[Wild Horses]

(Original post by jtnf)
Not quite sure how much sense it makes to reduce our armed forces so drastically. Wouldn't it have been better to reduce the Navy rather than the Army considering Afghanistan (and other such countries) are hot, dry, and land locked? Although I admit I don't know exactly what the Navy's role in Afghanistan is, apart from that of the Royal Marines.

Philip Hammond seems to be a penny pinching politician who knows absolutely nothing about military matters. I would take him about 67x more seriously if he had actually been in the forces and therefore had first hand experience of the people/equipment he is in charge of. If there was a major threat to the UK in the next 5-10 years, what exactly would HM Government do? I'm sure the remaining 82,000 people in the Army wouldn't all be infantry and wouldn't all be able to deploy at the same time. I guess we'll have to go running to America or (urgh) Europe depending on where the threat comes from.

I understand that cuts have to be made in order for us as a country to be living within our means but I seriously doubt whether the cuts to the armed forces have actually been properly thought out or whether several high powered people have simply sat in a Whitehall office with a dartboard and a few darts.

Not 100% why the Scottish regiments seem to have got off so lightly without being cut. Why didn't the Army just take people who volunteered for redundancy up on the offer rather than making people I know redundant when they didn't want to be? The whole thing seems to be a bit of a mess to me.

I'm hoping to join in a few years, so for now I'm crossing my fingers that they leave the AMS well alone.

It's not just afghanistan you got to worry about so cutting the navy will also be a problem later on in the future if stuff kicks off elsewhere.

Good luck in the future I'm looking to get out the service soon.

[Wild Horses]

(Original post by Sephiroth)
We should cut the defence budget to 0 and only spend enough to maintain our nuclear arsenal. That's all the defence we need really.

That's the silliest reply so you got negged!

A Quote from the film Crimson Tide : "I just think that in the nuclear world the true enemy can't be destroyed...In my humble opinion, in the nuclear world, the true enemy is war itself" - Hunter

[ajp100688]

(Original post by jtnf)
Not quite sure how much sense it makes to reduce our armed forces so drastically. Wouldn't it have been better to reduce the Navy rather than the Army considering Afghanistan (and other such countries) are hot, dry, and land locked? Although I admit I don't know exactly what the Navy's role in Afghanistan is, apart from that of the Royal Marines.

Philip Hammond seems to be a penny pinching politician who knows absolutely nothing about military matters. I would take him about 67x more seriously if he had actually been in the forces and therefore had first hand experience of the people/equipment he is in charge of. If there was a major threat to the UK in the next 5-10 years, what exactly would HM Government do? I'm sure the remaining 82,000 people in the Army wouldn't all be infantry and wouldn't all be able to deploy at the same time. I guess we'll have to go running to America or (urgh) Europe depending on where the threat comes from.

I understand that cuts have to be made in order for us as a country to be living within our means but I seriously doubt whether the cuts to the armed forces have actually been properly thought out or whether several high powered people have simply sat in a Whitehall office with a dartboard and a few darts.

Not 100% why the Scottish regiments seem to have got off so lightly without being cut. Why didn't the Army just take people who volunteered for redundancy up on the offer rather than making people I know redundant when they didn't want to be? The whole thing seems to be a bit of a mess to me.

I'm hoping to join in a few years, so for now I'm crossing my fingers that they leave the AMS well alone.

I would suggest that the Scots regiments have avoided cuts because of the need to appease Scottish voters before the independence referendum. If we start cutting regiments up there then Salmond will kick off and start attacking the Sassenach and probably get some votes as a result. Even though an independent Scotland would have to cut most of it's regiments that currently serve in the British Army but politics is a short term game because the public never looks beyond the short term and Salmond isn't adverse to lying and deceiving.

(Original post by MancStudent098)
Does it matter? We're part of a military alliance that comprises something like 70% of the world's military power. The only nation which looks capable of building serious overseas power projection in the next 50 years is China and it's on quite literally the other side of the world. We are also one of the very few nations in the world to have an effective, modern arsenal of nuclear weapons. Is cutting the size of the Army going to make any practical difference to how secure the UK is?

