Originally Posted by
Torquelink
This is the standard response to anyone querying the state of our armed forces. It's as if the government believes that spending 2% of GDP is an end - or an answer - in itself and not the capability which is or is not achieved. The fact that vast sums are wasted or that the achieved bang for the buck compared to, say, Israel or [name your preferred comparator] is appalling just doesn't register. That we have e.g. a handful of ships many of which are out of action and when the few serviceable vessels are actually deployed they are under-armed, doesn't seem to matter. There appears to be no acknowledgement that there should be an agreed minimum military capability appropriate to an increasingly unstable world and then funds made available to achieve that capability. There also appears to be no acknowledgement that a credible military both deters hostile adventurism and provides reassurance to allies and trading partners resulting in increased influence and trade opportunities.
What you've just said! We used to laugh at Air Forces only getting tens of hours per year, Sqns and Regts whose paper capabilities far exceeded actual capabilities and politicians whose rhetoric was more a work of fiction.
I fear we are now not far off being in that very boat, made even worse by a risk aversion and political correctness that hampers our abilities even further. My old history teacher used to tell us that in the event of WW3, we might last a week if we were lucky and were effectively just a stalling device until the US could mobilise. That was when we had several times the size of forces we have now. How long do you think we would last these days?
But at least we spend 2%. I wonder how much of that 2% makes it through to front line capability.