Defence spending increase
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68893859
Answers my initial question, 70,000 fewer civil servants is the cost. Which is a lot of things no longer being done. Marvelous.
Answers my initial question, 70,000 fewer civil servants is the cost. Which is a lot of things no longer being done. Marvelous.
Our armed forces are completely top heavy. We spend far too much on defence - comparing our taxes to actual real world capability.
The RAF have just 168 combat planes and are to 'retire' 30 Typhoons - this will reduce the inventory of combat aircraft to just 138 combat aircraft. They have 31000 personnel. We will have 230 personnel per combat aircraft.
And six military bands with more bandsmen than aircraft - poncing around playing the Dam Buster's March.
The Army has more senior offices (Colonel & above) than the numbers that make up a parachute battalion
Lt Colonel (OF4) is the highest 'combat' rank, it's unbelievable that there are 716 officers holding the rank of Colonel (OF5) or above.
We have a blue water navy (frigates and above) of just 31 vessels.
The Navy Has more Admirals - 38 - than (global) warships but it can't even deploy an aircraft carrier to the Gulf
The RAF have just 168 combat planes and are to 'retire' 30 Typhoons - this will reduce the inventory of combat aircraft to just 138 combat aircraft. They have 31000 personnel. We will have 230 personnel per combat aircraft.
And six military bands with more bandsmen than aircraft - poncing around playing the Dam Buster's March.
The Army has more senior offices (Colonel & above) than the numbers that make up a parachute battalion
Lt Colonel (OF4) is the highest 'combat' rank, it's unbelievable that there are 716 officers holding the rank of Colonel (OF5) or above.
We have a blue water navy (frigates and above) of just 31 vessels.
The Navy Has more Admirals - 38 - than (global) warships but it can't even deploy an aircraft carrier to the Gulf
alfaspecial said:
Our armed forces are completely top heavy. We spend far too much on defence - comparing our taxes to actual real world capability.
The RAF have just 168 combat planes and are to 'retire' 30 Typhoons - this will reduce the inventory of combat aircraft to just 138 combat aircraft. They have 31000 personnel. We will have 230 personnel per combat aircraft.
And six military bands with more bandsmen than aircraft - poncing around playing the Dam Buster's March.
The Army has more senior offices (Colonel & above) than the numbers that make up a parachute battalion
Lt Colonel (OF4) is the highest 'combat' rank, it's unbelievable that there are 716 officers holding the rank of Colonel (OF5) or above.
We have a blue water navy (frigates and above) of just 31 vessels.
The Navy Has more Admirals - 38 - than (global) warships but it can't even deploy an aircraft carrier to the Gulf
Far too much on defence? What would your proposals be, then? Who in Europe on our side has a better navy? Nuclear weapons, nuclear attack subs, 2 x 65,000 tonne carriers, the most advanced destroyers in the world- seems pretty solid to me? The RAF have just 168 combat planes and are to 'retire' 30 Typhoons - this will reduce the inventory of combat aircraft to just 138 combat aircraft. They have 31000 personnel. We will have 230 personnel per combat aircraft.
And six military bands with more bandsmen than aircraft - poncing around playing the Dam Buster's March.
The Army has more senior offices (Colonel & above) than the numbers that make up a parachute battalion
Lt Colonel (OF4) is the highest 'combat' rank, it's unbelievable that there are 716 officers holding the rank of Colonel (OF5) or above.
We have a blue water navy (frigates and above) of just 31 vessels.
The Navy Has more Admirals - 38 - than (global) warships but it can't even deploy an aircraft carrier to the Gulf
Would always be nice to have more, but it rarely comes cheap.
I’m just going to leave this here. The poster you quote has a surfeit of opinion over understanding
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
eyebeebe said:
I’m just going to leave this here. The poster you quote has a surfeit of opinion over understanding
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
You should have said "In my opinion.....The poster you quote has a surfeit of opinion over understanding" https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Fusion777 said:
Far too much on defence? What would your proposals be, then? Who in Europe on our side has a better navy? Nuclear weapons, nuclear attack subs, 2 x 65,000 tonne carriers, the most advanced destroyers in the world- seems pretty solid to me?
