has been bothering me for somewhile. It is quite obvious that the Army, Navy and Airforce have all suffered the same mis-administration by successive governments that most of the other major aspects of British life in modern times.

I have grown up through the 80s and 90s in atime when it seems clear we face more diverse threats than ever and we still face the threat of another major world war. The problem for the Government is that there is only a will on the Publics part to spend money on defence forces when there is a perceived threat. Unfortunately, most people are not capable of seeing the threats that challenge us as a nation, globally.

As a nation we do not lack the resource or wealth to have most of what we want and need, mismanagement by governments getting fat of our hard work stops most of what it would take to revitalise this countries defences.

Personally I would very much like to see the re-introduction of National service. One or two years hard graft in the Army would help to alleviate the emergence of the thuggish culture this country now has.

The public must face up to their responsbilities and not be apathetic to the world around them, they must be vocal and we simply fail as a nation on this score. By the same token the government must not look to America for leadership and Moral values.

Originally posted by cassini
Personally I would very much like to see the re-introduction of National service. One or two years hard graft in the Army would help to alleviate the emergence of the thuggish culture this country now has.

The public must face up to their responsbilities and not be apathetic to the world around them, they must be vocal and we simply fail as a nation on this score. By the same token the government must not look to America for leadership and Moral values.

Im not sure where I stand on national service cassini , I just don't see it being re implemented ,although I see its benefits.

I personally thing that National Service should be introduced again. As was mentioned before, it would kerb the onslaught of teenage thuggery and crimes by these individuals.

Two years service, in my opinion would help those who were conscripted and also help the forces man power. Some might even like the service life and opt to stay on. It would be a better option than just recruiting people off the streets.

To be honest here, it make me sick to the stomach to think that there are 18/19 year olds fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, whilst the same age group of delinquents get off on causing problems by terrorizing old folk and thieving etc. Nothing really gets done to solve this problem. National service would sort this out, and should be compulsory..............
Eddie....................

Death. Its the final door we have to face but its not one I would imagine for National service inductees. I see National Service as a way of revitalising the country I dont see it as being something contained to a specific age group.

Perhaps this is something which deserves its own thread though?

i think Britain's armed forces need more troops but they are still a highly capable and deadly force to reckon with. They have the Eurofighter,Apache, Challnger 2 etc and much more. but yea they need more troops

the last couple of years has seen a massive increase in the firepower of individual troops squads. A std 8 man squad now carries as std: 2 Minami machine guns, 2 LSW: 2 SA-80's with UGL's attached and 2 normal SA-80's

Compare that to what they had in GW1.

impressive. i think Britains armed forces are fine but they could use some amount of number boosts. I mean 200,000, more seems reasonable.

Originally posted by snatchypaws
The numbers are fine

The UK have all the technology it needs to defend itsself and to take any battle to anyone (bar head to head with Russia, China or the USA)
We can deploy all over the world. We hit hard for the small numbers and have all the means to get a job done.


HAHAHA britain would lose to the usa in a matter of days. China and russia would be a differnt story, it would be hard for them to get there troops there but they would. With out the usa's help britian could dont defend itself from a country like russia or china.

Originally posted by shortmanx5
HAHAHA britain would lose to the usa in a matter of days. China and russia would be a differnt story, it would be hard for them to get there troops there but they would. With out the usa's help britian could dont defend itself from a country like russia or china.

Mabye the air and sea war but on the ground is a diffrent story, on the gound it would be pretty evenly matched.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by shortmanx5
HAHAHA britain would lose to the usa in a matter of days. China and russia would be a differnt story, it would be hard for them to get there troops there but they would. With out the usa's help britian could dont defend itself from a country like russia or china.

Mabye the air and sea war but on the ground is a diffrent story, on the gound it would be pretty evenly matched.

I agree it would be evenly matched until we landed reinforcements , we already have tanks and troops there. they could hold out . If that didnt work there is no way britian is on the same playing field on the ground. We have better tanks, amour, guns, weapons. Not as very well easly matched.

Originally posted by shortmanx5
I agree it would be evenly matched until we landed reinforcements , we already have tanks and troops there. they could hold out .

??
As far as I knew you had what a few AF bases....doubt they could hold against several DIVISIONS on thier own.

If that didnt work there is no way britian is on the same playing field on the ground. We have better tanks, amour, guns, weapons. Not as very well easly matched.

You have better tanks?What about the challanger? Or do we all use T-70s
That why you buy armour off us?
Better guns? Thats debatable like but I'd favour an SA-80A2 over the M-16 anyday.

The M-16 had its fair share of problems early on but they were dealt with long ago. I'm continueing to here from Brits about their SA-80's jamming and its overall poor performance. I guess thats why the SAS use the M-16.