"UK is worlds 4th largest military"
Thread Starter
"UK is worlds 4th largest military"
According to Cameron in a broadsheet article I read today.
I'd love to know what criteria he's using...
He needs to stop digging
I'd love to know what criteria he's using...
He needs to stop digging
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think he means in terms of expenditure, although quite were all that money is going given the ever dwindling amount of hardware and manpower numbers we have is open to debate...
SIPRI quotes the UK 2013 defence budget at $60.8Bn (2.5% of GDP)
-RP
P.S. Cameron is still a massive spunktrumpet...
SIPRI quotes the UK 2013 defence budget at $60.8Bn (2.5% of GDP)
-RP
P.S. Cameron is still a massive spunktrumpet...
Must be some very small Armies out there!
In terms of spine the UK ranks lower than the French, but much higher than Republican Neocons chickenhawks who led the world into a war in Iraq based on lies. The Tea Baggers are worse, they proudly S themselves to avoid fighting for the country they reside in. Is that not right Nugent?
The Sultan
The Sultan
Lower than the French? You lot have very short memories.
We have a saying that you were late for 2 world wars and determined to be early for the next.
I hope congress is also spineless!
We have a saying that you were late for 2 world wars and determined to be early for the next.
I hope congress is also spineless!
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to get back on the thread which newspaper was this in, as I live abroad would like to read it ("UK is worlds 4th largest etc)? if its online.
What statement is he trying to communicate there? We are still a powerful force? Who is he trying to kid? The voters - they see through it, and him.
This hasn't been a good few days for the PM, in fact I increasingly minded to think this entire issue over Syria has exposed his as simply as inadequate for the role.
Something has happened, I feel a change somehow, will now come one way or another.
People in the UK know themselves that the UK Armed Forces are significantly smaller. People who have served have witnessed the very sharp decline, certainly in the Naval Service.
I simply cant imagine that he thinks it 4th largest is size of manpower or projected ability, which is how this statement surely is meant to be interpreted.
Was it true that before the second world war an air display was held in the UK, and the RAF demonstrated their latest aircraft and capability? I seem to remember seeing a Pathe newsreel of it (the display), on a history documentary.
The public in cinemas were rightly horrified watching the biplane RAF dropping small bags of flour and smoke bombs, because they themselves had seen the real footage of the rapidly emerging modern Luftwaffe in Spain, and were making their own comparisons. Did this not provoke expansion of Fighter Command?
Perhaps the PM should be invited to offer demonstrations of present UK capability as a defensive force (but only as a display, not in Syria, to reassure the public and to back his words up)?
I think the UK public would be far happier and reassured with their politicians limited role and indeed their own military if the UK forces were now simply focused purely as an entirely defensive force only.
What ended credibility of size for me was probably that last day I did on a Type 23 as a sea-rider perhaps 3 or 4 years ago. Getting on the PAS boat, me and only one other sailed up into Plymouth from the sound, past Drakes Island and along through Devonport right up to the top end at Camel Head ( a distance of maybe 2 miles, its a long waterfront).
There was not a single Royal Naval ship or submarine tied up alongside or in view even in refit, I kid you not. I had never seen that before. I knew what was out at sea, and what was deployed and roughly where, and to see nothing left at all was a final reality check for myself.
Actually there were some other salutary moments as well, when the penny dropped (again).
Or perhaps the UK public just no longer really care if we are 4th largest or even 40th?
R.A.F. DISPLAY AT HENDON - British Pathé
I think I found it - when the public twigged the politicians were fibbing about capability. Imagine being sat in the cinema in 1937 thinking this lot was going to protect you from a Blitz.
What statement is he trying to communicate there? We are still a powerful force? Who is he trying to kid? The voters - they see through it, and him.
This hasn't been a good few days for the PM, in fact I increasingly minded to think this entire issue over Syria has exposed his as simply as inadequate for the role.
Something has happened, I feel a change somehow, will now come one way or another.
