Can the armed forces survive any more cuts?

[Boyinabox]

I was reading the paper today when I read this story (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3423421.ece). For those of you too lazy to click, the government is closing the naval base at Plymouth and cutting 5 frigates from the surface fleet. I got really pissed off reading this and I really can't see how the government has got away with all the cuts it has made to the forces in recent years whilst we are actively engaged in two major conflicts, peacekeeping duties and shipping lane protection. Just look at the changes the governments white paper for defence called for in 2003:

Royal Navy:
The following ships to be scrapped without replacement:
* HMS Cardiff Type 42 destroyer.
* HMS Newcastle Type 42 destroyer.
* HMS Glasgow Type 42 destroyer.
* HMS Norfolk Type 23 frigate.
* HMS Marlborough Type 23 frigate.
* HMS Grafton Type 23 frigate.
* HMS Superb Swiftsure class nuclear attack submarine.
* HMS Trafalgar Trafalgar class nuclear attack submarine.
* HMS Brecon Hunt class minehunter.
* HMS Cottesmore Hunt class minehunter.
* HMS Dulverton Hunt class minehunter.
* HMS Bridport Sandown class minehunter.
* HMS Inverness Sandown class minehunter.
* HMS Sandown Sandown class minehunter.

Since then the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible has been placed in "active reserve" (mothballs), the Sea Harrier has been removed from the remaining two aircraft carriers (meaning they have no aircraft able to engage in air to air combat or attack enemy ships) and now a further 5 frigates are being withdrawn. Recently HMS Illustrious set sail to join the multi-national task group Orion 08 on a training exercise with no harriers at all due to them all being transfered to the RAF in Afghanistan.

Whilst the government is purchasing new ships they aren't buying enough to maintain the current ship numbers (6 type 45's to replace the original 12 42's, 4 Astute class submarines to replace 9 Trafalgars and Swiftsures and currently no frigate replacement on the table)

RAF:
Admittedly the RAF is the luckiest of the services as it actually gained several new aircraft orders such as 4 transport aircraft, eurofighters and the upcoming F-35 but it still lost 41 Jaguar fighters, 7 Nimrod spy planes and 16 Tornados with ten years to go until their replacements will be ready.

British Army:
Loss of 84 Challenger 2 tanks
Loss of 48 mobile artillery guns
Reduction of manpower by 1000

Since then there have been numerous losses and injuries due to lack of body armour and deaths from roadside bombs in Snatch Landrovers, complaints of rifles that constantly jam in the desert and a massive shortfall in the number of available helicopters for transporting troops. And thats not to mention the poor state of soldiers accomodation, low pay and the lack of support for veterans from previous conflicts.

--------

Basically,
a) Will the armed forces be able to cope with less equipment in the air, on land and at sea?
b) Should the government increase military spending or downsize the military and its commitments abroad to be more in line with the budget?

Personally I believe that the best course is to increase the militarys budget and so allow Britain to not only support its commitments abroad fully but show that it is still a major power of note and so maintain our relevance on the world stage.

But I was generally a lot further to the right on the political compass (http://forums.weebls-stuff.com/showthread.php?t=35475&highlight=political+compass) so I don't really know if you'll share the same view as me. Anyhoo, I'd really like to hear your opinions on this guys.

[basstard]

Basically,
a) Will the armed forces be able to cope with less equipment in the air, on land and at sea?

I think the 'ideal' for a 21st century military is a smaller, more skilled, more advanced force, as opposed to (say) a million pieces of cannon fodder running onto a field.

This definition, by it's very nature, means less equipment and less men.

b) Should the government increase military spending or downsize the military and its commitments abroad to be more in line with the budget?

Public perception has turned against the military recently (thankyou Meesrs Blair, Brown and Iraq) so I believe governments will find it hard to justify increasing military spending.

Look at the ruckus over the Trident replacement, for example.

Another possible argument - the US military gets an obscene amount of money, yet it can't keep the peace in Iraq. How can we, on our small-by-comparison budget, expect to do much?