Not really. India is the world's largest importer of military hardware and will only increase in military power as it's economic wealth increases and China ramps up it's military power. Russia is currently throwing literally billions of dollars of oil money at it's army to upgrade to a modern army and is semi professionalising the Army at the same time. So that's three powers that are going to rise over the next 50 years, two are which are quite hostile to us (India being the exception). About the only rising power that isn't greatly interested in being a great military power is Brazil and that's due to it's history of military coups and it's geographic location.

Plus you have to remember that Great Power conflicts are hardly the main cause of military action these days. Our focuses are much more likely to be involved in counter terrorism/insurgency work, occupying lesser nations or in peacekeeping duties than they are fighting a full on war against another major power.

[Drewski]

(Original post by jtnf)
Not quite sure how much sense it makes to reduce our armed forces so drastically. Wouldn't it have been better to reduce the Navy rather than the Army considering Afghanistan (and other such countries) are hot, dry, and land locked? Although I admit I don't know exactly what the Navy's role in Afghanistan is, apart from that of the Royal Marines.

The first UK Force that went into Afghanistan at the start of our action there was RN. And if you intend on joining the military medical services, you'll soon find out that just about every unit is joint forces, with personnel from the Army, the RAF and the RN sharing the duties.

[jtnf]

(Original post by Drewski)
The first UK Force that went into Afghanistan at the start of our action there was RN. And if you intend on joining the military medical services, you'll soon find out that just about every unit is joint forces, with personnel from the Army, the RAF and the RN sharing the duties.

Like I said, I didn't know what their role was. Thanks for informing me

[MancStudent098]

(Original post by ajp100688)
x

Find it a little bit concerning that you describe 'occupying lesser nations' as a reason to need a strong military.

Russia is probably the only nation that I would concede has sufficient geographic proximity, size and inclination to present a serious conventional militarily threat to us, but it's really an issue for NATO to handle as a whole. Let's be honest in the extremely unlikely event of an actual conventional war our conventional forces would have very limited impact compared to those of Poland or Germany. Plus Russia only actually spends slightly more than either us or France individually on defence - and that has to cover its entire vast territory.

As for the last bit I don't think we need a big military to do counter terrorism or peacekeeping. Nor does it need to be particularly well equipped. We might have to bin the idea of operations of the type and scale of Afghanistan and Iraq, but tbh I think most people would acknowledge that as a good thing.

[Drewski]

(Original post by MancStudent098)
Find it a little bit concerning that you describe 'occupying lesser nations' as a reason to need a strong military.

Russia is probably the only nation that I would concede has sufficient geographic proximity, size and inclination to present a serious conventional militarily threat to us, but it's really an issue for NATO to handle as a whole. Let's be honest in the extremely unlikely event of an actual conventional war our conventional forces would have very limited impact compared to those of Poland or Germany. Plus Russia only actually spends slightly more than either us or France individually on defence - and that has to cover its entire vast territory.

As for the last bit I don't think we need a big military to do counter terrorism or peacekeeping. Nor does it need to be particularly well equipped. We might have to bin the idea of operations of the type and scale of Afghanistan and Iraq, but tbh I think most people would acknowledge that as a good thing.

Bold bit is quite debatable... but a topic for another thread, not this one.

As for the last statement... yeah, most would agree that we shouldn't do that kind of thing, certainly not if following the mould of what went before, but that does not mean our Forces won't get used for those kind of actions. The various Governments of the last 10-15yrs have all said they wanted to cut the Forces, to use them less across the world and only when of necessity... but then there they are throwing them at every problem. It's all well and good our Gov talking a good game, but then they change their mind and send them across the world despite the cuts. Those two actions don't add up.

[ajp100688]

(Original post by MancStudent098)
Find it a little bit concerning that you describe 'occupying lesser nations' as a reason to need a strong military.

Russia is probably the only nation that I would concede has sufficient geographic proximity, size and inclination to present a serious conventional militarily threat to us, but it's really an issue for NATO to handle as a whole. Let's be honest in the extremely unlikely event of an actual conventional war our conventional forces would have very limited impact compared to those of Poland or Germany. Plus Russia only actually spends slightly more than either us or France individually on defence - and that has to cover its entire vast territory.

As for the last bit I don't think we need a big military to do counter terrorism or peacekeeping. Nor does it need to be particularly well equipped. We might have to bin the idea of operations of the type and scale of Afghanistan and Iraq, but tbh I think most people would acknowledge that as a good thing.

