What is the point of having £billions worth of equipment, tanks, artillery, planes ships etc if you haven't got the ammunition to use them for more than a few days? Or is that the time need to decant government into safe underground bunkers, before the PM resorts to the nuclear option?

Bingo. It’s all marketing blurb. There is no recognition that we might have to actually fight and why.

Let me try to illustrate what I think a definition of purpose looks like, the “why” we have forces.

“To provide a sufficiently strong conventional deterrence that any individual nation who might otherwise desire to do so is very unlikely to attack us for the next 15 years.

If attacked by conventional means by any such single military power, to have concrete expectation that with existing stocks and personnel we can defend ourselves unilaterally against any such assault for a period of not less than one year. In doing so preventing any loss of control of any land, air or maritime space.”

It might well be the wrong detail. I’m trying to describe purpose rather than offer marketing blurb about capabilities.

What are the armed forces actually there for?

I couldn’t find it in the official material quoted upthread.

Can you?

Neither could I! That is the Govts direction and the RAF statements on what we do. Nothing to do with 'Engaging with His Majesties Enemies and Killing Them!. The whole thing is MBA driven jargon for a business, not a fighting force as we once were. But those documents are now the directing sources for our existence - like it or not. I hate them.
If we 'deliver' our services properly, no-one can complain because they are dead, Customer feedback is useless...:Yes, you killed us successfully. Your delivery was on time and accurate.. My feedback is positive' is not something we expect!

Here is a thought re infrastructure, buy back / compulsory purchase Doncaster airport, rename it RAF Finningley, it has hangarage, good runway, newish terminal, central location, decent road access, available gate guardian aircraft, and then move the Voyager fleet up there, thus freeing up more room at Brize and removing the all eggs in one basket problem :p

Esteemed colleagues, please, let us return to the topic at hand.
Rather than move the offending posts, I have removed them as you all know better. :=

With all the talk about tanks for Ukraine, the Challenger in the British army and shortage of tank numbers that we are suffering these days, it may surprise you that Vickers actually produced a Leopard based tank with a British turret that just about outclassed everything going including the Challenger..

This was the pre-Great War slant:

What is the Army For?

On 8th December 1888 Mr Edward Stanhope, Secretary Of State for War, minuted Adjutant-General Viscount Wolseley with what became known as the Stanhope memorandum. This was in reply to the very reasonable question “what is the army for?” In summary, and in order of priority, it was to:

1. Support the civil power in Great Britain

2. Garrison India

3. Garrison all fortresses and coaling stations at war footing

4. Be able to mobilise three Army Corps for home defence

5. Be able to send abroad two complete Corps [EDIT: the BEF in 1914]

The eggs in one basket problem is more of a size of the country problem. One Russian sub off the east coast could take out both simultaneously. It makes sense when you are talking about spreading out bases in Ohio, Florida and maybe Arizona. This country is too small to have a noticeable effect by spreading out bases. That extra cost could go towards more kit (it won’t of course, but it could).

The noticeable effect is increased flexibility in operations.

As regards bullet 4: a bit over 30 years ago some wag on our side of the pond coined a term for that - OOTW - Operations Other Than War which was picked up on by our NATO allies in some of the official stuff we worked on when I was working in that capacity. NEO (Noncombatant Evacuation Operations) was one of the biggies back then. Disaster relief. Etc.
On bullet point 2: since the early 90's our own national strategy statement was pretty clear: we will as a rule conduct military operations as a part of a coalition.
That seems to still be the case, and looks to be similar to how the British Armed Forces are organized, trained, and funded.
On bullet point 3. I think this is where the General in the OP cited commentary was expressing some disappointment.
(For my money, him denigrating the capability of our allies when in an official position is bad form).

If you look at the capability and professionalism that the British Army brought to
Operation Desert Storm, to Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) , later to Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom)
I think he realizes that the absolute scale of ground forces may not be available again.

So what? I'd ask the general to look at a map. The UK, if they choose to lean into RAF and RN more heavily, are acting in accordance to their geography and their budgetary/fiscal realities.
We have a lot of other NATO allies who can provide ground forces in Europe should a need to do that arise. From an alliance perspective, it's a bit more expensive and requires more effort to get the British Army to various trouble spots in NATO's AORs.

All in all, I'd rather he'd have not made that glib observation. Of all the allies who have been problem children over the years as regards contributions to the alliance, I'd not put the UK as a part of the problem.
Edited to add: recent estimates of who meets the 2% goal in NATO and who does not, the UK is one of half a dozen who meet it, 24 others do not. (2022 estimates). The general might have considered that before he opened his pie hole. :mad: (I seem to recall that the UK usually meets that target, but I'd need to go over historical data).

But you are not taking into account the bigger picture, Russia looking at the satellite images of Doncaster would probably surmise that they had already nuked the place and move on to the next target.

How thinly do you wish to spread what little you have?

If you start out as a Tier Two Power....should you lose several aircraft of any front line operational type....at what level do you find yourself after the initial strike?

Numbers matter....and the Military has never bee. a for profit enterprise when it comes to costs.

I totally agree, however the owners, Peel, want to build houses on it (much more profitable) so it's a non starter; they already did the same trick with Sheffield airport.
Same applies at Plymouth and many other airports; it's a typical greedy developer's trick; buy an airport, operate it for a couple of years, declare it unprofitable and pass it over to developers.
Looks like Manston has been saved from this, possibly Fairoaks too.

Compulsory Purchase Orders in the interests of National Security.

Well let them start building houses Chevron and when sufficent decent houses for the married accomodation has been built, then purchase it out from under them. ;)

RAF vs M&S
 

Would love to be proven wrong, but I believe M&S employ more people than the RAF. A nation of shopkeepers?………

Its 2023 , Bad guys stille xist , ie Russia but at the same time they seem to be extremely incompetent .

Uk has an economy and infrastructure on its knees, due to our histroy we have well trained service personnel but always seem to lack the equipment that really need . Why Nimrods not P3s for example Why carriers when we can only hope to infleucne the N Sea , Eastern Atlantic and maybe a bit of the med , someone has already pointed out the tank/AFV catsstrophe

A PM with no wiggle room on money to spend has to amke a choice . More squaddies or more nurses ( ie Defence vs NHS) . A nuclear war is a lose lose and because of Europe geography if you attack Southern England you are also attaching France and vv so why not pool nuke resources with France. , Isnt one of our nuclear subs effectively knackered anyway so we cannot guarantee 24/7 response or attack -however so long as the bad guys dont know which days its down it doest actually matter.

Being out of the EU doesnt mean out of Europe. UK doesnt thave the resources or man power to do much l against any serious country with evil intent against UK and they cannot do much without mass nuclear fallout on France or as has been pointed out go 1500 Kms across Europe to even get to the channel , So why not an EU Army , how far a step away from NATO is that.. I am sure there are the usaul facile comments about lack of back bone in some countries but then again the Czechs Slovaks , Poles and Hungarians would probably be more committed than our troops in such circumstances as they are the front line

So the money has to go on the NHS as theyare the real and present danger .. Over simplification of course but how far away from that choice are we.

Well if they get it wrong, then the Nurses will find themselves busy.

Because Nimrod seiously outperformed P3.

Whats your hourly rate for leaving your workplace, getting in a car, driving to a B&Q, finding the bulb (assuming they have it), driving back, sorting out an invoice adn then arranging delivery and fitting ?

How much exactly - £100, £200 or you expect the entire thing to be done for 2p ?