| Britain Defence Capability 13:00 - Mar 3 with 1264 views | Churchman |
An interesting Sky commentary on Britain’s ability to defend itself.
https://news.sky.com/story/bri
The years of cuts, neglect and disinterest are there for all to see. Too late now. The warnings of over a decade of increasing uncertainty - ignored. Still, the scrapyards have been kept busy and cuts in real terms will continue.
Tell everyone the spend might increase one day while lumping in other budgets into Defence like the security services equals cuts, but don’t tell anyone. Just hold another review and have a good laugh.
The world is getting more dangerous by the day and all we have left is Starmer bleating on about international law - which doesn’t exist any more. He is in complete denial. Hiding. Nice to see him saying no to Trump for once, but in doing so he has not made this country more safe? Quite the opposite in my view.
I’d have preferred Sir Kier to stop creep@rsing Trump around other issues, not this one. I’m with Australia and Canada on this. The Iranian regime is Stone Age and despicable and if somebody wants to try and reduce their capability to harm others, good for them.
If a massive drone and missile strike is launched against Akrotiri (precisely what I’d do) it’ll be rubbed off the map and so will British service people as there’s literally no means to defend it. Perhaps with a few sticks the poor undefended people based there can make catapults and bring them down that way.
It’s been obvious for so long what needed to be done, yet other priorities came first and still do.
Just a view.
|  | | |  |
| Britain Defence Capability on 15:04 - Mar 3 with 284 views | Guthrum |
| Britain Defence Capability on 14:44 - Mar 3 by StokieBlue |
I'm aware of that.
My point is that even if they are easy to intercept it's still costly whether you do it via air defences or planes. It's the cost discrepancy that is the issue here.
SB |
Indeed, altho the more basic ones can be shot down with relatively low-cost anti-aircraft guns (e.g. the twin 23mm ZU-23-2).
Problem comes when your military has specialised in missile defence against manned attackers. Which we have, rather. |  |
| |
| Britain Defence Capability on 15:09 - Mar 3 with 262 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Britain Defence Capability on 13:47 - Mar 3 by giant_stow |
You're right about the peace dividend, but less so about recently. I think the writing's been on the wall since Russia's full invasion of Ukraine, what 4 years ago? |
The writing has been on the wall since 2014, alas Russia got away with a slap on the wrist and continued to receive billions of euros of gas revenue. |  | | |
| Britain Defence Capability on 15:09 - Mar 3 with 261 views | NthQldITFC |
Black smoke over Felixstowe way - have the Seppos bombed Mannings? |  |
| |
| Britain Defence Capability on 15:17 - Mar 3 with 241 views | Churchman |
| Britain Defence Capability on 14:31 - Mar 3 by giant_stow |
Thanks for the answer, Guthrum, but it feels like other countries seem to get more for less. That statement is definitely 'feels' not 'reals' so I could be chatting sh1t. |
In some ways they are. Some countries for example are pulling out of contracts for F35 on the basis of cost. The Saab Gripen is a viable alternative and its integrated systems are not reliant on the US. Is it as good as F35? No. It’s a previous generation aeroplane, but it’s very very good and a heck of a lot cheaper.
Add in Trumps comments about exporting second rate kit and keeping the best for the US and that’s why countries might well opt for the Saab. After all, it’s often about how kit is used I.e. expertise as much as the kit itself.
The U.K.? What left of its military is heavily embedded with the US so that’s not a short term option any more than relying on building our own independent nuclear capability is. But long term? That’s where the planning comes in.
The trouble is, how can you plan when the government of the day meddles with the spec of a piece of kit on the basis of cost such as the Chinooks rotting in a hanger at millions a piece or aircraft carriers that are virtually useless due to the changes made to them. Add in woeful procurement and contracting (apologies to a mates of mine who were involved in this) and you add shambles to cost driven shortages to other priorities.
In addition, how can the MoD plan when, for example, it’s suddenly told all contributions to Ukraine must come from its budget and there will be no additional money? Then other stuff that wasn’t MoD gets lumped into it.
Successive governments have seen the military budget as a larder from which to support other things. That’s fine. A policy decision. But there’s no excuses if you then get run over by world affairs, especially when the warning lights have been on for years. | | | |
| Britain Defence Capability on 15:41 - Mar 3 with 209 views | BlueNomad |
A week ago this country would not have countenanced an attack on Israel yet, because the US has an unpredictable and unreliable president, we have suddenly arrived at the point we are today. Trump and Netanyahu decided on this, no-one else. It is not a legal war and I fail to see why people think that we have some sort of obligation to do so. It would seem to be a bit like getting behind the school bully and getting a few kicks in while their target is being hit. Trump and Netanyahu have their own domestic reasons for these attacks; Starmer does not.
No-one will weep at the removal of Khameini and his henchmen but unless there is a long term strategic goal this will get the world nowhere. I haven’t seen one yet. |  | | |
| Britain Defence Capability on 15:44 - Mar 3 with 206 views | Bent_double |
| Britain Defence Capability on 14:09 - Mar 3 by Churchman |
I hope your son is ok and it was precisely the likes of him I was thinking of.
Yes, the ‘peace divided’ so beloved by governments for decades. All that lovely money directed to priorities. I get that.
But Gulf War 1 and 2 plus of course Afghanistan where so many of our military did amazing things a lot of the time without adequate kit or support screamed that there was a need. Yet successive governments couldn’t resist hollowing it out and thinking it’d be ok if they just looked a bit misty eyed on Remembrance Sunday.
Yet in 2014, Russia invaded Crimea and ripped up guarantees that the U.K., US and Russia signed. Not only did we ignore it, we also ignored the lessons. Get that headcount down, flog off everything if only to the scrap man. Salisbury - ignore it. It’s only a foreign country poisoning a few people with funny names here.
Then if we conveniently ignore everything else from terrorists to goodness knows what, Ukraine four years ago. Four years. Near enough the same amount of time as WW1. What have we as a country done in those years to face the obvious challenges of a more dangerous world? More cuts, more denial, pointless review can kicking, but in essence prioritise other things including pursuing at any cost crazy policies for political self and ‘the party’.
My rant is not particularly against Starmer. He might be as useful as a chocolate teapot, but his immediate predecessors were worse, some by a considerable margin. At least to my knowledge he’s not corrupt. |
He is at the moment, thank-you, but he's right in the middle of it, it's very worrying. |  |
| |
| Britain Defence Capability on 16:34 - Mar 3 with 155 views | Crawfordsboot |
| Britain Defence Capability on 15:17 - Mar 3 by Churchman |
In some ways they are. Some countries for example are pulling out of contracts for F35 on the basis of cost. The Saab Gripen is a viable alternative and its integrated systems are not reliant on the US. Is it as good as F35? No. It’s a previous generation aeroplane, but it’s very very good and a heck of a lot cheaper.
Add in Trumps comments about exporting second rate kit and keeping the best for the US and that’s why countries might well opt for the Saab. After all, it’s often about how kit is used I.e. expertise as much as the kit itself.
The U.K.? What left of its military is heavily embedded with the US so that’s not a short term option any more than relying on building our own independent nuclear capability is. But long term? That’s where the planning comes in.
The trouble is, how can you plan when the government of the day meddles with the spec of a piece of kit on the basis of cost such as the Chinooks rotting in a hanger at millions a piece or aircraft carriers that are virtually useless due to the changes made to them. Add in woeful procurement and contracting (apologies to a mates of mine who were involved in this) and you add shambles to cost driven shortages to other priorities.
In addition, how can the MoD plan when, for example, it’s suddenly told all contributions to Ukraine must come from its budget and there will be no additional money? Then other stuff that wasn’t MoD gets lumped into it.
Successive governments have seen the military budget as a larder from which to support other things. That’s fine. A policy decision. But there’s no excuses if you then get run over by world affairs, especially when the warning lights have been on for years. |
On the other hand our military commitments reflect our past glories (?) of the empire when we could fight wars based on using commonwealth troops and armies to bolster our own. I would argue that the aspirations of our armed forces exceeds by some margin our place and relevance in a modern world. In my view The Falklands and Iraq both fall in to this category. (This is not a comment on the unfortunate service personnel who served).
