Defence spending increase

[Fusion777]

I'm more than happy for spending to rise to 2.5% of GDP. I see us as pulling our weight in NATO, I certainly don't idolise countries spending less than the 2% target.

Spending less and pulling out of NATO isn't going to make us or anyone else safer.

[98elise]

alfaspecial said:

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 aircraft


But 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?

You should ask Red Bull why they need so many people on an F1 team when they only have 2 cars and 2 drivers.

I'm guessing you've never served in the forces or understand what it takes to operate and maintain them.

[TheLurker]

alfaspecial said:

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?
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

I'm afraid you just lose any semblance of credibility of your views when you keep using the number of bands in the RAF to demonstrate that the military is over funded.

I do agree with some of your points around the top heavy ranks though.