Scrapping the Armed Forces

[Rupert_Baehr]

Fair comment. If the purposes of the Armed Forces are:

(a) To defend the United Kingdom and

(b) To allow the UK to make a proportional contribution to NATO (with heavy emphasis on the word 'proportional')

then any defence review should start with a detailed analysis of what you need to do with the Armed Forces, not what would look good.

 

The UK:

has the largest army in Europe

has the 3rd largest Army in NATO (numerically - but in terms of efficiency and power, the 2nd largest.)

ranks No 3 (or 4) globally in expenditure as a percentage of GDP (and if it doesn't start producing more of that, it will go up even higher in the ranking.)

 

On top of that, it's broke. The interest on the debt incurred by Labour is more than the total defence budget, let alone the savings Cameron thinks he's going to make.

[Rupert_Baehr]

An armed invasion from the Channel Islands ? We could probably hold them at bay for a little while.

 

You want to bet? - You didn't do so well last time!

 

Channel Islanders are obliged to fight (it's not voluntary ) on 3 occasions:

 

1. To protect the person of the Duke of Normandy

2. To protect the family of the Duke of Normandy

3. To invade England - Should it ever be necessary again.

 

Having said that, you might be right. - The Channel Islanders have a huge problem with immigrants who almost certainly wouldn't be interested in fighting for the Duke of Normandy. - Most of the younger Islanders leave...though since a number of them join their Duke's Armed Forces - you might be in for a surprise:hihi:

[truman]

So, hypothetically, for the moment - Argentina invade the Falklands again in 2011, what's our next move given the recent defence cuts?

 

Don't we have a small garrison there? With the option of a Joint Rapid Response Force to re-inforce it..?

[pcspb1]

Don't we have a small garrison there? With the option of a Joint Rapid Response Force to re-inforce it..?

 

Small garrison - and that will last how long? We have four fast jets and c2000 personnel.

 

As for the JRRF:

 

The JRRF is essentially the fighting force that PJHQ has immediately available. The JRRF provides a force for rapid deployment operations using a core operational group of the Army's 16th Air Assault Brigade and the Royal Navy's 3rd Commando Brigade, supported by a wide range of air and maritime assets including the Joint Force Harrier and the Joint Helicopter Command.

 

Since Operation Telic (Iraq) commenced the High Readiness Brigade has been routinely deployed to Iraq, and has therefore been unavailable to the JRRF

 

Quotes from HERE

 

We don't have Harriers any more, nor do we have an in-service carrier to transport the Helicopters and personnel...

[truman]

Small garrison - and that will last how long? We have four fast jets and c2000 personnel.

 

As for the JRRF:

 

 

 

 

 

Quotes from HERE

 

We don't have Harriers any more, nor do we have an in-service carrier to transport the Helicopters and personnel...

 

I suppose the infantry there will have anti aircraft units...we could comandeer merchant ships to transport the helis and personnel (as we did in the conflict there..Atlantic Conveyer etc) all hypothetical of course..

[Mecky]

What did mr Forehead say? Something like, "The size of the economy dictates the size of the armed forces and vice versa."

 

That doesn't make any sense at all and is another fine example of why a General Election should be called immediately.

[Rupert_Baehr]

In the future, if something like the Falklands conflict was to re-emerge, what would we have to defend it with?

 

We couldn't rapidly deploy our depleted forces en-masse, like we did historically.

 

We now have neither have the hardware, nor manpower, to react to such a perceived threat.

 

Argentina has recently asked the U.N. to broker talks on the Falkland Islands future. And there is no wonder, it all comes down to the black stuff.

 

Argentinian claims will intensify if large deposits of oil are found – geologists estimate that up to 60bn barrels of oil and gas could lie in Falklands waters, putting the region on a par with the North Sea.

 

I, for one, know where this will lead if the 60bn barrels estimate is proven. After all, Sovereignty over the islands is still claimed by both London and Buenos Aires.

 

So, hypothetically, for the moment - Argentina invade the Falklands again in 2011, what's our next move given the recent defence cuts?

 

Where do you envision your conflict which would be 'something like the Falklands conflict'?

 

A future conflict in the Falklands would be nothing like the previous Falklands conflict.

 

1. The Argentinians have not been led to believe that the UK is not interested in the Falklands.

2. The Falklands already have air defence - Both Typhoons and C130s carrying out Maritime Radar Reconnaissance.

3. Ascension Island is a fully operational staging post. The Airbridge has been running for 28 years.

 

Why do you think the proposed defence cuts would make it impossible to defend the Falklands? - The lack of a large merchant fleet which could be used to move manpower and materiel down South would have some effect - though that has nothing to do with the defence cuts.

 

At the time of the Falklands conflict, the government had sold off the RAF's heavy lift capacity (the Belfast fleet.) The RAF now has C17As and TriStars - and the Airbridge is quicker than surface reinforcement - albeit expensive.

[Mecky]

So what sort of conflict do you reckon we should gear up for?

 

 

I don't know if it has escaped your notice but the war has been going on for well over a thousand years and will carry on throughout eternity.

[JFKvsNixon]

Lets face a few facts here.

 

The Harrier that the government is scrapping is the ground attack Harrier with a very limited air to air capability, it was barely able to defend itself against another fighter let alone a carrier battle group against air attack. The air to air version of the Harrier was retired 4 years ago, so as such nothing has changed in capability.

 

It makes perfect sense to scrap an Aircraft carrier that had no fighters to fly of it.

 

The Aircraft carriers were due to be finished when the new JSF the F-35 Lightning II was due to come in service, but delays in the developments has pushed back the date that the planes are due to come into service.

[mj.scuba]

Lets face a few facts here.

 

The Harrier that the government is scrapping is the ground attack Harrier with a very limited air to air capability, it was barely able to defend itself against another fighter let alone a carrier battle group against air attack. The air to air version of the Harrier was retired 4 years ago, so as such nothing has changed in capability.

 

It makes perfect sense to scrap an Aircraft carrier that had no fighters to fly of it.

 

The Aircraft carriers were due to be finished when the new JSF the F-35 Lightning II was due to come in service, but delays in the developments has pushed back the date that the planes are due to come into service.

 

Given the nature of defence projects and inevitable delays, one was always going to arrive before the other. Since they're still building the carriers, there's still scope for delays in that project yet, so could still arrive much nearer the time when the jets are ready.