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

US General says British Army less than Par?!?!?!?

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.

US General says British Army less than Par?!?!?!?

Old 30th Jan 2023, 06:57
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 62
Posts: 1,714
Received 21 Likes on 11 Posts
US General says British Army less than Par?!?!?!?

US general warns British Army is no longer regarded as a top-level fighting force, sources say | Daily Mail Online

The linked article caught my eye, not literally but you get the picture I'm sure.

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  

Top Answer

30th Jan 2023, 08:25
Ninthace
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 970
Received 38 Likes on 16 Posts
All to do with the Treasury thinking that the Peace Dividend after the fall of the Berlin Wall was an annual saving to be taken, rather than a one off.
Old 30th Jan 2023, 07:28
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 27,028
Received 336 Likes on 145 Posts
Errrr, not just the Army.
But tell me something we didn’t already know, The Governments of this Country have been driving our capabilities to defend ourselves into the ground for years, you look at the likes of the European forces ramping up purchases while the U.K. quietly Carry’s on scrapping ours.

https://news.sky.com/story/us-genera...eveal-12798365
NutLoose is online now  
The following 7 users liked this post by NutLoose:
Old 30th Jan 2023, 07:38
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 5,825
Received 83 Likes on 41 Posts
Still one of the biggest spenders on defence - the problem is very little seems to arrive for the money invested.

I suspect it's all spread to thin - we still carry on as if it was 1900 rather 2020 - the whole idea of Global reach is crazy
Asturias56 is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by Asturias56:
Old 30th Jan 2023, 07:43
  #4 (permalink)  
sir
Basia Arma
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: button moon
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
No disrespect to anybody serving but I donít doubt thereís some truth in that. Nothing to do with the military personnel, but rather the goverment taking its eye off the ball and not ensuring we have the strength we need through investment. Iím about as woke and lefty as most ordinary people can get, but Iíd prefer an oversized military with a more than adequate defence capability and the reserve to muck in overseas to defend our interests at arms length.

Swiss approach, but with additional reach for me Clive.





sir is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by sir:
Old 30th Jan 2023, 08:25
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 970
Received 38 Likes on 16 Posts
All to do with the Treasury thinking that the Peace Dividend after the fall of the Berlin Wall was an annual saving to be taken, rather than a one off.
Ninthace is online now  
The following 12 users liked this post by Ninthace:
Old 30th Jan 2023, 09:11
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 27,028
Received 336 Likes on 145 Posts
Originally Posted by sir View Post
No disrespect to anybody serving but I don’t doubt there’s some truth in that. Nothing to do with the military personnel, but rather the goverment taking its eye off the ball and not ensuring we have the strength we need through investment. I’m about as woke and lefty as most ordinary people can get, but I’d prefer an oversized military with a more than adequate defence capability and the reserve to muck in overseas to defend our interests at arms length.

Swiss approach, but with additional reach for me Clive.
Since the end of the Cold War the Uk Government has seen the military as a cashcow to milk for their other pet projects, to the decline of a capable force able to defend this Country.
The argument that the equipment can do XYZ better than in 1945 and on is no excuse when you have say 5 ships and the need to operate in 7 areas. Or stockpiles of enough Ammunition to last a couple of days assuming the enemy decides to play by our rule book and go Nuclear, suddenly that all falls by the wayside when you see the war in Ukraine..
As the Army reserve website states, become a reserve for a commitment of as little as 19 days a year. A reserve is just that, a Government scheme to bolster the military manpower figures on the cheap, yes they are ex service personnel on the whole and yes no doubting their abilities and dedication, but 19 days a year a full time professional soldier it does not make. Skill sets are perishable and if not maintained they begin to slip.

,,

Last edited by NutLoose; 30th Jan 2023 at 16:15.
NutLoose is online now  
The following 2 users liked this post by NutLoose:
Old 30th Jan 2023, 09:49
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 74
Posts: 9,990
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Ninthace View Post
All to do with the Treasury thinking that the Peace Dividend after the fall of the Berlin Wall was an annual saving to be taken, rather than a one off.
Plus contractors 'milking' MOD costs as much as possible; how much does it cost nowadays to supply a new lightbulb via a contractor rather than going to B & Q?

Last edited by chevvron; 30th Jan 2023 at 11:40.
chevvron is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by chevvron:
Old 30th Jan 2023, 11:00
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,942
Received 57 Likes on 27 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
Still one of the biggest spenders on defence - the problem is very little seems to arrive for the money invested.

I suspect it's all spread to thin - we still carry on as if it was 1900 rather 2020 - the whole idea of Global reach is crazy
A lot of that spending goes on the nuclear deterrent though. Not saying we shouldn't have it, but it does rather skew the numbers when comparing against other nations' spending.
melmothtw is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 30th Jan 2023, 11:10
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 973
Likes: 0
Received 36 Likes on 23 Posts
Originally Posted by melmothtw View Post
A lot of that spending goes on the nuclear deterrent though. Not saying we shouldn't have it, but it does rather skew the numbers when comparing against other nations' spending.
Was litterally about to type the same thing, UK has to spend a substantial amount on its nuclear deterent. In certain ways see similarities to the situation that russia is in, but without the massive and endemic corruption. Russia has to a spend a large percentage on nuclear capabilities. Both the UK and russia try to do everything in house, UK in this situation goes domestic even when buying from overseas is probably going to work out cheaper and better in the long term

UK has a champagne lifestyle on a beer budget
rattman is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by rattman:
Old 30th Jan 2023, 11:30
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 27,028
Received 336 Likes on 145 Posts
Throw in two carriers with insufficient aircraft to fully man them, nor sufficient ships to protect them.
It is all well and good needing fellow NATO countries to provide aircraft and ships to support them, but by the stupid decision not to make them angled deck and cat capable, you instantly crippled them to the types that can operate and limit future aircraft acquisition to operate from them.
Top that off with if you ever have another Falklands type Scenario we would be on our own re support ships or aircraft.
I understand the logistics of projecting airpower, but one good torpedo and the ship is gone, along with a damned good percentage of our F35 fleet.

As for the Nuclear sub fleet, it is the one thing that would hopefully prevent Russia ever making good on its threats of nuking us, as they would be assured of a reply in kind targeting their Cities. Something their propogandists appear to skip over in all their bluster.

..

Last edited by NutLoose; 30th Jan 2023 at 16:24.
NutLoose is online now  
The following 6 users liked this post by NutLoose:
Old 30th Jan 2023, 12:24
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 338
Received 7 Likes on 4 Posts
Of course the Army's problems aren't helped by spending around £14 Billion on armoured vehicle programmes, none of which have produced serviceable vehicles. Which makes anything the other two services have spent on equipment this century look like value for money.
Bing is offline  
The following 4 users liked this post by Bing:
Old 30th Jan 2023, 12:37
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: South East.
Posts: 854
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Agree we are spreading it too thin. Something to be said for the Swiss approach now we are no longer a world power whether we think so or not.
Time to start closing motorways now and again I think.............. !!
Sleeve Wing is online now  
The following 3 users liked this post by Sleeve Wing:
Old 30th Jan 2023, 13:08
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 106
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
Errrr, not just the Army.
But tell me something we didnít already know, The Governments of this Country have been driving our capabilities to defend ourselves into the ground for years, you look at the likes of the European forces ramping up purchases while the U.K. quietly Carryís on scrapping ours.

https://news.sky.com/story/us-genera...eveal-12798365
If I understand it correctly, our European neighbors who are also NATO members are ramping up spending got meet their NATO spending commitments 9as encouraged by the USA), which UK already does and more.
golfbananajam is online now  
Old 30th Jan 2023, 13:16
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 27,028
Received 336 Likes on 145 Posts
There is a difference between spending and actual forces, you can spend a fortune on extra kit that is late, over budget or cancelled, while at the same time reducing manpower and flogging off the crown jewels. The two do not necessarily balance each other out.
Poland has just ramped up their spending to 4% GDP

https://tvpworld.com/65942560/poland...ing-in-2023-pm
NutLoose is online now  
The following 2 users liked this post by NutLoose:
Old 30th Jan 2023, 13:56
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 375
Received 42 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
Errrr, not just the Army.
But tell me something we didnít already know, The Governments of this Country have been driving our capabilities to defend ourselves into the ground for years, you look at the likes of the European forces ramping up purchases while the U.K. quietly Carryís on scrapping ours.

https://news.sky.com/story/us-genera...eveal-12798365
Number 1 - the article is purely based on quotes by "defence sources". The veracity of this probably depends on the "defence source" and their objective. Not least when the actual article (deliberately?) suggests that the French are Tier 1, the Germans Tier 2 and the UK "barely Tier 2". It's almost as if these "Defence sources" are deliberately trying to influence the ongoing refresh of the SDSR, which is being done as a consequence of the unpleasantness ongoing to our east. Our European allies are only just beginning to increase defence spending and they are - Poland excepted - some way away from ramping up purchases. German armed forces readiness is publically acknowledged to be laughable and I'm fairly certain the French have done less in terms of formation manoeuver training and ops than we have.

The lack of depth in our warstocks is something that SoS has publically noted and committed to fixing - trouble is you can't just turn the ammo delivery switch on just like that. Similarly if you've been paying attention, he's also noted that the Army in particular has lost its edge in certain areas (indirect fires, organic AD) - often by hanging on to cap badge regiments rather than prioritising capability.

The real issue the Army faces is answering the question "what is it for?". If the answer to that question is to provide an armoured division in Eastern Europe, one has to ask why that is so, given that between the Russian border and ourselves lie 1500km and half a dozen countries. Including the Germans whose regular army has a strength of 63000 - significantly less than the UK. If they can't be @rsed to defend themselves, why should we?

Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
Still one of the biggest spenders on defence - the problem is very little seems to arrive for the money invested.

I suspect it's all spread to thin - we still carry on as if it was 1900 rather 2020 - the whole idea of Global reach is crazy
I have yet to see anyone actually back up those perceptions with real study. You can count noses, but you don't know how well supported or available they are.

For a maritime power, global reach is merely common sense. Crazy is trying to recreate something from the 1970s for a completely different world.
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 30th Jan 2023, 15:27
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: london
Posts: 690
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Stop selling off bases for housing and industrial estates.US military leaders have warned that Russia's Severodvinsk-class subs are operating near US coasts.Severodvinsk-class subs have a mix of stealth and striking power that worries US and NATO navies.Why is all our lifting capability concentrated at one base? A few well aimed missiles and our conventional capability would be severed in one go.The 'peace dividend' and ' options for change' sailed a decade ago
rolling20 is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2023, 17:52
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 74
Posts: 17,880
Received 195 Likes on 82 Posts
If they can't be @rsed to defend themselves, why should we?
Thinking like an American are you?

Remember. a US President reminding NATO Members about the need to meet their Treaty obligations re spending and how ya'll howled, ranted, and whined about that?

Seems the Man was right and his critics not so right.

Face it....the UK Military is short handed, under funded, and downsized to the extent it has become in-effective as a result.

In some things size, numbers, and capability become the difference between victory and defeat.

Quality absent the rest cannot achieve victory.

What ever you must not do is believe your own propaganda....look to history for proof of that....to include recent history as Russia runs up on the rocks of reality in its War in Ukraine.
SASless is online now  
Old 30th Jan 2023, 18:17
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: liverpool uk
Age: 66
Posts: 1,318
Received 9 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by chevvron View Post
Plus contractors 'milking' MOD costs as much as possible; how much does it cost nowadays to supply a new lightbulb via a contractor rather than going to B & Q?
Just the same as the NHS and PFI.
air pig is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2023, 19:07
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 375
Received 42 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
Thinking like an American are you?

Remember. a US President reminding NATO Members about the need to meet their Treaty obligations re spending and how ya'll howled, ranted, and whined about that?

Seems the Man was right and his critics not so right.

Face it....the UK Military is short handed, under funded, and downsized to the extent it has become in-effective as a result.
Now if I was feeling provocative, I'd say something like "your first sentence is an oxymoron" - but I wouldn't be being serious.

Less of the y'all when you try to ascribe reactions to me. For the record, one of Trumps good points was that he was prepared to say some contentious things - although Europeans relying on the US to defend them and not pulling their weight goes back to Ronnie, Maggie and beyond.

Last edited by T28B; 1st Feb 2023 at 10:53. Reason: removed the JB fodder
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 30th Jan 2023, 20:01
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 74
Posts: 17,880
Received 195 Likes on 82 Posts
Evidently it is thought by many the British Military needs lots of all sorts which was the topic of the thread.

So is the British Military up to the task of defending the Home Isles and possessions and properly fulfill its role in NATO.....or not?
SASless is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.