Would always be nice to have more, but it rarely comes cheap.
We spend a hell of a lot on defence. $73.5bn according to IISS - 5th largest budget in the world.Would always be nice to have more, but it rarely comes cheap.
France - about same population as us - spend $60bn, 20% less than us.
Germany - population 84.6m, 25% greater than ours, spend $63.7bn - %about $10bn pa less than us. In other words we spend $1087 per person, Germany $752 per person. We spend about 44% more per person than Germany - our richer (and, lets face it, far more likely to be invaded) neighbour.
Why should the UK contribute more than our so-called allies? We have crap public services, rising taxation - whre will the increased defence spending come from?
On the one occasion that NATO went to war (Afghanistan) the UK suffered the second highest casualties (after USA). Our European NATO allies, despite invocation of NATO Article 5 didn't contribute in any meaningful way - which is why Donald Trump is making isolationist noises....
The UK fought both World Wars (1&2) and Afghanistan only because we were drawn into other countries wars by our treaties.
We lost 457 service personnel in Afghanistan, almost a million (British Empire) deaths in WW1, 450,000 deaths in WW2.
I don't claim to be a pacifist. I believe we should have sufficiently powerful forces to be a 'non-aligned' power. Capable of defending our borders/interests and having a limited global power. Get out of NATO before our treaties drag us into WW3.
All IMHO, of course.
It's not as though our forces would stand up to any war...... Trident missiles that fall back into the sea and are more dangerous to the firing submarine, just 168 combat aircraft (and we are retiring 20% of these at 60% of expected airframe life, aircraft carriers that break down. etc
Edited by alfaspecial on Thursday 25th April 11:20
eyebeebe said:
I’m just going to leave this here. The poster you quote has a surfeit of opinion over understanding
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
He didn't cover himself in glory, that's for sure.https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
hidetheelephants said:
An interesting point; do the NHS really have a 100k+ shortage of staff/unfilled posts, or is it mostly empire-building tripe and spreadsheet fodder?
It's pretty true, it's why they folded when Sajid Javid tried to introduce mandatory vaccinations as a condition of employment in healthcare as the number of refusals would have doubled this number. alfaspecial said:
We spend a hell of a lot on defence. $73.5bn according to IISS - 5th largest budget in the world.
France - about same population as us - spend $60bn, 20% less than us.
Germany - population 84.6m, 25% greater than ours, spend $63.7bn - %about $10bn pa less than us. In other words we spend $1087 per person, Germany $752 per person. We spend about 44% more per person than Germany - our richer (and, lets face it, far more likely to be invaded) neighbour.
Why should the UK contribute more than our so-called allies? We have crap public services, rising taxation - whre will the increased defence spending come from?
On the one occasion that NATO went to war (Afghanistan) the UK suffered the second highest casualties (after USA). Our European NATO allies, despite invocation of NATO Article 5 didn't contribute in any meaningful way - which is why Donald Trump is making isolationist noises....
The UK fought both World Wars (1&2) and Afghanistan only because we were drawn into other countries wars by our treaties.
We lost 457 service personnel in Afghanistan, almost a million (British Empire) deaths in WW1, 450,000 deaths in WW2.
I don't claim to be a pacifist. I believe we should have sufficiently powerful forces to be a 'non-aligned' power. Capable of defending our borders/interests and having a limited global power. Get out of NATO before our treaties drag us into WW3.
All IMHO, of course.
It's not as though our forces would stand up to any war...... Trident missiles that fall back into the sea and are more dangerous to the firing submarine, just 168 combat aircraft (and we are retiring 20% of these at 60% of expected airframe life, aircraft carriers that break down. etc
Don’t other countries have issues with ballistic missiles and aircraft carriers, then?France - about same population as us - spend $60bn, 20% less than us.
Germany - population 84.6m, 25% greater than ours, spend $63.7bn - %about $10bn pa less than us. In other words we spend $1087 per person, Germany $752 per person. We spend about 44% more per person than Germany - our richer (and, lets face it, far more likely to be invaded) neighbour.
Why should the UK contribute more than our so-called allies? We have crap public services, rising taxation - whre will the increased defence spending come from?
