British Defence Cuts

[Ajmichael]

This thread is predominantly for British people, but if you don't live here, you are still more than welcome to chip in.

So what do you all think of the cuts being made to the Armed Forces as part of the austerity drive?

[Harry Smith]

well I admit it seems strange we have the worlds 4th largest spending rate for our armed forces, considering they aren't really state of the art. I think it's ashame that the Highland regiments are getting cut down further and further and that the Paras are getting cut because they are the cream of the British army. However I think that we do need to make cuts and the defense bill is very large, however first we need reform because we keep wasting our money on overpriced planes which wouldn't of won a dogfight in WW1.

[Ajmichael]

That is an interesting point, but I do have to disagree with us not being state-of-the-art. Personally, I think the RAF is a waste of money anyway, so that can pretty much go altogether, and leave extended strike capability to the navy, and immediate air response and heavy lift to the army, seeing as the army and navy manage to do a better job of looking after aircraft than the RAF do anyway. But our air-defence destroyers and hunter-killer submarines are the worlds most advanced in their respective fields, and the army operates one of the most reliable and accurate weapon systems of this century, not to mention the coming developments such as the Fire Shadow and Rapier missile systems.

[Harry Smith]

That is an interesting point, but I do have to disagree with us not being state-of-the-art. Personally, I think the RAF is a waste of money anyway, so that can pretty much go altogether, and leave extended strike capability to the navy, and immediate air response and heavy lift to the army, seeing as the army and navy manage to do a better job of looking after aircraft than the RAF do anyway. But our air-defence destroyers and hunter-killer submarines are the worlds most advanced in their respective fields, and the army operates one of the most reliable and accurate weapon systems of this century, not to mention the coming developments such as the Fire Shadow and Rapier missile systems.

haha you sound like the MOD, we need the RAF more than anything. They provide air security for both the coasts and for our island, look at the Tornado that's done so much leg work in Iraq and Afghanistan. If anything we need the RAF more than the Navy now, your idea of leaving the Navy to deal with strike capability is wrong, we don't even have any Harriers for our navy and we only have one old carrier from the 70's. The navy don't have any planes to look after, yes we may have an elite navy but all we need is a Nuclear submarine and an Aircraft carrier really. The army really? have you spoken to the Soldiers in Afganistan, there's a reason why the SAS don't use the SA-80, we lack any good APC and we lack elite infantry regiments within our army. Our army is a shadow of it's former self

[Jean Poutine]

As a citizen from a country with laughable armed forces, I say good riddance.

[Ajmichael]

haha you sound like the MOD, we need the RAF more than anything. They provide air security for both the coasts and for our island, look at the Tornado that's done so much leg work in Iraq and Afghanistan. If anything we need the RAF more than the Navy now, your idea of leaving the Navy to deal with strike capability is wrong, we don't even have any Harriers for our navy and we only have one old carrier from the 70's. The navy don't have any planes to look after, yes we may have an elite navy but all we need is a Nuclear submarine and an Aircraft carrier really. The army really? have you spoken to the Soldiers in Afganistan, there's a reason why the SAS don't use the SA-80, we lack any good APC and we lack elite infantry regiments within our army. Our army is a shadow of it's former self

Actually, the SA-80 is a world leader in small arms that proved to be so accurate that Army marksmanship tests had to be redesigned I've used the L98A2 variant and it is a superb weapons system. It was not my idea to leave strike capability to the navy, it has come from long serving officers in the army and the navy who have served in war zones and in units around the world. Yes, the Harriers are gone thanks to a government that couldn't see the value of maritime strike capability but by leaving the strike capability to the RN, it can be operated much more effectively. With protection of home waters available from RNASs around the country and strike operations in war zones operated by the RN on land and at sea based off the new carriers coming into service from 2020. The current naval fleet is in the middle of a long upgrade process that will see it being one of the most technologically advanced on the planet. With patrol vessels providing the basis of the Fishery Protection squadron and Frigates and Destroyers having the capability to act as Fleet Escorts and to conduct counter piracy and counter narcotics operations in the Gulf, the Caribbean and across the world.

[Harry Smith]

Actually, the SA-80 is a world leader in small arms that proved to be so accurate that Army marksmanship tests had to be redesigned I've used the L98A2 variant and it is a superb weapons system. It was not my idea to leave strike capability to the navy, it has come from long serving officers in the army and the navy who have served in war zones and in units around the world. Yes, the Harriers are gone thanks to a government that couldn't see the value of maritime strike capability but by leaving the strike capability to the RN, it can be operated much more effectively. With protection of home waters available from RNASs around the country and strike operations in war zones operated by the RN on land and at sea based off the new carriers coming into service from 2020. The current naval fleet is in the middle of a long upgrade process that will see it being one of the most technologically advanced on the planet. With patrol vessels providing the basis of the Fishery Protection squadron and Frigates and Destroyers having the capability to act as Fleet Escorts and to conduct counter piracy and counter narcotics operations in the Gulf, the Caribbean and across the world.