Personally I believe that the best course is to increase the militarys budget and so allow Britain to not only support its commitments abroad fully but show that it is still a major power of note and so maintain our relevance on the world stage.

In my opinion, Britain hasn't been a "major power" for a while. We live in an age of one hyperpower - the US - with China possibly ready to challenge this a few years down the line. Due to our despairingly consistent tagging along with the US's point of view in everything, we're not viewed as a serious world power any more.

Besides, what 'commitments' do we have at the moment? Iraq and Afghanistan, yes. One of which - Iraq - has Britain slowly reducing the number of troops, hopefully to leave entirely somepoint vaguely soon. Other than that, most of the forces' work abroad has been in disaster relief - for example, the 2004 tsunami, or the 2005 Pakistan earthquake. Which doesn't require ammo or submarines.

Having said that, I'm the opposite of you, I'm on the left of the political compass, and will admit to hoping that our military will become smaller, and more unnecessary, as the world hopefully stabilises.

[Boyinabox]

I think the 'ideal' for a 21st century military is a smaller, more skilled, more advanced force, as opposed to (say) a million pieces of cannon fodder running onto a field.

This definition, by it's very nature, means less equipment and less men.

I agree, but theres a difference between fewer and better and fewer in general. A ship or a plane can only be in one place at once, no matter how advanced it is.


In my opinion, Britain hasn't been a "major power" for a while. We live in an age of one hyperpower - the US - with China possibly ready to challenge this a few years down the line. Due to our despairingly consistent tagging along with the US's point of view in everything, we're not viewed as a serious world power any more.

Besides, what 'commitments' do we have at the moment? Iraq and Afghanistan, yes. One of which - Iraq - has Britain slowly reducing the number of troops, hopefully to leave entirely somepoint vaguely soon. Other than that, most of the forces' work abroad has been in disaster relief - for example, the 2004 tsunami, or the 2005 Pakistan earthquake. Which doesn't require ammo or submarines.

Having said that, I'm the opposite of you, I'm on the left of the political compass, and will admit to hoping that our military will become smaller, and more unnecessary, as the world hopefully stabilises.

I was never saying the UK is a "superpower" but compared to the rest of the world (other than the US of course) we still have by far one of the strongest military's and economies of any nation (the second largest navy in NATO, 4th largest economy, nuclear weapons and a seat on the security council) and yes the UK is deployed far and wide at the moment: army (http://www.army.mod.uk/deployments/index.htm), navy (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/globalops/), air force (http://www.raf.mod.uk/currentoperations/). The last time the UK did a major scale down of the services was between 1979-81 when they got rid of ice breakers, several aircraft carriers and destroyers, next year was the Falklands war which we won by the skin of our teeth. You never know whats just around the corner which is why you should never just assume that one "age" of warfare is over.

[richardn111]

Recently HMS Illustrious set sail to join the multi-national task group Orion 08 on a training exercise with no harriers at all due to them all being transfered to the RAF in Afghanistan.


It was actually recalled as well, they had a problem with a fridge of all things and so had to turn around... gone again now though..

Although there are a some good bits too, The MoD just bought 6 Merlin Mk3A's from Denmark, x2 £2billion carriers are being built. And come 2010, The illustrious loses all test facilities so all repairs have to come back to the air bases..

Personally I think more money needs to be invested in the right places, the Merlin has been all the rage for so long now and it still doesn't work, however, with industry being involved much more prodominantly now (Westland, Lockheed Martin) the MoD should be able to prioritise properly and send the required gear out to our front lines.

[Smartie]

Of course they can cope with a reduced budget.
If the forces actually were efficient in their roles then the cuts would have little impact.

Our forces abroad don't actually have a RIGHT to be in any country.

The UK armed forces had a budget of £33.4 BILLION in 2007.

That is a disgraceful amount of money, considering we can't even fund our hospitals and schools properly, and look after our own, let alone spending billions to look after others.
This might seem harsh but we can't even get our own house in order and we go round the world trying to enforce our values on others.
We're not a military superpower of yore, and it's time we realised we really don't need to plough so much into it.

