USA slash it military budget

the US are about to do the unthinkable (to some) and slash huge amounts of wedge from their defence spending...

however, unlike us, their army is going to bare the brunt...

they will also focus their attentions more on he Asia-Pacific region.

Interesting that they are abandoning the traditional approach of having land forces enough to fight two full scale independent wars simultaneously.

It has risen quite a lot in the last 10-15 years though.

For comparison today - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16428133

the US are about to do the unthinkable (to some) and slash huge amounts of wedge from their defence spending...

however, unlike us, their army is going to bare the brunt...

 

they will also focus their attentions more on he Asia-Pacific region.

SDSR should have done the same thing in the UK; remembered that the UK is an island, keep the RAF and RN strength, and cut back on the Army, especially as Ulster, Germany and Iraq are no longer drains on Army resources.

But noooo. We butt-f**k the RAF and the RN and keep an excessive Army, even though we no longer have the resources to ship or fly it anywhere.

SDSR should have done the same thing in the UK; remembered that the UK is an island, keep the RAF and RN strength, and cut back on the Army, especially as Ulster, Germany and Iraq are no longer drains on Army resources.

 

But noooo. We butt-f**k the RAF and the RN and keep an excessive Army, even though we no longer have the resources to ship or fly it anywhere.

100% agree with Alpine.

Before they slash the army, can it be used to wipe out Rick Santorum?

Now there's a nutter. In fact, the whole lot of the republican field are flip floppers and nutters! Though I do hold a soft spot for Ron Paul even if I don't agree with him on nearly everything.

It has risen quite a lot in the last 10-15 years though.

 

For comparison today - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16428133

That link shows UK should outsource its military to China, India or Russia to get best value for taxpayers!

That link shows UK should outsource its military to China, India or Russia to get best value for taxpayers!

Ahaha, the Chinese are blatantly lying about their expenditure though! I've seen estimates which put it closer to $200bn.

100% agree with Alpine.

I disagree with Alpine - to an extent. As somebody who served in the Army for over 25 years and who still works with the Army - there is absolutely no way that it can be termed as anywhere near 'excessive', given current operational commitments. Perhaps if we disassociate ourself from world affairs and renege most of our NATO commitments (as other national forces do), we may be left with a UK defence force that could be termed excessive.

Operational tours of duty are now more frequent than at any time since the last world war, soldiers are spending more and more time on both Operational training and deployment in operational theatres. This is affecting both morale and retention rates. With all due respect to our other arms and services, who do a fukin great job, many of the Army personnel are literally in the front line - exposed to very real danger every day.

I work largely in Germany, during my last visit before Xmas I came across one young soldier who had recently been casevaced from Afghanistan having only been in theatre for 2 weeks and was caught in a double IED blast. Luckily he sustained only minor shrapnel injuries, although who knows of the mental scars.

Our Armed Forces are stretched, make no mistake about it - but believe me - the Army certainly is no better off than either the RN or RAF.

I read that they are cutting $450bn over 10 years. At current rates that would be about a 6% cut (not including payments to veterans), or $450 billion from $7.5 trillion (over 10 years). Any more than that and I would suspect that the lobbyists would kick up somewhat of a stink. Where there is so much money involved...........

How in the hell are they going to afford stuff like this then?...

[video=youtube;SSbZrQp-HOk]

SDSR should have done the same thing in the UK; remembered that the UK is an island, keep the RAF and RN strength, and cut back on the Army, especially as Ulster, Germany and Iraq are no longer drains on Army resources.

 

But noooo. We butt-f**k the RAF and the RN and keep an excessive Army, even though we no longer have the resources to ship or fly it anywhere.

You're not wrong on this call Alps!

I disagree with Alpine - to an extent. As somebody who served in the Army for over 25 years and who still works with the Army - there is absolutely no way that it can be termed as anywhere near 'excessive', given current operational commitments. Perhaps if we disassociate ourself from world affairs and renege most of our NATO commitments (as other national forces do), we may be left with a UK defence force that could be termed excessive.

