Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents

Old 13th Mar 2023, 19:12
  #1041 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 657
Received 10 Likes on 9 Posts
Colour me underwhelmed, but not surprised.
unmanned_droid is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2023, 20:38
  #1042 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 63
Posts: 1,855
Received 77 Likes on 43 Posts
Originally Posted by pr00ne
Don't you tell me to take it easy! Who the hell do you think you are, the Chairman of the BBC?

Your description of the 1957 white paper is an exercise in sheer reductionism and generalisations, the Army and the RN took equally large cuts in the white paper and many of the planned RAF cuts never actually happened, apart from the overnight disbandment of a large percentage of the RAFG Hunter and Venom force. The Mark one Bloodhound force was deployed in the late 50's and withdrawal began in 1963 at the same time as the Thor force was withdrawn. The reason for the cuts in RAFG and Fighter Command were actually recommended by the Air Staff who saw the complete futility of the manned fighter against the ICBM, don't forget this was before the era of flexible response, the main threat was a missile threat, and against that we had NO defence at all, so 20 to 30 odd fighter squadrons were a waste of money. And please leave Corbyn out of this! He is an irrelevance and not even a member of the Labour Party! He didn't get into power, he never even came close, and all you do is demean your position if that is all you can argue with. The Tories have been a disaster without precedent for defence over the last 13 years, dogma driven idiots who hate public expenditure and public services.
Take it easy pr00ne, you'll set fire to your Horse Hair Wig dear chap. Just because I didn't give a more detailed description of the impact of the defence white paper of 1957, as it affected the Navy and the Army doesn't mean I'm conveniently scrubbing round the point, merely trying to keep my posts short. Indeed, I'm currently writing about that very subject. Mr Corbyn is entirely relevant because he could have become the Prime Minister. Sir Keir Starmer also has some baggage regarding the issue of Foreign and Defence Policy., he opposed military action against Isis. Look Mr, the fairest thing to say is that no matter who you vote for, the Government always get in. I'm certainly not making the case for the Tories on defence, they've certainly not built a better track record overall than Labour Governments. But their party has never had to keep a lid on absolute bone headed radical progressives and Marxists. You'll recall the 1977 paperback "Sense about Defence" by Ian Mikardo MP, it was thrown out by the Labour government of the day, but it demonstrated how close Labour are to being led into government by such people. They've so far been led in opposition by a handful, Michael Foot, and I'm sorry to mention him again, Jeremy Corbyn and for good measure, Neil Kinnock. Now if you really want to get your hackles up, can you remember what proposals for defence were made by George Lansbury, when he was the national Labour party leader, back in 1933-35?

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2023, 22:10
  #1043 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,927
Received 139 Likes on 64 Posts
Originally Posted by Timelord
I must have misunderstood. I thought this “refresh” was something to do with, you know, a war going on in Europe but apparently not. Lots of words. Lots of new offices in MI5 and elsewhere, more teaching of Mandarin and a National Security College but nothing new that is anything to do with actually fighting a war.
The actual force structure and capability bit, the Command Paper, is not published until June. The Word in the bars of Whitehall that I frequent (I reckon it is anything up to 30% accurate most of the time) is that the delay is due to the Army submitting their "refresh" element that ignored Ukraine and did diddly squat for long range fires and AD apart from an order for 2 Regiments of Swedish Archers as interim replacements for the existing 2 Regiments of AS90 and that was it. Seemingly it was thrown back at them and they were told to "try again, only harder!"

Still no IFV for the Infantry, so the British Army will put it's infantry in harm's way armed and protected by nothing more than Boxer, armed with nothing more than a single machine gun, and in any case the vast majority of the current Boxer order being for various command and control variants. So most of the infantry will have to walk. Anybody who has seen any of the thousands of videos from Ukraine showing how effective 30mm and 40mm is on their IFV's knows that this lack of firepower would render the British Army combat ineffective in less than two weeks, and that is not taking account of lack of Air Defence (1 small Sky Sabre Regiment and 1 small Stormer/Starstreak Regiment). And that is not me talking, it was a quote on the BBC2 Politics Live from a recently retired CGS.