I didn't state that was a good reason for the military being there but it's what it's been used for in the past 15 years. Iraq, Kosovo/Serbia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq. Some of those occupations have resulted in real successes Kosovo/Serbia (under a multilateral umbrella) and Sierra Leone (solely British), others have resulted in questionable results. The 'lesser countries' comment wasn't a shot at those countries, it was comparing them to the Great Powers. We never know when the future we might need to invade a country to topple a dictator or to stop genocide or whatever and then need to maintain a presence there for a couple of years or whatever.

Yes Russia only spends slightly more than us at the moment but it's going to be massively increasing it's military expenditure as I said earlier. Putin has promised an extra $20bn for the Armed Forces, so long as oil prices hold up...which they more than likely will. For reference that's an increase of a full third of the UK's budget ($60b). Furthermore the British and French militaries aren't one, so it's a strange comparison to make, especially as NATO only covers Europe (thus why it wasn't activated when Argentina attacked us). We don't have a European Army yet nor a NATO one, so the national forces are important. Regardless in NATO and outside of North America, only the UK, France, Germany and Turkey have any substantial forces, the rest freeride totally, so you can't suggest we can reduce our forces and others will pick up the bill because they really won't. Nations like Italy and Spain are quite happy spending substantially less on their armed forces and hiding under the primarily USA/Canada/UK/France/Germany/Turkey lead NATO umbrella.

[Studentus-anonymous]

Army 2020? It should be called 'The Rent's Too Damn High!'.


Really though the army has been over-emphasised past decade, defence budget should be spent on navy then airforce.

Army should be relegated to territorial defence force.

[jtnf]

(Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
Really though the army has been over-emphasised past decade, defence budget should be spent on navy then airforce.

Army should be relegated to territorial defence force.

Why?

[Drewski]

(Original post by jtnf)
Why?

Because with a strict definition of the term 'defence' then our interests are best served by an expansive Navy - we are an island after all - and Air Force capable of covering our interests around the world, with a minimum strength Army for those hopefully rare land incursions.

Though that does ignore the element of the Royal Navy that would also be expanded - the Royal Marines, giving us potent amphibious/land forces without a big Army.

[Wild Horses]

(Original post by Drewski)
Because with a strict definition of the term 'defence' then our interests are best served by an expansive Navy - we are an island after all - and Air Force capable of covering our interests around the world, with a minimum strength Army for those hopefully rare land incursions.

Though that does ignore the element of the Royal Navy that would also be expanded - the Royal Marines, giving us potent amphibious/land forces without a big Army.

Damn, i can't rep you anymore...you keep hitting the nail on the head..are you in the forces by any chance?

[Drewski]

(Original post by Wild Horses)
Damn, i can't rep you anymore...you keep hitting the nail on the head..are you in the forces by any chance?

Used to be. Intelligence, RAF.

[MancStudent098]

(Original post by Drewski)
As for the last statement... yeah, most would agree that we shouldn't do that kind of thing, certainly not if following the mould of what went before, but that does not mean our Forces won't get used for those kind of actions. The various Governments of the last 10-15yrs have all said they wanted to cut the Forces, to use them less across the world and only when of necessity... but then there they are throwing them at every problem. It's all well and good our Gov talking a good game, but then they change their mind and send them across the world despite the cuts. Those two actions don't add up.

Have to say I agree with this paragraph, of course my solution would be to stop sending them to conflicts that there's no good reason to fight, but I more than sympathise with Armed forces that are told they don't need as much funding while they're engaged in a continuous series of overseas conflicts.

[Wild Horses]

(Original post by Drewski)
Used to be. Intelligence, RAF.

Oh wow i'm army and working with griffin

[Drewski]

(Original post by MancStudent098)
Have to say I agree with this paragraph, of course my solution would be to stop sending them to conflicts that there's no good reason to fight, but I more than sympathise with Armed forces that are told they don't need as much funding while they're engaged in a continuous series of overseas conflicts.

Exactly. The Armed Forces have, over the last decade, seen a massive increase in the 'do more with less' mantra. To a point that works. But when you go past the breaking point you end up with people dying.

[Clip]

We've been reactive in defence planning...well forever, really. The Navy was in much worse shape than this before Peyps, so these things do tend to sort themselves out over time.