Budget cuts to over inflated forces, each duplicating command structures with unnecessarily high numbers of senior personnel, simply begin to reflect the reality of our place in today’s world.
We should be alongside Europe with a level of armed forces that reflect our relative stature within that community. As for Trump - every bone in my body tells me that we should reflect long and hard before getting involved in any of his diversionary adventures. |  | | |
| Britain Defence Capability on 16:43 - Mar 3 with 131 views | chicoazul |
| Britain Defence Capability on 13:14 - Mar 3 by giant_stow |
Given we have the 5/6th largest defense budget in the world, where does all the money go? Can't all be Trident and putting major's families through public achool... |
Look into what Cummings says about the nuke budget black hole. It’s amazing what governments get away with when they can refuse to answer questions about defence. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Britain Defence Capability on 16:56 - Mar 3 with 103 views | Guthrum |
| Britain Defence Capability on 15:09 - Mar 3 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
The writing has been on the wall since 2014, alas Russia got away with a slap on the wrist and continued to receive billions of euros of gas revenue. |
Or 2008, with Putin's attack on Georgia.
Mind you, at that time, everyone's attention was towards fighting (mainly Wahabi) extremist insurgencies. | |
| |
| Britain Defence Capability on 17:09 - Mar 3 with 87 views | Leaky |
| Britain Defence Capability on 13:14 - Mar 3 by giant_stow |
Given we have the 5/6th largest defense budget in the world, where does all the money go? Can't all be Trident and putting major's families through public achool... |
Its general a query where does all our taxes go despite being taxed at the highest level since WW11. We cant fund the NHS, we now are relying on the French & the Greeks to defend our airbase in Cyprus, lets have public audit where the money is being spent |  | | |
| Britain Defence Capability on 17:22 - Mar 3 with 73 views | Radlett_blue |
| Britain Defence Capability on 15:41 - Mar 3 by BlueNomad |
A week ago this country would not have countenanced an attack on Israel yet, because the US has an unpredictable and unreliable president, we have suddenly arrived at the point we are today. Trump and Netanyahu decided on this, no-one else. It is not a legal war and I fail to see why people think that we have some sort of obligation to do so. It would seem to be a bit like getting behind the school bully and getting a few kicks in while their target is being hit. Trump and Netanyahu have their own domestic reasons for these attacks; Starmer does not.
No-one will weep at the removal of Khameini and his henchmen but unless there is a long term strategic goal this will get the world nowhere. I haven’t seen one yet. |
While Starmer has been a weak leader so far, especially domestically, I think he's got this one right. He made it clear that Britain has not been participating in the initial attacks on Iran or allowing the US to use our air bases to do so, but following the Iranian attack on our military base in Cyprus, he is willing to allow the USA to use our bases for defensive assaults on known Iranian missile sites. |  |
| |
| Britain Defence Capability on 17:33 - Mar 3 with 59 views | Crawfordsboot |
| Britain Defence Capability on 17:09 - Mar 3 by Leaky |
Its general a query where does all our taxes go despite being taxed at the highest level since WW11. We cant fund the NHS, we now are relying on the French & the Greeks to defend our airbase in Cyprus, lets have public audit where the money is being spent |
Simple - in the 50s we had roughly 5 tax paying workers to each pensioner. Today we have 3 and that is expected to fall further over the next decade.
In other words the problem is pensioners like me refusing to kick the bucket two years after retirement coupled with a section of our population that refuses to welcome taxable immigrant workers with open arms. | | | |
| Britain Defence Capability on 17:43 - Mar 3 with 49 views | Radlett_blue |
| Britain Defence Capability on 17:33 - Mar 3 by Crawfordsboot |
Simple - in the 50s we had roughly 5 tax paying workers to each pensioner. Today we have 3 and that is expected to fall further over the next decade.
In other words the problem is pensioners like me refusing to kick the bucket two years after retirement coupled with a section of our population that refuses to welcome taxable immigrant workers with open arms. |
Yes - demographics are near inescapable & were partly responsible for Japan's "lost decade". They are a bigger problem in France & Germany than in the UK & yes, the working population won't earn enough to support the army of pensioners, especially as successive governments have been unwilling to remove any of their "entitlements" - see Winter Fuel. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