pr00ne is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2023, 22:17
  #1044 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,927
Received 139 Likes on 64 Posts
Originally Posted by Finningley Boy
Take it easy pr00ne, you'll set fire to your Horse Hair Wig dear chap. Just because I didn't give a more detailed description of the impact of the defence white paper of 1957, as it affected the Navy and the Army doesn't mean I'm conveniently scrubbing round the point, merely trying to keep my posts short. Indeed, I'm currently writing about that very subject. Mr Corbyn is entirely relevant because he could have become the Prime Minister. Sir Keir Starmer also has some baggage regarding the issue of Foreign and Defence Policy., he opposed military action against Isis. Look Mr, the fairest thing to say is that no matter who you vote for, the Government always get in. I'm certainly not making the case for the Tories on defence, they've certainly not built a better track record overall than Labour Governments. But their party has never had to keep a lid on absolute bone headed radical progressives and Marxists. You'll recall the 1977 paperback "Sense about Defence" by Ian Mikardo MP, it was thrown out by the Labour government of the day, but it demonstrated how close Labour are to being led into government by such people. They've so far been led in opposition by a handful, Michael Foot, and I'm sorry to mention him again, Jeremy Corbyn and for good measure, Neil Kinnock. Now if you really want to get your hackles up, can you remember what proposals for defence were made by George Lansbury, when he was the national Labour party leader, back in 1933-35?

FB

NO he couldn't! He didn't get elected, he lost by a country mile, did you not notice. There was ZERO chance of Corbyn becoming PM, though he could hardly make more of a cock up than this current shower. 1977 "Sense about Defence was a fringe publication taken seriously by no-one, and the lunatic fringe that used to exist in Labour is no worse than the similar idealistic dogma driven lunatics that currently inhabit the Tory Party! 1933-35? Oh for good ness sake get real!

And I don't wear a wig and I am most definitely not what you would call a "Dear Chap!"

Trying to defend the current shambolic defence policy of these lunatics in power right now with specious arguments from 1933 and 1977 just makes you look entirely irrelevant, and a bit silly.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2023, 22:19
  #1045 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,927
Received 139 Likes on 64 Posts
Originally Posted by Timelord
Is there going to be a new Command Paper with the defence specifics?
Yep, to be published in June. It was in Wallace's opening remarks in the house today.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2023, 22:47
  #1046 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 63
Posts: 1,855
Received 77 Likes on 43 Posts
Originally Posted by pr00ne
NO he couldn't! He didn't get elected, he lost by a country mile, did you not notice. There was ZERO chance of Corbyn becoming PM, though he could hardly make more of a cock up than this current shower. 1977 "Sense about Defence was a fringe publication taken seriously by no-one, and the lunatic fringe that used to exist in Labour is no worse than the similar idealistic dogma driven lunatics that currently inhabit the Tory Party! 1933-35? Oh for good ness sake get real!

And I don't wear a wig and I am most definitely not what you would call a "Dear Chap!"

Trying to defend the current shambolic defence policy of these lunatics in power right now with specious arguments from 1933 and 1977 just makes you look entirely irrelevant, and a bit silly.
Mr p, you've forgotten my original post which set off this firework display from yourself, I described the current government as stepping on Banana skins, I certainly wasn't defending the current shambolic defence policy, and any exposure about the history of socialist radicalism over defence and security is entirely relevant. Their all there on the back benches presently. Richard Burgon, consistently voted against use of British Forces overseas, consistently voted against military action against Isis consistently voted against Trident replacement. Diane Abbot Consistently voted against military action against Isis Generally voted against use of British Forces in overseas operations. Angela Rayner, consistently voted against military action against Isis, consistently voted against use of British Forces overseas. Voted against replacement of Trident. As bad as the Tories are, they couldn't hold a candle to that shower on the opposition benches. Kindly don't point out that Angela Rayner isn't a back bencher, which is worse, as she could be Deputy Prime Minister or even Prime Minister one day.

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2023, 07:05
  #1047 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,615
Received 1,739 Likes on 790 Posts

ORAC is offline  
The following 3 users liked this post by ORAC:
Old 14th Mar 2023, 08:51
  #1048 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 0
Received 111 Likes on 69 Posts
Originally Posted by Finningley Boy
Mr p, you've forgotten my original post which set off this firework display from yoursel


I dont have a dog in the fight, just sounds like you are astroturfing, You throw out the questing trying to get the answer its would have been so much worse under X. When X didn't win there for make Y look so much better. UK continually voted for a party that screwed your defence forces, its not the guy who lost fault. Its the winner and people who voted for them fault