And for those who will undoubtedly comment at me about how they protect our country and help other countries in need etc etc. I'd say that we need to stop fighting pointless or religious conflicts because we feel we have a right to intervene. For example, why do we need a 5000 strong peacetime garrison In Northern Ireland? Just in case...? I'm sorry but that doesn't wash.

My sisters fiance wants to get abroad into active conflict - he's a medic - but they won't let him go until 2009. Instead he's got a caretaker role on a TA base. How on earth is that productive and effective use of military personnel?

[Pie hunter D]

Eh this is a huge melting pot.

A)
New stuff is coming in, old stuff is going out basically. The only problem is the timetable is really off kilter. Theres been so many bits of kit been marked down as obsolete in the past year alone it made me wonder!
I do know though, there is a bunch of new vehicles etc on the way in. Problem is they're all in pretty shaky stages, reqire a lot of fine tuning etc..

The apaches the govt bought were grounded for a long time because we wanted a refit of British weapons... Just bollocks.

The fact also remains (as has been said) theres a general lack of kit on the fron line in general. People dying because they don't have plates for their kevlar is pretty shitty imo. The govt really needs to sort out its timing if it wants to keep the army strong.

B)
I think i'm sitting on the fence with this one. On the one hand I can see why people say "We shouldn't be here or there" , but it doesn't detract from the fact it would in all common sense be pretty stupid not to have a fairly strong army. It would be great if there were no hostilities or people trying to kill each other, coups and plots. But there are, the world is rife with it and it won't go away. Armies aren't just for invading places, they act as political tools and deterants too actually maintaining a peace through fear of reprisal from one country or another. It's all part of the global political tango.
Even the most jaded passifist in parliment has to recognise this fact.

[piemastermike]

getting rid of the nimrods was the best thing they could do, they are fucking death traps. In fact, a big part of the problem is that a lot of military equipment is getting so old now that its just becoming dangerous and unuseable, and the replacements are so expensive that by spending the money everyone would start shouting about how the government are wasting all their money on guns instead of making schools and hospitals better. You just cant win.

[Splush]

I am generally in favour cutting military spending at the same time as involving yourself in less wars, but cutting armed forces while overstreched in the wars you're already in does seem inherently flawed.

I don't know much about the military admittedly, but it seems like all the talk of cutting ships and planes is hard to get upset about when the types of wars going on now don't really seem to be about technological might. You can afford a lot of arabic translators for the price of an aircraft carrier, for instance. Armour and working rifles should obviously be a priority, but maybe the more high-tech stuff really is a waste of money at the moment.

I don't know why the world still needs individual military superpowers when we have organisations like NATO that facilitate multilateral military action where the British committment would represent a small chunk of the overall force. I know NATO and the UN aren't perfect, but the strategy of throwing all our weight behind what america wants to do is pretty far from perfect too. I understand the logic that we need big standing army just in case some big new threat arises, but I have a really hard time imagining what that threat would be, and imagining that we wouldn't have plenty of military support from countless other countries in the event of such a threat.

[Boyinabox]

The UK armed forces had a budget of £33.4 BILLION in 2007.


Budget 2007:
http://budget2007.treasury.gov.uk/images/taxpayers_moneyspent.gif

I'm well aware that at £33.4 billion, the MoD's budget is the second largest (or third depending on which analysts you believe about China), but to say that the reason that schools and hospitals aren't being funded properly is due to a lack of resources is nonsense as you can see from that handy piechart. Lack of proper NHS management =/= lack of funds, and the government would do well for realising that. (That comment can obviously be thrown right back at me on this topic but oh well. :p)

And I'm not too sure about your point about Northern Ireland, when I went there two years ago it was pretty obvious that theres still a fair amount of secterianism both sides of the border (watch out for kerbstones painted red, white and blue and 4 flags per building at some places). A more valid case would probably why do Britain and America still have so many people based in Germany? Its not as if the Russians are going to invade soon or that Germany can't afford its own border guards.

[Pie hunter D]

I don't know why the world still needs individual military superpowers when we have organisations like NATO that facilitate multilateral military action where the British committment would represent a small chunk of the overall force. I know NATO and the UN aren't perfect, but the strategy of throwing all our weight behind what america wants to do is pretty far from perfect too. I understand the logic that we need big standing army just in case some big new threat arises, but I have a really hard time imagining what that threat would be, and imagining that we wouldn't have plenty of military support from countless other countries in the event of such a threat.


If every country in the world joined the UN it would be a simple sollution. Fact is that the systems in other countries and conflicting beliefs/issues means that not everyone sees eye to eye, and never will. Thats the reason every country has its own forces. It's a bargaining chip if you will in the political arena, I don't know if you'd also be surprised to find out there are more military operations under the radar than you could comprehend, theres a big game of cat and mouse being played out there in the big wide world. One such operation you can actually probably read all about now was one concerning our own govrnment and forces. Our own Army was poised to execute a military coup some 25-30 years ago believe it or not.
Very much a case of "what you don't know" in many cases.

The reason for forces being based in other countries such as Greece of germany is simply for staging point perposes. It all goes back to the world wars past the cold war etc, but they're there as a visual deterant and if anything should happen they're in a position for rapid deployment.

I think some peoples views about the world we live in must be very jaded indeed to assume we no longer need that kind of security in place.

[Splush]

I don't follow your argument. Of course not every country is in the UN or NATO but there's more than enough countries with sizeable militaries in those organisations that any conflict can be fought multilaterally without the need for any one military superpower to take care of things alone.

Being part of NATO means that if the UK is attacked our fellow members are duty-bound to intervene, and vice versa. With an arrangement like that there's really no need for us to have a massive standing army, because we know that most of europe and north america have us covered in the event that we're attacked. We have a responsibility to have a standing army, certainly, I'm just saying we don't need one that's ready to face any threat alone.

There's always going to be wars breaking out around the world, but we aren't about to lose the support of Europe and North America in the foreseeable future, Britain really isn't in the position of having to handle any military threat alone. Things could change, and if they did change then by all means ramp up military spending, but at the moment there's no need to.

[Seriphyn]

In regard to the scrapping of harriers, I do believe they are going to replace them with those JSFs that the Americans will also soon be using?

Anyway, I am in favour of a proficient military, just to show 'rogue' countries they can't mess about with the freedoms of their own people or the sovereignty of other nations.

Cutting back Challenger 2 tanks seems wierd though...given they are kickass tanks if I'm not mistaken. We don't even have that many compared to some countries that have thousands of tanks (we have like 380 or something)...then again as it was pointed out, it's quality over quantity these days.

[Splush]

If somebody knows the names of specific planes/tanks/guns that our army is or is not using, I kind of assume they're military fetishists who love big armies and big wars because they think war is well wicked!!.

Does this make me a bad person?

[richardn111]

Cutting back Challenger 2 tanks seems wierd though...given they are kickass tanks if I'm not mistaken. We don't even have that many compared to some countries that have thousands of tanks (we have like 380 or something)...then again as it was pointed out, it's quality over quantity these days.

That does seem very odd, they are possibly the best tanks available to any military in the world, I'm only aware of one ever being breached once*
Not too sure but this is to my knowledge...

If somebody knows the names of specific planes/tanks/guns that our army is or is not using, I kind of assume they're military fetishists who love big armies and big wars because they think war is well wicked!!.
Or maybe they just work in a military environment? I do, I work at RNAS Culdrose but it doesn't mean I'm a war loving maniac. It just means I couldn't be bothered to go to uni...

[da-geezer]

I work at RNAS Culdrose

Poor bugger, I suppose someone has to though ;)

Bear in mind though, if "defence cuts" occur within the MoD, it's not always the frontline forces that get hammered. The MoD is an umbrella for many different agencies - of which I'm lucky(?) enough to work for one of many.

Check this badboy A-Z list out (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AZIndex/), these are generally the ones with budget-cut targets on their head.

[Splush]

Or maybe they just work in a military environment? I do, I work at RNAS Culdrose but it doesn't mean I'm a war loving maniac. It just means I couldn't be bothered to go to uni...
This is a reasonable excuse, you get a pass. :)

I just feel like sometimes people have warped ideas about the sort of military we should have because they are personally enthusiastic about the military, a bit like people who are enthusiastic about astronomy and think all our money should be spent on space telescopes instead of healthcare.

[Pie hunter D]

I don't follow your argument. Of course not every country is in the UN or NATO but there's more than enough countries with sizeable militaries in those organisations that any conflict can be fought multilaterally without the need for any one military superpower to take care of things alone.

Being part of NATO means that if the UK is attacked our fellow members are duty-bound to intervene, and vice versa. With an arrangement like that there's really no need for us to have a massive standing army, because we know that most of europe and north america have us covered in the event that we're attacked. We have a responsibility to have a standing army, certainly, I'm just saying we don't need one that's ready to face any threat alone.

There's always going to be wars breaking out around the world, but we aren't about to lose the support of Europe and North America in the foreseeable future, Britain really isn't in the position of having to handle any military threat alone. Things could change, and if they did change then by all means ramp up military spending, but at the moment there's no need to.

There are alliances ,sure, But a point I made was that everyone has their own agenda. Sinister sounding but 100% truth. The amount of "secret wars" that go on would probably astound you.

Also, knowing the name of vehicles/weapons/aircraft etc. Did it ever occur to you some people might work with these things :p

Ed* jumped the gun on point B

[Splush]

I've never doubted the amount of secret wars going on, I've read a fair bit about the wars America is involved in, I just don't know how it's relevant. And I understand that everybody has their own agenda, the implication being that countries within NATO might turn on us, but there's so many countries in NATO that several of them would have to all turn on us at once which seems like a huge stretch to me. After all, if there's two-faced countries in NATO waiting to pounce on a country that cuts back on its military, why is nobody pouncing on countries like Denmark with relatively tiny standing armies? Why do Iceland feel secure having no armed forces at all? It's because they're in NATO and have a specific defence agreement with the US.

I appreciate plenty of people have reasons to know about the military, and I'm not knocking it as a hobby or anything, I'm just saying it might cloud peoples judgement. To be fair I have met plenty of these creepy civilians who know a little too much about the military and get a little too excited about war.

[gembird]

I've been holding back from saying anything about this, because I feel that i don't know much about it, but since Splush has brought it up:

Some countries have little or no armed forces, but clearly there isn't a problem with that. My personal view on that is, if you don't go around poking your nose into conflicts elsewhere, you don't have to worry about people taking it the wrong way and trying to wage war on you. Obviously it isn't that simple though. I think that perhaps some countries in an organisation like NATO feel safer because countries like the US and the UK have relatively large armies and so on, so to reduce things too much would make a lot of people in politics slightly uneasy.

However, I do feel that as our forces are often deployed in peacekeeping roles we should be concentrating on keeping numbers of soldiers up and making sure they have everything they need to be safe on the ground rather than things used in actual warfare. So reductions in battleships etc shouldn't be a problem as we're not using them that much- their upkeep probably costs nearly as much when they're not in service as it does when they are, as they're deteriorating all the time.

[GorillaBearBear]

The last time the UK did a major scale down of the services was between 1979-81 when they got rid of ice breakers, several aircraft carriers and destroyers, next year was the Falklands war which we won by the skin of our teeth. You never know whats just around the corner which is why you should never just assume that one "age" of warfare is over.

I would just like to point out that a war Argentina never actually expected would happen and they started purely to gain some muh needed internal support, which we won in something like 6 weeks, and in which we suffered something like 1/6th of the casualties that Argentina suffered is hardly winning "by the skin of our teeth." It never seemed like a particularly Pyrrhic victory to me.

Other than that Splush has essentially said everything I would have wanted to say.

[JimmywiT]

Well I would say I know a hell of a lot about the Falklands, and it was a lot closer that you would imagine. We lost 258 men, the argentines 649. BUT 323 of those were on the belgrano. We lost all our choppers when the Atlantic Conveyer went down, it if any of those exocets had hit the ark royal instead of the destroyer pickets around it, No airpower - lose.

But that’s beside the point. I believe we need to maintain our armed forces, as I genuinely believe the world will soon be becoming a much more dangerous place due to oil running out, overpopulation, the Russians throwing their weight around again, plus our commitments in the Middle East. I think it is ridiculous that we don’t even have a proper aircraft carrier at the moment. You never know when all hell is going to break loose. Sorry if that sounds paranoid but it has happened plenty of times in the past.

[Pie hunter D]

Well I would say I know a hell of a lot about the Falklands, and it was a lot closer that you would imagine. We lost 258 men, the argentines 649. BUT 323 of those were on the belgrano. We lost all our choppers when the Atlantic Conveyer went down, it if any of those exocets had hit the ark royal instead of the destroyer pickets around it, No airpower - lose.

But that’s beside the point. I believe we need to maintain our armed forces, as I genuinely believe the world will soon be becoming a much more dangerous place due to oil running out, overpopulation, the Russians throwing their weight around again, plus our commitments in the Middle East. I think it is ridiculous that we don’t even have a proper aircraft carrier at the moment. You never know when all hell is going to break loose. Sorry if that sounds paranoid but it has happened plenty of times in the past.


I actually tend to agree with this. It's probably a bit biast having lived the millitary life etc but I suppose that kind of opens your eyes a bit more, I dunno.

I hear all the points you're making Splush, and they're good ones. You have to ask yourself how long things will remain like that though. It's a changing climate. Not to say theres going to be a cataclysmic event anytime soon, maybe there will, maybe there won't. Wouldn't you rather be prepared for any eventuallity?

I agree about the War enthusiasts though, some are just plain creepy.

[Splush]

I hear all the points you're making Splush, and they're good ones. You have to ask yourself how long things will remain like that though. It's a changing climate. Not to say theres going to be a cataclysmic event anytime soon, maybe there will, maybe there won't. Wouldn't you rather be prepared for any eventuallity?
But what if you apply that logic to other public expenditures to accommodate for things that might happen, despite being unlikely in the foreseeable future? Maybe buy 60 million hospital beds just in case everybody in the country gets sick at the same time? Maybe park a fire engine on the end of every street to minimise response times? With our enormous standing army, our own personal hospital beds and friendly local fire engines we'd feel very secure, but we'd also be wasting a tremendous amount of money on unneeded services.

It's just not financially sensible to be fully prepared for every possible eventuality, you've got to make educated guesses of what's likely to happen in the foreseeable future. Admittedly I don't think any of us are really informed enough to make those guesses about possible future wars, that's really a job for people in military intelligence, but from my layman's perspective it looks like we're very secure for the time being. We're not secure against terrorist bombings, but an army can't do much to prevent those, and the idea of an actual military attack on the UK seems absurd to me. The geopolitical climate would have to change dramatically for that to be a risk, and those changes would surely be obvious enough to get us to start building up the armed forces.

Besides, haven't we shown in the previous world wars that we can rustle up a pretty formidable army in good time if the situation demands it?

[Pie hunter D]

Touche'

Thats an outstanding point. I think you really sumised everything by saying we're all basically laymen that really aren't clued up on the possibility of eventuallity, or indeed the true current status of events. It's pretty funny actually, with this point in hand the whole argument just implodes.

You think too much man...

What's the meaning of life? :p

[Splush]

Heh, I was thinking that as I wrote it. Lots of debates seem to come down to that, none of us normal people are really privy to the information that actually matters so we're just wasting each others' time :)

The meaning of life is arguing on the internet!

[Pie hunter D]

Thats deep. I have a lot more respect for Splush, he's now my personal Yoda.

I'm not carrying you on my back though, fuck that.