On the one occasion that NATO went to war (Afghanistan) the UK suffered the second highest casualties (after USA). Our European NATO allies, despite invocation of NATO Article 5 didn't contribute in any meaningful way - which is why Donald Trump is making isolationist noises....
The UK fought both World Wars (1&2) and Afghanistan only because we were drawn into other countries wars by our treaties.
We lost 457 service personnel in Afghanistan, almost a million (British Empire) deaths in WW1, 450,000 deaths in WW2.
I don't claim to be a pacifist. I believe we should have sufficiently powerful forces to be a 'non-aligned' power. Capable of defending our borders/interests and having a limited global power. Get out of NATO before our treaties drag us into WW3.
All IMHO, of course.
It's not as though our forces would stand up to any war...... Trident missiles that fall back into the sea and are more dangerous to the firing submarine, just 168 combat aircraft (and we are retiring 20% of these at 60% of expected airframe life, aircraft carriers that break down. etc
Edited by alfaspecial on Thursday 25th April 11:20
You think Russian hardware is going to beat NATOs for reliability? Remember their advance on Kiev in 2022?
How many combat aircraft do we need, bearing in mind we’re part of NATO? F35s are still arguably a generation ahead of anything Russia have in any number.
Just seen where you want to take us out of NATO- good luck with that.
Fusion777 said:
Don’t other countries have issues with ballistic missiles and aircraft carriers, then?
You think Russian hardware is going to beat NATOs for reliability? Remember their advance on Kiev in 2022?
How many combat aircraft do we need, bearing in mind we’re part of NATO? F35s are still arguably a generation ahead of anything Russia have in any number.
Just seen where you want to take us out of NATO- good luck with that.
My point being that virtually all of our European NATO allies are not spending their fare share. So why is it of benefit to us to pay more than our fair share of the NATO budget?You think Russian hardware is going to beat NATOs for reliability? Remember their advance on Kiev in 2022?
How many combat aircraft do we need, bearing in mind we’re part of NATO? F35s are still arguably a generation ahead of anything Russia have in any number.
Just seen where you want to take us out of NATO- good luck with that.
Source Daily Mail
In answer to your points, above
Other countries do have problems with ballistic missiles and aircraft carriers. The Trident missile that failed is, of course, American.
But is it in our interests to rely upon such systems as a creditable threat to our potential enemies?
The RAF have 168 combat aircraft, 30 of which are to be retired early. Of the remaining 138 combat aircraft 34 are F35's which are for the aircraft carriers. Thus the RAF (will have) just 104 combat aircraft. 37100 personnel to operate 104 aircraft.
Still, they have got six marching bands though - so a stirring rendition of the theme to 633 Squadron followed by the Dam Buster's March should see off any Russian threats.
But our European allies have said that in event of the US not coming to NATOs aid they want to shelter behind France & the UK ie In event of nuclear war, London becomes a target to deter Russia bombing (say) Berlin.
source https://www.euronews.com/2024/02/15/german-ministe...
Treaty obligations dragged us into two world wars and Afghanistan.
Let's be honest with ourselves here, forget all our past 'glorious military might'- we would be far safer as a non-aligned nation. IMHO
alfaspecial said:
The Trident missile that failed is, of course, American.
But is it in our interests to rely upon such systems as a creditable threat to our potential enemies?
It's a credible threat, over 200 missiles have been test fired since it entered service 4 decades ago with a failure rate of less than 5%.But is it in our interests to rely upon such systems as a creditable threat to our potential enemies?
alfaspecial said:
My point being that virtually all of our European NATO allies are not spending their fare share. So why is it of benefit to us to pay more than our fair share of the NATO budget?
Source Daily Mail
Most of the European countries that don't pull their weight have tiny economies compared to the US. Germany can contribute a lot more to secure Europe but countries like Belgium (1.26%) are only going to add €4.6bn in the total spending by getting up to 2%. In comparison, we spend £65bn and the US spends $900bn.Source Daily Mail
The hard thing is managing the US' ego and keeping them committed because they want Europe to foot the entire bill while the US get to decide how it is spent.
alfaspecial said:
The RAF have 168 combat aircraft, 30 of which are to be retired early. Of the remaining 138 combat aircraft 34 are F35's which are for the aircraft carriers. Thus the RAF (will have) just 104 combat aircraft. 37100 personnel to operate 104 aircraft.
