Your PM is unsure if he wants the RAF.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Shefford, Beds, UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think he mentioned not wanting the RAF, but . . .
[QUOTE=geniculate;3065081]I was reading the BBC's take on the The PM's 'debate' and I thought that £64bn defence spending in the table at the bottom looked a little high. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm
Price on BBC website in dollars hence $64bn.
Having read Bliar's speech ( http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page10735.asp ) we will receive all sorts of new kit in the near future. Is it me or is this Déjà vu all over again
We were to get Mastifs for Iraq by Christmas - 4 turned up.
We (more correctly, the Commanders) only needed to ask for equipment for Afghanistan and it would be provided - 1 Harrier was sent
Neither does any of it tally with a certain paper doing the rounds in town (at levels so high it needs oxygen) discussing what's to be cut next
All for the debate but lets be doing it with one eye on reality. BTW want to add something? Try asking Des: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page10732.asp
Price on BBC website in dollars hence $64bn.
Having read Bliar's speech ( http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page10735.asp ) we will receive all sorts of new kit in the near future. Is it me or is this Déjà vu all over again
We were to get Mastifs for Iraq by Christmas - 4 turned up.
We (more correctly, the Commanders) only needed to ask for equipment for Afghanistan and it would be provided - 1 Harrier was sent
Neither does any of it tally with a certain paper doing the rounds in town (at levels so high it needs oxygen) discussing what's to be cut next
All for the debate but lets be doing it with one eye on reality. BTW want to add something? Try asking Des: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page10732.asp
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the BBC website:
DEFENCE SPENDING AND PERSONNEL
Country Defence budget %GDP Active personnel
US $470.2bn 4% 1,426,713
UK $64bn 2.5% 201,400
France $41.5bn 1.95% 259,050
Germany $27.9bn 1.30% 284,500
The implication to the civilian world being that we must be overpaid - after all, France and Germany have bigger armed forces for less money.
DEFENCE SPENDING AND PERSONNEL
Country Defence budget %GDP Active personnel
US $470.2bn 4% 1,426,713
UK $64bn 2.5% 201,400
France $41.5bn 1.95% 259,050
Germany $27.9bn 1.30% 284,500
The implication to the civilian world being that we must be overpaid - after all, France and Germany have bigger armed forces for less money.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Big Decisions!
There's a very interesting article in The Independent this morning.
Brown's New Model Army
It looks like there will be some very big changes in the not too far distant future!
Brown's New Model Army
For Mr Brown's expected arrival at No 10 this summer coincides with the announcement of the spending settlement for every Whitehall department for the next three years.
Most analysts think he will need to find an extra £15bn a year just to meet the existing commitments to procure new equipment and weapons systems. Improving conditions and pay of service personnel and increasing infantry strength to levels necessary to relieve the current overstretch could incur a similar bill.
Charles Heyman, editor of World Armies, says Britain's defence spending would have to rise to levels last seen at the end of the Cold War - around 3.5 per cent of gross domestic product - to meet all the current commitments.
Sums like these - which would require either tax increases or deep cuts elsewhere - are politically impossible. As Bill Kincaid, of the Royal United Services Institute, says: "The inexorable rise of defence equipment costs will inevitably make our equipment programme unaffordable in the near future. Something has to give - and soon."
Suddenly the future shape of Britain's defence budget is in question.
Most analysts think he will need to find an extra £15bn a year just to meet the existing commitments to procure new equipment and weapons systems. Improving conditions and pay of service personnel and increasing infantry strength to levels necessary to relieve the current overstretch could incur a similar bill.
Charles Heyman, editor of World Armies, says Britain's defence spending would have to rise to levels last seen at the end of the Cold War - around 3.5 per cent of gross domestic product - to meet all the current commitments.
Sums like these - which would require either tax increases or deep cuts elsewhere - are politically impossible. As Bill Kincaid, of the Royal United Services Institute, says: "The inexorable rise of defence equipment costs will inevitably make our equipment programme unaffordable in the near future. Something has to give - and soon."
Suddenly the future shape of Britain's defence budget is in question.
The kit we can ditch
Today's armed forces were shaped by a review in 1998 that foresaw expeditionary forces sent to enforce an ethical foreign policy. But analysts worry that the commitments made to "big ticket" items, such as two new aircraft carriers with JSF fighters, are not worth the price. And previous procurement horrors such as three Astute submarines (already £1bn over budget) could be a tempting target for a Chancellor looking to make sums add up. It is thought Britain has ordered too many weapons systems and not enough intelligence capability to ensure the right targets are identified and hit.
The kit we must have
In the short term, military airlift, particularly using helicopters, is desperately needed. The shortage of trained crews to fly what craft exist is one of the clearest signs of the manpower gaps opening up after years of overstretch. To attract and retain the tens of thousands of specialists modern armed forces need will cost billions in increased funding over the coming years. An emerging 'radical' group of military thinkers believes it is time Britain significantly beefed up its number of soldiers to counter emerging threats. It is "boots on the ground", they say, not hi-tech kit, that will help keep Britain safe in the 21st century.
Today's armed forces were shaped by a review in 1998 that foresaw expeditionary forces sent to enforce an ethical foreign policy. But analysts worry that the commitments made to "big ticket" items, such as two new aircraft carriers with JSF fighters, are not worth the price. And previous procurement horrors such as three Astute submarines (already £1bn over budget) could be a tempting target for a Chancellor looking to make sums add up. It is thought Britain has ordered too many weapons systems and not enough intelligence capability to ensure the right targets are identified and hit.
The kit we must have
In the short term, military airlift, particularly using helicopters, is desperately needed. The shortage of trained crews to fly what craft exist is one of the clearest signs of the manpower gaps opening up after years of overstretch. To attract and retain the tens of thousands of specialists modern armed forces need will cost billions in increased funding over the coming years. An emerging 'radical' group of military thinkers believes it is time Britain significantly beefed up its number of soldiers to counter emerging threats. It is "boots on the ground", they say, not hi-tech kit, that will help keep Britain safe in the 21st century.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Agree we need far less pointy things, especially the 9g wonder jet, however, JSF/Carriers would surely give us significant global reach?
I personally would be a bigger fan of clinical strikes against individuals responsible for terrorism/ Turfing out the Sods resopnsible in the UK in combination of far more humanitarian aid globally....