 

Operational tours of duty are now more frequent than at any time since the last world war, soldiers are spending more and more time on both Operational training and deployment in operational theatres. This is affecting both morale and retention rates. With all due respect to our other arms and services, who do a fukin great job, many of the Army personnel are literally in the front line - exposed to very real danger every day.

 

I work largely in Germany, during my last visit before Xmas I came across one young soldier who had recently been casevaced from Afghanistan having only been in theatre for 2 weeks and was caught in a double IED blast. Luckily he sustained only minor shrapnel injuries, although who knows of the mental scars.

 

Our Armed Forces are stretched, make no mistake about it - but believe me - the Army certainly is no better off than either the RN or RAF.

But thats my entire point. The UK should remember it is there to defend the UK and its Protectorates (eg Falklands). They are all islands. We need a top-notch RN and RAF for that. We only need small ground territory defensive forces, since if we ever go again into a UN/NATO mission we make it quite clear from the onset that out contribution will be air or naval support only. Then the smaller Army wont be overstretched.

I reckon we should cut the Army in half, merge the Fleet Air Arm into the RAF, merge the Royal Marines into the Army, order both carriers fitted with CATOBAR, reinstate the extra 6 Type 45 destroyers, speed up the Type 26 frigate design, cancel the F35 and get double the number of Super Hornets, bring the number of Astutes up to 10, confirm the final batch of 72 Eurofighters, get a number of P3 Orions from the Yanks. Then we are back up to being a serious force.

I would also cancel Trident - we need our independence back from the US, and nuke-up our TLAMs. For sub or plane launch.

I am fed up of inter-service rivalry (I have to say though that the RAF is the worst - Jock Stirrup should never be forgiven for stitching the RN up over Ark Royal and the Harriers). We need the politicians to use their own brains to decide what they are there for - protecting the UK and its overseas territories, and wave the flag in international missions pretending to be a big player with RN and RAF support. Having a big Army is just a c*ck extension.

Then again, we have that complete pr*ck Phillip Hammond, joke of a Defence Minister that he is, threatening Iran with military action over the Strait of Hormuz today. How we going to do that then ?? D*ckhead.

How in the hell are they going to afford stuff like this then?...

 

[video=youtube;SSbZrQp-HOk]

A mechanical dog that walks like it's desperate for a dump is essential military hardware.

But thats my entire point. The UK should remember it is there to defend the UK and its Protectorates (eg Falklands). They are all islands. We need a top-notch RN and RAF for that. We only need small ground territory defensive forces, since if we ever go again into a UN/NATO mission we make it quite clear from the onset that out contribution will be air or naval support only. Then the smaller Army wont be overstretched.

 

I reckon we should cut the Army in half, merge the Fleet Air Arm into the RAF, merge the Royal Marines into the Army, order both carriers fitted with CATOBAR, reinstate the extra 6 Type 45 destroyers, speed up the Type 26 frigate design, cancel the F35 and get double the number of Super Hornets, bring the number of Astutes up to 10, confirm the final batch of 72 Eurofighters, get a number of P3 Orions from the Yanks. Then we are back up to being a serious force.

 

I would also cancel Trident - we need our independence back from the US, and nuke-up our TLAMs. For sub or plane launch.

 

I am fed up of inter-service rivalry (I have to say though that the RAF is the worst - Jock Stirrup should never be forgiven for stitching the RN up over Ark Royal and the Harriers). We need the politicians to use their own brains to decide what they are there for - protecting the UK and its overseas territories, and wave the flag in international missions pretending to be a big player with RN and RAF support. Having a big Army is just a c*ck extension.

 

Then again, we have that complete pr*ck Phillip Hammond, joke of a Defence Minister that he is, threatening Iran with military action over the Strait of Hormuz today. How we going to do that then ?? D*ckhead.

I can (sort of) understand you point - but most of this is quite idealistic in the grand scheme of things. What people tend to forget is that we need NATO as much as NATO needs us. Yes we do appear to give a whole lot more than we take, but as you have pointed out - we are an island and as such, in major conflict we would be quite vulnerable. Look back at the last war - without US intervention, who knows.

Interservice rivalry will always exist, it was only a couple of years ago that amalgamation of the RAF into the Army (or even the Navy..!) was being being seriously considered - probably none of the 3 services wants such drastic action.

As for your tactics, of providing air or naval power only - well, having 'been there, seen it and etc etc...', it wont (and shouldn't) happen. What you are extensively saying is that we decline to join you at the sharp end. With the expertise that we have in both our RAF and Navy, we can (and do) win superiority in many hostile areas, but if you don't put troops on the ground you only have that advantage for as long as the shells are falling or the fighters are flying. Without committing to ground troops our resolve to being part of NATO (or any other defence force) would be, quite rightly, severely questioned.

Slashing the Army in half, and basing your global commitment to air and sea power only is fine, so long as when the shyte hits the fan either here in the UK or one of it's protectorates you don't expect too much outside assistance.

I can (sort of) understand you point - but most of this is quite idealistic in the grand scheme of things. What people tend to forget is that we need NATO as much as NATO needs us. Yes we do appear to give a whole lot more than we take, but as you have pointed out - we are an island and as such, in major conflict we would be quite vulnerable. Look back at the last war - without US intervention, who knows.

 

Interservice rivalry will always exist, it was only a couple of years ago that amalgamation of the RAF into the Army (or even the Navy..!) was being being seriously considered - probably none of the 3 services wants such drastic action.

 

As for your tactics, of providing air or naval power only - well, having 'been there, seen it and etc etc...', it wont (and shouldn't) happen. What you are extensively saying is that we decline to join you at the sharp end. With the expertise that we have in both our RAF and Navy, we can (and do) win superiority in many hostile areas, but if you don't put troops on the ground you only have that advantage for as long as the shells are falling or the fighters are flying. Without committing to ground troops our resolve to being part of NATO (or any other defence force) would be, quite rightly, severely questioned.

 

Slashing the Army in half, and basing your global commitment to air and sea power only is fine, so long as when the shyte hits the fan either here in the UK or one of it's protectorates you don't expect too much outside assistance.

at anyone time, the UK forces in afghan are made up of 25% from the RN.....that figure dramatically rises if/when the RN provides more air power and even more when the marines are the main battle regiment

How in the hell are they going to afford stuff like this then?...

 

[video=youtube;SSbZrQp-HOk]

Have they run out of wheels?

at anyone time, the UK forces in afghan are made up of 25% from the RN.....that figure dramatically rises if/when the RN provides more air power and even more when the marines are the main battle regiment

Granted they do. So if you take the Army out of this particular conflict - how much more fire power will you in the RN and RAF have to provide. I'm not knocking any of the services commitments or role, far from it. By the very nature of most modern conflicts, it is obvious that the Army will bear the brunt of committment in terms of numbers required on the front line.

Do you really believe that it would be better that we withdraw our ground forces to a wholey home guard role, while expecting our navy and airforce to remain fully committed? Would it make your life (or that of the RAF) that much easier operating purely with foriegn nationals on the ground with no experience of UK force doctrine?

When I think about it, Alpines plan would've made my 25+ years probably a whole lot easier, but seriously if you think it would work, you'd just as well go the whole hog, get rid of the Regular Army altogeather and perhaps let the TA take over.

We have always had, historically, a small standing army and large navy and that is just as it should be, coupled with a good sized air force.

We do not need an army configured to fight an armoured conflict on the German Plain nor should it be configured to fight in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

We are an island nation and our forces should reflect that.

We have always had, historically, a small standing army and large navy and that is just as it should be, coupled with a good sized air force.

 

We do not need an army configured to fight an armoured conflict on the German Plain nor should it be configured to fight in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

We are an island nation and our forces should reflect that.

But if that is the case - why not configure our Air Force and Navy in the same manner - let them patrol only our shores and airspace.

But if that is the case - why not configure our Air Force and Navy in the same manner - let them patrol only our shores and airspace.