Why do you repeatedly fail to acknowledge the existence of tankers, transports, training aircraft & helicopters? Would it be that their existence would dilute your argument?Be advised that even non-combat aircraft still need maintenance.
Biggy Stardust said:
alfaspecial said:
The RAF have 168 combat aircraft, 30 of which are to be retired early. Of the remaining 138 combat aircraft 34 are F35's which are for the aircraft carriers. Thus the RAF (will have) just 104 combat aircraft. 37100 personnel to operate 104 aircraft.
Why do you repeatedly fail to acknowledge the existence of tankers, transports, training aircraft & helicopters? Would it be that their existence would dilute your argument?Be advised that even non-combat aircraft still need maintenance.
Biggy Stardust said:
Why do you repeatedly fail to acknowledge the existence of tankers, transports, training aircraft & helicopters? Would it be that their existence would dilute your argument?.
Because I am talking about combat aircraft - capable of carrying and using weapons. For the record the 104 I quoted was wrong. 4 of the Lightnings are in the USA for training purposes. So our actual inventory - assuming ALL are operational (ha ha ha) is combat 100 aircraft. 37100 personnel support/fly just 100 aircraftBut please don't just focus on numbers of aircraft. One of my main objections to increased military spending is the sheer top heavy nature of our forces. I quoted earlier we have more Admirals than (blue water) ships, more officers of Colonel and above than members of a parachute battalion, 170 RAF musicians, the Royal Navy needs 7230 crew to man all it's ships - it employs 32360 active personnel, but the RN can't send a single aircraft carrier to the Gulf. The Army's £5.5bn Ajax fighting vehicle - a program that has run for 13 years without producing a single vehicle. I understand we pay £84m in private education subsidies for military staff. The list of waste goes on and on. And you want to justify giving the MoD even more of our taxes?
I would like to state I believe we need a strong military but that we would be safer, as a nation, being non-aligned, than being members of a NATO - one that may well drag us (and our nuclear weapons) into WW3? The mainland Europeans are most at risk of Russian aggression but they don't pay their way. Why should we?
alfaspecial said:
Our armed forces are completely top heavy. We spend far too much on defence - comparing our taxes to actual real world capability.
The RAF have just 168 combat planes and are to 'retire' 30 Typhoons - this will reduce the inventory of combat aircraft to just 138 combat aircraft. They have 31000 personnel. We will have 230 personnel per combat aircraft.
And six military bands with more bandsmen than aircraft - poncing around playing the Dam Buster's March.
The Army has more senior offices (Colonel & above) than the numbers that make up a parachute battalion
Lt Colonel (OF4) is the highest 'combat' rank, it's unbelievable that there are 716 officers holding the rank of Colonel (OF5) or above.
We have a blue water navy (frigates and above) of just 31 vessels.
The Navy Has more Admirals - 38 - than (global) warships but it can't even deploy an aircraft carrier to the Gulf
How many senior managers does your company have vs the number of buildings or factories? The RAF have just 168 combat planes and are to 'retire' 30 Typhoons - this will reduce the inventory of combat aircraft to just 138 combat aircraft. They have 31000 personnel. We will have 230 personnel per combat aircraft.
And six military bands with more bandsmen than aircraft - poncing around playing the Dam Buster's March.
The Army has more senior offices (Colonel & above) than the numbers that make up a parachute battalion
Lt Colonel (OF4) is the highest 'combat' rank, it's unbelievable that there are 716 officers holding the rank of Colonel (OF5) or above.
We have a blue water navy (frigates and above) of just 31 vessels.
The Navy Has more Admirals - 38 - than (global) warships but it can't even deploy an aircraft carrier to the Gulf
The armed forces are not just the bits that do the fighting. Compare say the number of RN personnel vs sea going ships. You might be surprised to find there are way more than are needed to crew the ships.
We can deploy a carrier to the gulf, we just don't need to.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff