| Britain Defence Capability 13:00 - Mar 3 with 2563 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 768 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 746 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 745 views | NthQldITFC |
Black smoke over Felixstowe way - have the Seppos bombed Mannings? |  |
| |
| Britain Defence Capability on 15:17 - Mar 3 with 725 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 695 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 690 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 639 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 609 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 587 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 571 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 559 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 543 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 533 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. | |
| |
| Britain Defence Capability and one 45 on 11:10 - Mar 5 with 428 views | Churchman |
| 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 |
So it turns out that the one piddling ship we were sending won’t be sent for a couple of weeks as it’s still being fitted out. Presumably they’re scraping round for people to man it and a few munitions to stick on board it.
No wonder the Cyprus fella isn’t happy. It’s not as if the situation was not entirely predictable given the forces assembled for weeks by the US, but yet again, the U.K. is not only utterly unprepared, it isn’t interested. Why can’t the government just admit it? Not a priority. Nor will it be. | | | |
| Britain Defence Capability and one 45 on 11:16 - Mar 5 with 415 views | Radlett_blue |
| Britain Defence Capability and one 45 on 11:10 - Mar 5 by Churchman |
So it turns out that the one piddling ship we were sending won’t be sent for a couple of weeks as it’s still being fitted out. Presumably they’re scraping round for people to man it and a few munitions to stick on board it.
No wonder the Cyprus fella isn’t happy. It’s not as if the situation was not entirely predictable given the forces assembled for weeks by the US, but yet again, the U.K. is not only utterly unprepared, it isn’t interested. Why can’t the government just admit it? Not a priority. Nor will it be. |
Yes, getting involved in the Middle East and elsewhere is a legacy of Britain's colonial history and when we had a different status in the world. We can't afford this tuff now, although we still have the 7th largest defence budget in the world. Modern politicians will never admit these things. | |
| |
| Britain Defence Capability on 11:28 - Mar 5 with 402 views | Pinewoodblue |
Ukraine seem able to intercept drones, perhaps we could ask them to show us how to do it. |  |
| |
| Britain Defence Capability on 12:09 - Mar 5 with 380 views | Kievthegreat |
| Britain Defence Capability on 11:28 - Mar 5 by Pinewoodblue |
Ukraine seem able to intercept drones, perhaps we could ask them to show us how to do it. |
They are in discussions with the Americans and various gulf states. Ukraine needs Patriot compatible missiles to deal with Russian ballistic missiles, and can potentially supply some interceptor drones. Meanwhile the gulf states are currently firing multimillion dollar patriots to deal with Shaheds. Works for both to swap some tools. |  | | |
| Britain Defence Capability on 12:19 - Mar 5 with 366 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Britain Defence Capability on 11:28 - Mar 5 by Pinewoodblue |
Ukraine seem able to intercept drones, perhaps we could ask them to show us how to do it. |
|  |
| |
| Britain Defence Capability on 12:38 - Mar 5 with 329 views | OldFart71 |
| 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... |
Having had a little insight into one of the armed forces as with many governmental departments there's far too much waste. Where projects are started and after costing billions just dropped. Contractors charging stupid prices for their services as those that sign off the giving of contracts probably have no clue as to the costs involved and what they should be.
Where once things are done nobody checks the quality or sources alternatives that might be much cheaper.
Where things like ship building takes five years and the thing still doesn't work and yet a cruise line can order a 200,000 tonne ship in 2026 and it's on the ocean in 2028. Yes I know the destroyer or whatever has sophisticated weaponry, but that still doesn't excuse the bloody thing doesn't work after 5 years of fannying about and paying triple the initial price. The cruise ship will possibly cost 1 billion. I have never heard of the price being three times that amount once built and I would suggest a cruise line wouldn't accept the vast increase in the price. | | | |
| Britain Defence Capability on 12:50 - Mar 5 with 313 views | OldFart71 |
| 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. |
The apache helicopter we get from the States is actually a higher speck than theirs as it is requested by the MOD.
During our conflict with Afghanistan we used Russian Antonovs which were on hire to the RAF to fly them back to the UK For servicing and repair. | | | |
| Britain Defence Capability on 12:59 - Mar 5 with 303 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Britain Defence Capability on 17:43 - Mar 3 by Radlett_blue |
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. |
Yes, pensions are seen as untouchable but really need to be shifted to employers rather than the state. It’s simply not sustainable, even with record immigration hitting a net 1m we still have black holes, and someone will one day need to pay an even greater number of pensions. Paying pensions from current taxes is just robbing Peter to pay Paul, but nobody is brave enough to offer significant reform as it will be electoral suicide.
So we rumble on with the current Ponzi scheme, and the elephant in the room that it’s now the country’s largest spend after the NHS. Even the big spending Scandinavian’s like Denmark have realised it’s unsustainable (with the exception of petro-state Norway).
On a wider point, people need to accept we aren’t a superpower any more and we need to pool our defence resources with the Europeans. In fairness to the UK we have made more effort to meet NATO spend commitments (though need to do better) than some of our neighbours. | | | |
| Britain Defence Capability on 13:25 - Mar 5 with 272 views | DJR |
| Britain Defence Capability on 12:59 - Mar 5 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Yes, pensions are seen as untouchable but really need to be shifted to employers rather than the state. It’s simply not sustainable, even with record immigration hitting a net 1m we still have black holes, and someone will one day need to pay an even greater number of pensions. Paying pensions from current taxes is just robbing Peter to pay Paul, but nobody is brave enough to offer significant reform as it will be electoral suicide.
So we rumble on with the current Ponzi scheme, and the elephant in the room that it’s now the country’s largest spend after the NHS. Even the big spending Scandinavian’s like Denmark have realised it’s unsustainable (with the exception of petro-state Norway).
On a wider point, people need to accept we aren’t a superpower any more and we need to pool our defence resources with the Europeans. In fairness to the UK we have made more effort to meet NATO spend commitments (though need to do better) than some of our neighbours. |
Yes, on all sorts of metrics Europe as a whole "outguns" the Russians, and I imagine it has much more effective weapon systems.
And what you say on pension sounds sensible. [Post edited 5 Mar 13:28]
|  | | |
| Britain Defence Capability on 13:58 - Mar 5 with 239 views | Radlett_blue |
| Britain Defence Capability on 12:59 - Mar 5 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Yes, pensions are seen as untouchable but really need to be shifted to employers rather than the state. It’s simply not sustainable, even with record immigration hitting a net 1m we still have black holes, and someone will one day need to pay an even greater number of pensions. Paying pensions from current taxes is just robbing Peter to pay Paul, but nobody is brave enough to offer significant reform as it will be electoral suicide.
So we rumble on with the current Ponzi scheme, and the elephant in the room that it’s now the country’s largest spend after the NHS. Even the big spending Scandinavian’s like Denmark have realised it’s unsustainable (with the exception of petro-state Norway).
On a wider point, people need to accept we aren’t a superpower any more and we need to pool our defence resources with the Europeans. In fairness to the UK we have made more effort to meet NATO spend commitments (though need to do better) than some of our neighbours. |
Hmm..I don't see how you can shift the responsibility for public service pensions on to the private sector, although some of them are unsustainable and aren't funded so they have to be paid out from a department's annual budget. The unwillingness to tamper with Osborne's ill advised "triple lock" & the restoration of the winter fuel allowance show how reluctant governments are to take money from pensioners.
Pooling defence with Europe makes sense theoretically, but good luck with trying to get politicians of more than one country to agree on any type of offensive action. | |
| |
| Britain Defence Capability on 14:14 - Mar 5 with 226 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Britain Defence Capability on 13:58 - Mar 5 by Radlett_blue |
Hmm..I don't see how you can shift the responsibility for public service pensions on to the private sector, although some of them are unsustainable and aren't funded so they have to be paid out from a department's annual budget. The unwillingness to tamper with Osborne's ill advised "triple lock" & the restoration of the winter fuel allowance show how reluctant governments are to take money from pensioners.
Pooling defence with Europe makes sense theoretically, but good luck with trying to get politicians of more than one country to agree on any type of offensive action. |
Not everyone is employed in the public sector though, and even then they could still be pooled to a private scheme and invested (as they are in places like Canada), as you say many are unfunded which is another issue! Talk of triple lock etc given the values involved is largely tinkering around the edges.
Agree to an extent, but you’d have to centralise command à la NATO, politicians all across Europe as you say would be difficult to manage, but with a war on the continent, and an unreliable US ally these are exceptional times. Given resources, Poland would likely do the heavy lifting - let’s just put them in charge! | | | |
| Britain Defence Capability on 14:34 - Mar 5 with 209 views | vapour_trail |
| 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. |
I wonder what the venn diagram looks like of that couple of groups. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