The navy should be able to patrol and protect the sea lanes the nation needs and the air force/ fleet air arm should do the same.

The navy should be able to patrol and protect the sea lanes the nation needs and the air force/ fleet air arm should do the same.

So in short, a UK defence force. Smaller Army, Navy and Air Force, confined to the shores of UK territories, with commitments to no other countries. You could - but a highly, highly dangerous strategy. We would have no military allies - we would have to be solely self sufficient in the whole of the defence arena. Don't forget this is not just about providing manpower to the 3 forces, but also equipment, resources, R & D, production and above all military expertise.

If we adopted this route, probably one of the most reverred set of military forces would decay within years. We would find ourselves miles behind countries who remain in strong allegiance with each other - in short, our Armd Forces would decay to the point of probably being unfit for purpose. Even to defend just our own UK shores, god forbid any support to British dependancies.

Ultimately, going it alone, is...... don't know - really wouldn't want to try it.

But if that is the case - why not configure our Air Force and Navy in the same manner - let them patrol only our shores and airspace.

our interests are the world over

our interests are the world over

Exactly - so why do you want to have ground forces that are capable only of operating at home...???!!!!

Edit: Sorry - did you mean only Naval interests are the world over by the use of 'our'?

Exactly - so why do you want to have ground forces that are capable only of operating at home...???!!!!

 

Edit: Sorry - did you mean only Naval interests are the world over by the use of 'our'?

I dont....but having an army bigger than the other two forces when we are an island nation....is rather odd if you ask me....

So in short, a UK defence force. Smaller Army, Navy and Air Force, confined to the shores of UK territories, with commitments to no other countries. You could - but a highly, highly dangerous strategy. We would have no military allies - we would have to be solely self sufficient in the whole of the defence arena. Don't forget this is not just about providing manpower to the 3 forces, but also equipment, resources, R & D, production and above all military expertise.

 

If we adopted this route, probably one of the most reverred set of military forces would decay within years. We would find ourselves miles behind countries who remain in strong allegiance with each other - in short, our Armd Forces would decay to the point of probably being unfit for purpose. Even to defend just our own UK shores, god forbid any support to British dependancies.

 

Ultimately, going it alone, is...... don't know - really wouldn't want to try it.

Ummmm, no. You are drawing conclusions from an argument I clearly haven't put forward

Sea lanes aren't confined to territorial waters nor is our trade and interests.

I dont....but having an army bigger than the other two forces when we are an island nation....is rather odd if you ask me....

Spot on.

Why do we need to many armoured brigades when we don't have enough destroyers or frigates?

I dont....but having an army bigger than the other two forces when we are an island nation....is rather odd if you ask me....

But the fact of the matter is that our Forces are designed to operate in the world arena - not 'our island' arena, hence we have to have forces commensurate with that task.

I can tell you now that I have been associated with the Army since 1974 and as far as I am concerned they have never been more stretched than they currently are. Cut the numbers if you wish, but you'll need to surface your sub more often because you will be needed for ground duties mate - grab your gun and bergan, your patrolling Kandahar for your shore leave...!!!

Ummmm, no. You are drawing conclusions from an argument I clearly haven't put forward

 

Sea lanes aren't confined to territorial waters nor is our trade and interests.

Oh right - so you would aspire to having a Navy and Air Force that can operate globally, but an Army that is used purely to defend the shores of the UK. I don't really understand the concept.

But the fact of the matter is that our Forces are designed to operate in the world arena - not 'our island' arena, hence we have to have forces commensurate with that task.