As for the Army - we still have the Army for the wrong war; and probably always will. We sent our Cold War "Russians are coming" Army to fight an amphibious infantry and naval battle in the Falklands. A slimmed-down Army with most of its experience in the South Atlantic and Ulster then went to the desert and fought the mother of all armoured battles.

Now we still have a lot of heavy armour, armoured infantry and anti-tank attack capability - and we're fighting a counter-insurgency. We're not even getting the Panzers out on a regular basis in A'stan - and our formation recce is zipping about in landrovers and jackals (where available).

So should our tankies and heavy cavalry draw down? I suppose so. Do we really need more than a couple of squadrons of big tanks? I suppose not. Should we re-think what cavalry does? I suppose so.

Infantry will always be short-handed, but we are fast running out of places to put what we do have - and there is a point that if we can't fill the spaces with British soldiers, and there are large numbers of Commonwealth soldiers - those battalions have problems.

I'm also not convinced we're at the minimum levels for some of the things that haven't been much use for decades now - air defence is one, and heavy batteries is another. MLRS got made illegal on the sub-munitions front, SPGs aren't going anywhere - it's the light batteries that are being worked to death.

But no doubt - we'll make these changes for a light, fast insurgency-fighting war force in hot and mountainous Afghanistan....and then find ourselves in ten or twenty years time fighting a conventional war in essentially temperate conditions in Korea, and wonder where all our tanks and air defence went.

[Drewski]

(Original post by Clip)
But no doubt - we'll make these changes for a light, fast insurgency-fighting war force in hot and mountainous Afghanistan....and then find ourselves in ten or twenty years time fighting a conventional war in essentially temperate conditions in Korea, and wonder where all our tanks and air defence went.

And therein lies the difficulty of Defence planning. You can speculate and speculate but at some point you've got to roll the dice.

[studiousgeek]

I think it is a good place to make cuts. Perhaps future governments will be less likely to start illegal wars in far-off lands if we don't have the troops to commit?

The UK already has the fourth largest defence budget globally and yet we are a small island nation in a stable region of the world. The purpose of war is for national defence, but we haven't fought to defend our territory since the Falklands; and that relied largely on the navy and air support not the army.

[ajp100688]

(Original post by Drewski)
Because with a strict definition of the term 'defence' then our interests are best served by an expansive Navy - we are an island after all - and Air Force capable of covering our interests around the world, with a minimum strength Army for those hopefully rare land incursions.

Though that does ignore the element of the Royal Navy that would also be expanded - the Royal Marines, giving us potent amphibious/land forces without a big Army.

Well yeah but that's a very narrow definition of 'defence'. That's just a reactionary 'we'll let crap go on outside and just wait until it bites us in the ass'. The problem is what occurs elsewhere in a globalised world has plenty of opportunity to affect us these days. Just like what happened in the 90s, when we sat around and let Yugoslavia tear itself to pieces because we couldn't be arsed, then both us and America half arsed attempts to get Bin Laden. The results of those decisions were genocide in Yugoslavia and 9/11. Another example of that would be the 'Glorious Isolation' of the late 19th century when we refused to interact with anything outside of the British Empire sitting behind our navy and when we finally stumbled out of that, we discovered the world had fundamentally changed to our detriment and had we had to shack up in a disastrous alliance with the French to offset what Germany had grown into while we hid behind our navy for nearly thirty years.

The navy could do sod all about a terrorist who has spent the last five years training in a failed state coming across and blowing up a dirty bomb in the centre of London. If we have evidence of such stuff happening abroad that directly affects our safety then we need an air force and army to tackle those threats. This isn't the 18th century anymore.

I think it is a good place to make cuts. Perhaps future governments will be less likely to start illegal wars in far-off lands if we don't have the troops to commit?

The UK already has the fourth largest defence budget globally and yet we are a small island nation in a stable region of the world. The purpose of war is for national defence, but we haven't fought to defend our territory since the Falklands; and that relied largely on the navy and air support not the army.

Iraq wasn't illegal, people need to get this nonsense out of their system and stop listening to the ranting ravers who ramble on about how we want to steal all the Middle East's oil. It might have been undesirable and distasteful to some but it was never illegal.