Then immediately start blaming the women who aren't in power. But ignoring the tory women as they are all angels
rattman is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 14th Mar 2023, 08:54
  #1049 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,584
Received 383 Likes on 227 Posts
like it ORAC!
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 07:32
  #1050 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,927
Received 139 Likes on 64 Posts
Originally Posted by Finningley Boy
Mr p, you've forgotten my original post which set off this firework display from yourself, I described the current government as stepping on Banana skins, I certainly wasn't defending the current shambolic defence policy, and any exposure about the history of socialist radicalism over defence and security is entirely relevant. Their all there on the back benches presently. Richard Burgon, consistently voted against use of British Forces overseas, consistently voted against military action against Isis consistently voted against Trident replacement. Diane Abbot Consistently voted against military action against Isis Generally voted against use of British Forces in overseas operations. Angela Rayner, consistently voted against military action against Isis, consistently voted against use of British Forces overseas. Voted against replacement of Trident. As bad as the Tories are, they couldn't hold a candle to that shower on the opposition benches. Kindly don't point out that Angela Rayner isn't a back bencher, which is worse, as she could be Deputy Prime Minister or even Prime Minister one day.

FB
Oh stop this nonsensical combination of whataboutery and references to long dead socialists from 50 or 90 years ago! You are slinging this around in defence of these clowns in power and it is a disgrace. Diane Abbot? Oh for goodness sake! And "that shower on the opposition benches" are constantly demanding that the Govt stop the current wave of reductions in the size of the British Army and retirements of RAF aircraft without replacement. Angela Rayner among them. You are flogging a dead horse, stop it.
pr00ne is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 15th Mar 2023, 09:10
  #1051 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,584
Received 383 Likes on 227 Posts
whatever the merits of the argument it doesn't add a dollar to the UK defence - meanwhile - back at the monkey house:-

form the Parliamentary Sketch in the Times:-

Earlier the house was anaesthetised by an eighty-minute statement from James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, about his department’s “integrated review refresh”. Refresh: it has a zingy, splashy quality. One imagines invigoration, a swim in the North Sea in the altogether, a glass of lemonade on a summer’s day. Cleverly’s performance did not quite match this. What a galloping gasbag he proved. Phrases stalled. His flow became glacial. It was like watching a constipated terrier trying to do its morning business on the lawn. Push it out, for heaven’s sake.

Five sentences were used where one would have sufficed. Each answer was preceded by a lumbering tread to the despatch box. He kept saying “posture”: nuclear posture, international aid posture, global diplomacy posture, international defence posture. The questioners did not help.

Cleverly’s shadow, David Lammy, was given a few overblown minutes. It felt at least double that. Lammy dropped his chin and spoke in sub-Churchillian tones about “crisises” and “a multi-polar world”.

Alicia Kearns (C), Rutland’s Henry Kissinger, though she has a deeper voice, embarked on one of her celebrated Philippics. Alec Shelbrooke (C, Elmet) and Simon Hoare (C, North Dorset) rolled their eyes. Hoare was half Shelbrooke’s size. Looked like his packed lunch. One of the oldest tricks among bores is to ask for a review but given that this was a statement on a review refresh, surely that avenue was closed. Nope. John Baron (C, Basildon) demanded “a fundamental threat-based review”. Stephen Kinnock (Lab, Aberavon) altered the pitch slightly by demanding “an in-depth strategic audit”.

When we got on to “critical minerals strategy”, all I could think of was tonic water for a bucket of gin.



Asturias56 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 10:53
  #1052 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 535
Received 178 Likes on 94 Posts
Originally Posted by pr00ne
And "that shower on the opposition benches" are constantly demanding that the Govt stop the current wave of reductions in the size of the British Army and retirements of RAF aircraft without replacement. Angela Rayner among them. You are flogging a dead horse, stop it.
If only they actually cared about the size of the army or knew what the Typhoon tranche 1 and Hercules were for - as opposed to screeching "cuts" purely as a stick to beat nasty tories with. They have absolutely no idea what they want or why they want it. Their latest wheeze of suggesting the Indo-Pacific tilt is not needed and that the UK should concentrate on NATO and Europe is similarly opportunistic, based purely on the Ukraine war, yet without a shred of supporting logic.

The reduction in strength in the army is an interesting example of this - it is always couched in terms of numbers, rather than capabilities, as if numbers alone were the answer. Hands up who knew that the British Army - even at 72000, is 20% bigger than the Bundeswehr? That'll be the army of the central European nation with the biggest economy and much closer to any land threat than the UK. The Polish army is still (just) smaller than the British army and they're about as close to the threat as you can get.

The biggest question the army has to answer is this - what is the army for and as a result, what does it's capability structure need to be and why? They have signally failed to do this for at least a couple of decades.

The biggest question the labour party has to answer is why should the UK return to a land-centric European strategy, when the European nations up-threat don't invest proportionately in their own defence?
Not_a_boffin is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 15th Mar 2023, 12:59
  #1053 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 8,634
Received 101 Likes on 70 Posts

Total of £11bn to be added to defence budget

Hunt says he confirms he government will add a total of £11 bn to our defence budget over the next five years and it will be nearly 2.25% of GDP by 2025. "We were the first large European country to commit to 2% of GDP for defence and will raise that to 2.5% as soon as fiscal and economic circumstances allow," he says.
Budget announcement
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 13:47
  #1054 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 63
Posts: 1,855
Received 77 Likes on 43 Posts
Originally Posted by pr00ne
Oh stop this nonsensical combination of whataboutery and references to long dead socialists from 50 or 90 years ago! You are slinging this around in defence of these clowns in power and it is a disgrace. Diane Abbot? Oh for goodness sake! And "that shower on the opposition benches" are constantly demanding that the Govt stop the current wave of reductions in the size of the British Army and retirements of RAF aircraft without replacement. Angela Rayner among them. You are flogging a dead horse, stop it.
Shall I just sling whataboutery about regarding the tories? That shower on the opposition benches are about as disingenuous as it gets, do you recall pr00ne a good few years ago, I posted on a long ago thread about the recently announced massive increase in Russian military expansion. Your response, was your usual agitated dismissal saying they had a right to defend themselves, "nothing to see here" I only quote the last four words in the interest of accuracy. But the point stands, you were at the time defending the defence budget of the Cameron Government which everyone else was questioning, in fact, you've consistently defended defence cuts, by the tories, until now. Further, why do you respond to the mention of Diane Abbot, a sitting MP and one time leadership contender for the Labour Party, by saying "Oh for goodness sake!"
The British left have a history, going back to Kier Hardy of leaning toward disarmament, they have to be fair, had to battle between their own left and right factions between sensible defence and foreign policy, never with cuts though and utter recklessness, But I'll give them their due, they'll gain say anything the tories do, because they think the electorate are damn stupid. And before you retort, I am not defending the current shower in office following the farrago of cuts from them, but what do you think of the £11 Billion increase just announced?

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 15:21
  #1055 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,927
Received 139 Likes on 64 Posts
Originally Posted by Finningley Boy
Shall I just sling whataboutery about regarding the tories? That shower on the opposition benches are about as disingenuous as it gets, do you recall pr00ne a good few years ago, I posted on a long ago thread about the recently announced massive increase in Russian military expansion. Your response, was your usual agitated dismissal saying they had a right to defend themselves, "nothing to see here" I only quote the last four words in the interest of accuracy. But the point stands, you were at the time defending the defence budget of the Cameron Government which everyone else was questioning, in fact, you've consistently defended defence cuts, by the tories, until now. Further, why do you respond to the mention of Diane Abbot, a sitting MP and one time leadership contender for the Labour Party, by saying "Oh for goodness sake!"
The British left have a history, going back to Kier Hardy of leaning toward disarmament, they have to be fair, had to battle between their own left and right factions between sensible defence and foreign policy, never with cuts though and utter recklessness, But I'll give them their due, they'll gain say anything the tories do, because they think the electorate are damn stupid. And before you retort, I am not defending the current shower in office following the farrago of cuts from them, but what do you think of the £11 Billion increase just announced?

FB
We were trying an attempt at discussing the current Govt's inept and reckless handling of the CURRENT defence budget in the face of the situation in Ukraine and what most of Europe is doing about it. Er, I have never defended ANYTHING done by the Tories! Cameron? When did he retire? We `re talking NOW for goodness sake, you know, the here and now where there is a major land war raging in Europe, a wounded and distrustful (and very much in the wrong!) Russia is chucking nuclear threats about to all and sundry, and meanwhile the Tories are proceeding with their plans to reduce the Army by thousands, retire Typhoons and Hercules without replacement, retire Frigates and Survey ships without replacement, refusing to increase Artillery or Air Defence provision which is currently woeful, and expecting the Army to operate on the battlefield without IFV's, being the only major Army in the world to do such a thing. The Germans have announced a hundred billion increase in the defence budget, France is increasing theirs by a third, Sweden, Norway and Finland doing something similar, the Australians ramping up rapidly and outnumbering the UK in things like P-8 and E-7 and F-35's. And we now have a paltry £11bn increase over 5 year, with £3bn of that being for nuclear infrastructure to benefit us in the 2040's and £2bn being replacement of stockpiles sent to Ukraine, so the remaining £6bn over 5 years will amount to an effective cut when inflation is taken into account.

And all you can do is twitter on about historical socialists! As I said a few posts ago, get a grip!
pr00ne is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 15:51
  #1056 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,584
Received 383 Likes on 227 Posts
"but what do you think of the £11 Billion increase just announced?"

Over 5 years? With inflation where it is that won't go very far
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 15:57
  #1057 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 535
Received 178 Likes on 94 Posts
[QUOTE=pr00ne;11402637]


the here and now where there is a major land war raging in Europe - which we are supporting the Ukrainians with. Indeed largest contributor by value behind the US

a wounded and distrustful (and very much in the wrong!) Russia is chucking nuclear threats about to all and sundry - Which is why CASD is still being maintained, something the Labour party as a whole has issues with

and meanwhile the Tories are proceeding with their plans to reduce the Army by thousands - See earlier. What are these thousands to do? Why is the British army still 20% bigger than the Bundeswehr and bigger than the Polish army after that reduction?

retire Typhoons and Hercules without replacement - I won'r disagree combat air is too small. A400 will replace the C130 fully in a couple of years

, retire Frigates and Survey ships without replacement, - The replacements for the frigates are on contract and in build. Availability of DD/FF has actually increased over the last 2-3 years. You might ask why the last labour government refused to fund what became the T26 programme three times to my knowledge. The survey ships are a big bet on autonomy. MROSS will also cover some of it.

refusing to increase Artillery or Air Defence provision which is currently woeful - acknowledged as such by SoS and prioritised, rather than refused.

, and expecting the Army to operate on the battlefield without IFV's, being the only major Army in the world to do such a thing - That's more to do with the army's inability to sort its llfe out, surely?

. The Germans have announced a hundred billion increase in the defence budget - they have. Over five years. But are struggling to actually secure and spend it.

What happened to the German military's €100 billion fund? – DW – 03/02/2023

France is increasing theirs by a third, Sweden, Norway and Finland doing something similar, the Australians ramping up rapidly and outnumbering the UK in things like P-8 and E-7 and F-35's. And we now have a paltry £11bn increase over 5 year, with £3bn of that being for nuclear infrastructure to benefit us in the 2040's and £2bn being replacement of stockpiles sent to Ukraine, so the remaining £6bn over 5 years will amount to an effective cut when inflation is taken into account. - you're ignoring the £24Bn announced previously, of course......

And all you can do is twitter on about historical socialists! - To coin a phrase "they (Abbot and Corbyn and their many fans in the party) haven't gone away you know" [/QUOTE]
Not_a_boffin is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 15th Mar 2023, 15:59
  #1058 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,615
Received 1,739 Likes on 790 Posts
For those of you you think the state of the UK forces is dire - a look at the annual review of the German forces…..

It's that special time of year when the annual inspection report on the shortcomings of the German armed forces comes out.

I read all 171 pages so you don't have to.

So: come with me / and we'll be / in a world of Bundeswehr frustration ...
​​​​​​​
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...216172545.html
ORAC is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2023, 16:06
  #1059 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,927
Received 139 Likes on 64 Posts
[QUOTE=Not_a_boffin;11402667][QUOTE=pr00ne;11402637]


the here and now where there is a major land war raging in Europe - which we are supporting the Ukrainians with. Indeed largest contributor by value behind the US

a wounded and distrustful (and very much in the wrong!) Russia is chucking nuclear threats about to all and sundry - Which is why CASD is still being maintained, something the Labour party as a whole has issues with

and meanwhile the Tories are proceeding with their plans to reduce the Army by thousands - See earlier. What are these thousands to do? Why is the British army still 20% bigger than the Bundeswehr and bigger than the Polish army after that reduction? Then why have an Army at all? Are you a pacifist? Poland has just ordered 1,400 IFV's, 366 M1 Abrahams and 1,000 Korean MBT's, so I think that their Army is a little larger than you think. They have announced an increase anyway, as have the Germans.

retire Typhoons and Hercules without replacement - I won'r disagree combat air is too small. A400 will replace the C130 fully in a couple of years. 22 Atlas C1's. The 14 C-130J's will go without replacement. No plans announced for any additional Atlas procurement. Massive cut in tactical airlift.

, retire Frigates and Survey ships without replacement, - The replacements for the frigates are on contract and in build. Availability of DD/FF has actually increased over the last 2-3 years. You might ask why the last labour government refused to fund what became the T26 programme three times to my knowledge. The survey ships are a big bet on autonomy. MROSS will also cover some of it.

refusing to increase Artillery or Air Defence provision which is currently woeful - acknowledged as such by SoS and prioritised, rather than refused.

, and expecting the Army to operate on the battlefield without IFV's, being the only major Army in the world to do such a thing - That's more to do with the army's inability to sort its llfe out, surely? OH that is SO true! Same for the above point.

. The Germans have announced a hundred billion increase in the defence budget - they have. Over five years. But are struggling to actually secure and spend it.

What happened to the German military's €100 billion fund? – DW – 03/02/2023

France is increasing theirs by a third, Sweden, Norway and Finland doing something similar, the Australians ramping up rapidly and outnumbering the UK in things like P-8 and E-7 and F-35's. And we now have a paltry £11bn increase over 5 year, with £3bn of that being for nuclear infrastructure to benefit us in the 2040's and £2bn being replacement of stockpiles sent to Ukraine, so the remaining £6bn over 5 years will amount to an effective cut when inflation is taken into account. - you're ignoring the £24Bn announced previously, of course... NO I'M NOT, that was two years ago.

And all you can do is twitter on about historical socialists! - To coin a phrase "they (Abbot and Corbyn and their many fans in the party) haven't gone away you know". AS FAR AS CABINET GOVERNMENT AND POLICY AND INFLUENCE GOES, OH YES THEY HAVE!
pr00ne is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2023, 07:25
  #1060 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 63
Posts: 1,855
Received 77 Likes on 43 Posts
[QUOTE=pr00ne;11402678][QUOTE=Not_a_boffin;11402667]
Originally Posted by pr00ne


the here and now where there is a major land war raging in Europe - which we are supporting the Ukrainians with. Indeed largest contributor by value behind the US

a wounded and distrustful (and very much in the wrong!) Russia is chucking nuclear threats about to all and sundry - Which is why CASD is still being maintained, something the Labour party as a whole has issues with

and meanwhile the Tories are proceeding with their plans to reduce the Army by thousands - See earlier. What are these thousands to do? Why is the British army still 20% bigger than the Bundeswehr and bigger than the Polish army after that reduction? Then why have an Army at all? Are you a pacifist? Poland has just ordered 1,400 IFV's, 366 M1 Abrahams and 1,000 Korean MBT's, so I think that their Army is a little larger than you think. They have announced an increase anyway, as have the Germans.

retire Typhoons and Hercules without replacement - I won'r disagree combat air is too small. A400 will replace the C130 fully in a couple of years. 22 Atlas C1's. The 14 C-130J's will go without replacement. No plans announced for any additional Atlas procurement. Massive cut in tactical airlift.

, retire Frigates and Survey ships without replacement, - The replacements for the frigates are on contract and in build. Availability of DD/FF has actually increased over the last 2-3 years. You might ask why the last labour government refused to fund what became the T26 programme three times to my knowledge. The survey ships are a big bet on autonomy. MROSS will also cover some of it.

refusing to increase Artillery or Air Defence provision which is currently woeful - acknowledged as such by SoS and prioritised, rather than refused.

, and expecting the Army to operate on the battlefield without IFV's, being the only major Army in the world to do such a thing - That's more to do with the army's inability to sort its llfe out, surely? OH that is SO true! Same for the above point.

. The Germans have announced a hundred billion increase in the defence budget - they have. Over five years. But are struggling to actually secure and spend it.

What happened to the German military's €100 billion fund? – DW – 03/02/2023

France is increasing theirs by a third, Sweden, Norway and Finland doing something similar, the Australians ramping up rapidly and outnumbering the UK in things like P-8 and E-7 and F-35's. And we now have a paltry £11bn increase over 5 year, with £3bn of that being for nuclear infrastructure to benefit us in the 2040's and £2bn being replacement of stockpiles sent to Ukraine, so the remaining £6bn over 5 years will amount to an effective cut when inflation is taken into account. - you're ignoring the £24Bn announced previously, of course... NO I'M NOT, that was two years ago.

And all you can do is twitter on about historical socialists! - To coin a phrase "they (Abbot and Corbyn and their many fans in the party) haven't gone away you know". AS FAR AS CABINET GOVERNMENT AND POLICY AND INFLUENCE GOES, OH YES THEY HAVE!
Right! That's enough of your politicking pr00ne young fellah, go and stand in corner, face the wall and don't keep peeking over your shoulder or you'll go straight up those stairs!

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.