I would much rather have the L1A1 rather than the SA80, it jams if you even mention dirt. What are we supposed to do until 2020 then? your a tech junkie as we called them in air cadets, somebody who thinks purely since you have new weapon system your fine, our navy doesn't even have anything to escort. Leave the Yanks to do the counter narcotics, that's there heat. Look at the state of our army..

[britishboy]

its not the end of the world as long ad they dont get worss, we get the new carriers AND KEEP TRIDENT!!

[Jay1]

haha you sound like the MOD, we need the RAF more than anything. They provide air security for both the coasts and for our island

Rather a silly point - whatever threats we might face in the future it's (almost) certain that defending the island against an invader won't be one of them. If the chips were so far down that our coasts were under threat Trident would be the last line.

The whole point of defence is to tackle threats that might actually exist - not much point spending money defending against something that won't happen.

[Harry Smith]

Rather a silly point - whatever threats we might face in the future it's (almost) certain that defending the island against an invader won't be one of them. If the chips were so far down that our coasts were under threat Trident would be the last line.

The whole point of defence is to tackle threats that might actually exist - not much point spending money defending against something that won't happen.

My idea was that we still have to defend our airspace, we've had Russian jets flying into it since the the 50's just as we fly into the Russians to test it. We need an ability to secure our airspace, look at 9/11 the USAF had to fly sortie's for three days to make sure there weren't any rogue planes. We need the RAF

[Jay1]

My idea was that we still have to defend our airspace, we've had Russian jets flying into it since the the 50's just as we fly into the Russians to test it. We need an ability to secure our airspace, look at 9/11 the USAF had to fly sortie's for three days to make sure there weren't any rogue planes. We need the RAF

I'l agree we do but to a very limited extent.

Of all the threats we might face in the future Russians flying into our airspace are very low down the list.

[Harry Smith]

I'l agree we do but to a very limited extent.

Of all the threats we might face in the future Russians flying into our airspace are very low down the list.

I'm not saying that's a threat, that was an example. We need to be able to secure our airspace at home and abroad. The RAF have been doing that for the last 50 years

[Jay1]

I'm not saying that's a threat, that was an example. We need to be able to secure our airspace at home and abroad. The RAF have been doing that for the last 50 years

Indeed we do - it sounds like you have family ties/personal involvement with the RAF which is totally fair enough. I'm just saying their role in the world is very much reduced now and it's only going to go down, especially considering we need to save money wherever possible.

The biggest threat we might face from the air is a hijacked airliner with bomb on board flying into UK airspace - PM would issue the order to shoot it down. RAF wouldn't need much strength to carry out that job :)

[Ajmichael]

Ah, you're in with the crabs, that explains it :P The latest variant of the SA80 is designed to be used in Afghanistan, so it is designed to keep the dust out! And you are missing my point!! RNASs have the capability to operate fixed-wing jets, in essence they are RAF bases operated by the RN. The RN does a much better job of maintaining and operating aircraft than the RAF does, and in the tough conditions on board warships at sea.

[Ajmichael]

http://i.imgur.com/Oh2Gp.jpg

[Harry Smith]

Ah, you're in with the crabs, that explains it :P The latest variant of the SA80 is designed to be used in Afghanistan, so it is designed to keep the dust out! And you are missing my point!! RNASs have the capability to operate fixed-wing jets, in essence they are RAF bases operated by the RN. The RN does a much better job of maintaining and operating aircraft than the RAF does, and in the tough conditions on board warships at sea.

Yeah I'm a RAF lad through and through. I never understand why the Army would jump out a working plane, the Royal navy have the capability to operate that but they choose not to. Just like then marines can do infantry work but the army still do the bulk of it. The problem with using the RN is that they are used to working with planes of a relatively light payloads. I doubt a Nimrod could take off an aircraft carrier

[Ajmichael]

Well, the army do the bulk because it's larger and the RM are also deployed on surface vessels during ops. The RN doesn't choose not to, it's Whitehall office boys that decide that sort of thing... And Nimrod has been cancelled :P. The RN could work, and has worked with heavier payloads and to be honest, the payload doesn't make much of a difference. The RM is primarily designed to do an initial shore assault and to act as infantry on board ships, with the army doing the bulk of the work on shore. But you see what I mean about heavy lift being army and long range strike being RN? The RAF hasn't had strategic bombing since the 50's when it was handed to the RN, and any hostile aircraft having been identified as hostile, if it was in range of the Home Waters patrol, would be shot down from the sea. Nasty business shooting down aircraft over land...