 

I can tell you now that I have been associated with the Army since 1974 and as far as I am concerned they have never been more stretched than they currently are. Cut the numbers if you wish, but you'll need to surface your sub more often because you will be needed for ground duties mate - grab your gun and bergan, your patrolling Kandahar for your shore leave...!!!

my mates already do......like I said...at least 25% of the forces in afghan are RN...then we have our (now) year long deployments keeping the sea lanes open....you have to ask yourself, after afghan, do you really think there will be an appetite to occupy a country...? not a chance..even the US are shying away from it as it is ultimately political suicide....

to control the sea lanes and the (ahem) oil flow in the gulf, you don't need an army...you don't need an army in Germany, you don't need countless upon countless camps all over the country.....when we are fully with drawn from afghan and more so from germany and the lack of appetite to invade anymore nations...you think the PONGOs will don their 8's uniform and man the fore spring and keep watch in the OPS room...?

I suspect not

But the fact of the matter is that our Forces are designed to operate in the world arena - not 'our island' arena, hence we have to have forces commensurate with that task.

 

I can tell you now that I have been associated with the Army since 1974 and as far as I am concerned they have never been more stretched than they currently are. Cut the numbers if you wish, but you'll need to surface your sub more often because you will be needed for ground duties mate - grab your gun and bergan, your patrolling Kandahar for your shore leave...!!!

We shouldn't be in Khandahar and will be out soon enough, and the whole point is to re-figure our forces as we are no longer an independent world player.

It's a time for retrenchment and realignment and the army should bear the brunt.

Oh right - so you would aspire to having a Navy and Air Force that can operate globally, but an Army that is used purely to defend the shores of the UK. I don't really understand the concept.

FFS, keep up.

We shouldn't be in Khandahar and will be out soon enough, and the whole point is to re-figure our forces as we are no longer an independent world player.

 

It's a time for retrenchment and realignment and the army should bear the brunt.

Thats political - has absolutely nothing to do with soldiers. It maybe time for change - but until that change comes, what do you want us to do.

It's all very well saying we shouldn't be there, but the fact of the matter is we are. Therefore we need to deal with it.

FFS, keep up.

I have kept up mate, for the last 30 years or so - believe me.

my mates already do......like I said...at least 25% of the forces in afghan are RN...then we have our (now) year long deployments keeping the sea lanes open....you have to ask yourself, after afghan, do you really think there will be an appetite to occupy a country...? not a chance..even the US are shying away from it as it is ultimately political suicide....

 

to control the sea lanes and the (ahem) oil flow in the gulf, you don't need an army...you don't need an army in Germany, you don't need countless upon countless camps all over the country.....when we are fully with drawn from afghan and more so from germany and the lack of appetite to invade anymore nations...you think the PONGOs will don their 8's uniform and man the fore spring and keep watch in the OPS room...?

 

I suspect not

Well if you really believe that we will never get into any other major conflict after we withdraw from Afghanistan where ground forces might be required, I can only say that I think that is naive in the extreme.

But I do agree that politicians will have learned serious lessons from both Iraq and Afghanistan and will probably be a little more selective over where they choose to fight the next major campaign.

Do you honestly believe we will withdraw from Afghan and soon? Not according to some I know who are serving there

there is no way the police etc will take over.

Oh right - so you would aspire to having a Navy and Air Force that can operate globally, but an Army that is used purely to defend the shores of the UK. I don't really understand the concept.

Why ? Its bloody simple.

RN, RAF and Army secure the UK and overseas territories, RN and RAF contribute to NATO/UN activities.

I really wonder why this hasnt occurred to anyone at Downing Street or Whitehall.

Why ? Its bloody simple.

 

RN, RAF and Army secure the UK and overseas territories, RN and RAF contribute to NATO/UN activities.

 

I really wonder why this hasnt occurred to anyone at Downing Street or Whitehall.

Perhaps Alps, because contrary to what you might think, it really isn't that simple mate, honestly.

Perhaps Alps, because contrary to what you might think, it really isn't that simple mate, honestly.

Maybe, but it has nothing to do in that case with military need, and everything to do with inflated egos and diminutve penises.

Take the case today of our joke of a Defence Minister threatening military response to Iran over the Strait of Hormuz. What a clueless w*nker...

We dont run the world anymore, our military must match our needs, something I thought SDSR was supposed to achieve (in reality we know it was all about money, but how they managed to get it so badly wrong is amazing)