People in the UK know themselves that the UK Armed Forces are significantly smaller. People who have served have witnessed the very sharp decline, certainly in the Naval Service.
I simply cant imagine that he thinks it 4th largest is size of manpower or projected ability, which is how this statement surely is meant to be interpreted.
Was it true that before the second world war an air display was held in the UK, and the RAF demonstrated their latest aircraft and capability? I seem to remember seeing a Pathe newsreel of it (the display), on a history documentary.
The public in cinemas were rightly horrified watching the biplane RAF dropping small bags of flour and smoke bombs, because they themselves had seen the real footage of the rapidly emerging modern Luftwaffe in Spain, and were making their own comparisons. Did this not provoke expansion of Fighter Command?
Perhaps the PM should be invited to offer demonstrations of present UK capability as a defensive force (but only as a display, not in Syria, to reassure the public and to back his words up)?
I think the UK public would be far happier and reassured with their politicians limited role and indeed their own military if the UK forces were now simply focused purely as an entirely defensive force only.
What ended credibility of size for me was probably that last day I did on a Type 23 as a sea-rider perhaps 3 or 4 years ago. Getting on the PAS boat, me and only one other sailed up into Plymouth from the sound, past Drakes Island and along through Devonport right up to the top end at Camel Head ( a distance of maybe 2 miles, its a long waterfront).
There was not a single Royal Naval ship or submarine tied up alongside or in view even in refit, I kid you not. I had never seen that before. I knew what was out at sea, and what was deployed and roughly where, and to see nothing left at all was a final reality check for myself.
Actually there were some other salutary moments as well, when the penny dropped (again).
Or perhaps the UK public just no longer really care if we are 4th largest or even 40th?
R.A.F. DISPLAY AT HENDON - British Pathé
I think I found it - when the public twigged the politicians were fibbing about capability. Imagine being sat in the cinema in 1937 thinking this lot was going to protect you from a Blitz.
Last edited by Hangarshuffle; 1st Sep 2013 at 13:21.
Just how potent a force are you really?
Be honest now.
Strategic Bombing capability?
AAR Capability?
Tactical Bombing Ability?
Surface Combatants....Anti-submarine Warfare?
Airborne ASW capability?
Airborne Infantry capability?
Airlift capability?
We are talking capability not quality alone.
How much real "Throw Weight" do you actually have now days?
If the Falklands and Gibraltar were at risk of being taken by those who want them....would you be able to defend both?
Far fetched perhaps as i don't see either of those neighbors really wanting them back enough to kick off hostilities....but one never knows does one?
Be honest now.
Strategic Bombing capability?
AAR Capability?
Tactical Bombing Ability?
Surface Combatants....Anti-submarine Warfare?
Airborne ASW capability?
Airborne Infantry capability?
Airlift capability?
We are talking capability not quality alone.
How much real "Throw Weight" do you actually have now days?
If the Falklands and Gibraltar were at risk of being taken by those who want them....would you be able to defend both?
Far fetched perhaps as i don't see either of those neighbors really wanting them back enough to kick off hostilities....but one never knows does one?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
SASLess, really only point 10 needs an answer as quality is inseparable from quantity. I am sure you remember the Israeli proverb.
Of the latter, the answer is probably yes in both cases. In the case of both it is to have and to hold and not to have to recapture and hold - a world of difference.
The difference is of course where we saved money and relinquished all, bar Gibraltar and Akrotiri, our old overseas based.
Overseas bases are a continuing drain on resources as even the US knows. Yet re-establishing a presence, if possible at all, is much more expensive.
Of the latter, the answer is probably yes in both cases. In the case of both it is to have and to hold and not to have to recapture and hold - a world of difference.
The difference is of course where we saved money and relinquished all, bar Gibraltar and Akrotiri, our old overseas based.
Overseas bases are a continuing drain on resources as even the US knows. Yet re-establishing a presence, if possible at all, is much more expensive.
I'm not bothered about counting by numbers - I care more about whether we have sufficient military to do the job we want them to do. Its easy to play top trumps and look at how many tanks some nations have, and quietly ignore the fact that they dont actually have the ability to send them anywhere - great for home defence, useless for anything else.
similarly, I look at various middle eastern nations with fast jet fleets which look impressive on paper, but they have more aircraft than pilots (often 2-3 times more) and don't do much more than a nice flying club. Is this military capability?
We do ourselves down far too much - look at what we do, look at what we've been doing for 15 years or so and I reckon that while its always challenging, we are in a vastly more capable place than we perhaps give ourselves credit for.
similarly, I look at various middle eastern nations with fast jet fleets which look impressive on paper, but they have more aircraft than pilots (often 2-3 times more) and don't do much more than a nice flying club. Is this military capability?
We do ourselves down far too much - look at what we do, look at what we've been doing for 15 years or so and I reckon that while its always challenging, we are in a vastly more capable place than we perhaps give ourselves credit for.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that Thursday's Commons vote tells us a great deal. The appetite for overseas crusades seems to have gone and I can't help thinking it will not come back very easily.
We have only a token air defence capability now (maybe fifty operational Typhoons on a good day, if we really needed them?) and an offensive capability that isn't significantly greater. It begs the question as to what the RAF's role really is now, or more importantly, what it will be in the future.
Counter terrorism seems to be the way forward but it's difficult to see what else could be on the horizon, at least in terms of British will to engage with any of it.
Hmm... RC-135s, Sentries and Shadows... it's a long way from the days of the Cold War
We have only a token air defence capability now (maybe fifty operational Typhoons on a good day, if we really needed them?) and an offensive capability that isn't significantly greater. It begs the question as to what the RAF's role really is now, or more importantly, what it will be in the future.
Counter terrorism seems to be the way forward but it's difficult to see what else could be on the horizon, at least in terms of British will to engage with any of it.
Hmm... RC-135s, Sentries and Shadows... it's a long way from the days of the Cold War
Rhino Power #2 has it totally correct. By any standard the only way Britain is fourth largest is in expenditure;
Military budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can't actually find where Britain stands in any of the other parameters ;
List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
28th I believe in respect to "active military". However like most I believe the expression, "it ain't what you got, its the way that you use it" counts for a lot.
Smudge
Military budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can't actually find where Britain stands in any of the other parameters ;
List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
28th I believe in respect to "active military". However like most I believe the expression, "it ain't what you got, its the way that you use it" counts for a lot.
Smudge
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Based on this data ... in terms of our Global Air Power ... we are 10th in terms of our Global Military Fleet and don't even feature in the Top Ten of Combat Aircraft numbers
World Air Force 2013
That said ... I'd still back us to give good account in any time of need
It would be interesting to see comparable data for our Army and Naval capability.
World Air Force 2013
That said ... I'd still back us to give good account in any time of need
It would be interesting to see comparable data for our Army and Naval capability.
Based on this data ... in terms of our Global Air Power ... we are 10th in terms of our Global Military Fleet and don't even feature in the Top Ten of Combat Aircraft numbers ...
That said ... I'd still back us to give good account in any time of need
That said ... I'd still back us to give good account in any time of need
If that was the case back then when out military, across all the Services, was probably a magnitude larger than it is now, I'm not sure that if we had to do anything more than carry out the sort of policing action we have gorwn accustomed to or a very very small scale limited action, that we could manage it at all. There are days that it pains me to think that we have become little more than a heavily armed gendarmerie
I just wonder if someone had pointed out that we are only 4th in how much we spend, whether our "Glorious leader" could have then explained about the value of "bang for the buck" etc. someone fed him that line, knowing full well it said one thing, but meant another. I'm pretty sad that we have sunk to the levels where politicians have to spin rather than be honest about our military capability. Perhaps the vote on Thursday was more of a reflection of our true capabilities, and perhaps Cameron is grateful for it.
Smudge
Smudge