By: Turbinia
- 30th August 2006 at 08:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem is it's not just the escort vessels, it's the air group. Now some reports indicate the UK JSF buy will be around 80 aircraft, which means that the RAF/FAA will probably not be able to deploy two full air groups unless the intended air group is reduced significantly.
By: Fedaykin
- 30th August 2006 at 08:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Enlighten me! :rolleyes: Are you saying its too expensive, waste of resources, not needed or what? :confused:
FLY NAVY :cool:
No I think the carrier's are essential what makes me feel glum is the constant avoidance by the MOD of commiting to them.
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 30th August 2006 at 17:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have no problem with a countries armed forces being run down in the way in which the UK's have been and still are as long as the politicians giving the orders realise what they are doing. Unfortunately the case with the UK is that those in power over stretch the armed forces and put lives at risk just to staisfy their own egos. If you want a coastal defence force then so be it but just remember that is all it is.
New
By: Anonymous
- 30th August 2006 at 17:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem is it's not just the escort vessels, it's the air group. Now some reports indicate the UK JSF buy will be around 80 aircraft, which means that the RAF/FAA will probably not be able to deploy two full air groups unless the intended air group is reduced significantly.
It's my understand that the UK is going to purchase 150 F-35B's..........
New
By: Anonymous
- 30th August 2006 at 17:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No I think the carrier's are essential what makes me feel glum is the constant avoidance by the MOD of commiting to them.
Same problem here......................if the politians could just keep there nose out of our business! :mad:
By: Doug97
- 30th August 2006 at 18:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have no problem with a countries armed forces being run down in the way in which the UK's have been and still are as long as the politicians giving the orders realise what they are doing. Unfortunately the case with the UK is that those in power over stretch the armed forces and put lives at risk just to staisfy their own egos. If you want a coastal defence force then so be it but just remember that is all it is.
That's exactly how I feel ... one minute they're slashing the defence budget yet again, the next they're declaring war on someone new. It's like they're trying to see how far they can go without paying before they get caught (and by caught I mean embroiled in a disaster brought about by being spread too thin).
New
By: Anonymous
- 30th August 2006 at 23:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am sure most Americans have know idea that the US Military is "Forced" to purchase equipment that the Services don't want or need every year!!!! I have no doubt its the same the world over........ :(
New
Posts: 114
By: RonOO
- 31st August 2006 at 01:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Latest (June) number for UK F-35's is 136.
New
By: Anonymous
- 31st August 2006 at 01:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Latest (June) number for UK F-35's is 136.
I wouldn't be surprised if that number goes up dramatically with time! Regardless, 136 F-35's is more than enough for two Carrier Airwings. Especially, considering two are rarely at sea at given time....... :rolleyes:
By: Turbinia
- 31st August 2006 at 14:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The MoD is already softening us up for big budget cuts via off the record briefings and leaks and they're drip feeding leaks which indicate the F35 buy will be heavily cut along with a lot of other programs. With the budget pressures right across the government, the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan and various high profile programs escalating wildly there is going to be major cuts right across government IMO and defence is always a prime target when the government is looking to economise. Friends of mine still in the RAF are telling me they're now thinking the F35 buy will be a lot smaller and that 80 has been mentioned.
New
By: Anonymous
- 31st August 2006 at 15:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Friends of mine still in the RAF are telling me they're now thinking the F35 buy will be a lot smaller and that 80 has been mentioned.
The RAF would say that, because they don't want the CVF to go ahead. They'd prefer the money is spent on them and the RN become a glorified coastguard. So don't trust what you hear unless it's an official statement - everyone in the services has good cause to exaggerate.
By: Turbinia
- 31st August 2006 at 17:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only partly true, don't forget the F35 will also be an RAF aircraft and they themselves want the F35 badly. There are also rumours about helicopter, Eurofighter and transport numbers too if the government budget targets defence again as the easiest department to take cuts. Another factor is that the army needs quite a bit of emergency funding related to Afghanistan and Iraq, new APC's and vehicles and personal equipment etc. which is eating into the new equipment budget.
By: Rob L
- 31st August 2006 at 18:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't think the UK government can be that stupid. To cut the defence budget in the current situation is madness. Besides I thought the 1 Billion Pounds cut had been denied by Drayson.
By: Super Nimrod
- 31st August 2006 at 18:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According to the letter Des Browne sent to the Guardian yesterday, the defence budget is increasing well above the rate of inflation. He did imply though that some budgets were having to be temporarily cut and others increased. I guess the MOD is no different to any other large organisation in that respect
By: Turbinia
- 1st September 2006 at 13:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You also have to look at price inflation in military equipment, which has far outstripped the general inflation rate in the UK.
New
By: Anonymous
- 2nd September 2006 at 15:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only partly true, don't forget the F35 will also be an RAF aircraft and they themselves want the F35 badly.
Exactly. They want the F-35s all for themselves on top of the Typhoon. What better way to do that than to talk down CVF and F-35 numbers?
"CVF? Well it won't work because there won't be enough JSFs for it. Much better just to give them to the RAF and save the money on a pointless project. After all, these days, who needs a navy when you have an airforce?"
New
By: Anonymous
- 2nd September 2006 at 15:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't think the UK government can be that stupid. To cut the defence budget in the current situation is madness. Besides I thought the 1 Billion Pounds cut had been denied by Drayson.
Well spending on the NHS is planned to be a lot lower than in recent years, so that should take pressure off the MoD for cuts. Also Brown has been putting a lot of stock into military projects recently, so cutting the budget would lose him the benefit of that. That doesn't mean he's going to give it a big increase, but it isn't true he hates the military and wants it massively cut - certainly not any more. If there's anyone to blame, it's Tony Blair by sending our lads off around the world without ensuring they had a proper budget increase.
Plus having Des Browne as SoS is useful, as his Treasury experience means he knows how best to manipulate the bean-counters.
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 28th August 2006 at 01:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe i am, but when you boil it down it's enough to make me feel a bit glum.
By: Anonymous - 30th August 2006 at 02:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Enlighten me! :rolleyes: Are you saying its too expensive, waste of resources, not needed or what? :confused:
FLY NAVY :cool:
Posts: 847
By: Turbinia - 30th August 2006 at 08:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem is it's not just the escort vessels, it's the air group. Now some reports indicate the UK JSF buy will be around 80 aircraft, which means that the RAF/FAA will probably not be able to deploy two full air groups unless the intended air group is reduced significantly.
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 30th August 2006 at 08:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No I think the carrier's are essential what makes me feel glum is the constant avoidance by the MOD of commiting to them.
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 30th August 2006 at 17:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have no problem with a countries armed forces being run down in the way in which the UK's have been and still are as long as the politicians giving the orders realise what they are doing. Unfortunately the case with the UK is that those in power over stretch the armed forces and put lives at risk just to staisfy their own egos. If you want a coastal defence force then so be it but just remember that is all it is.
By: Anonymous - 30th August 2006 at 17:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's my understand that the UK is going to purchase 150 F-35B's..........
By: Anonymous - 30th August 2006 at 17:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Same problem here......................if the politians could just keep there nose out of our business! :mad:
Posts: 417
By: Doug97 - 30th August 2006 at 18:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's exactly how I feel ... one minute they're slashing the defence budget yet again, the next they're declaring war on someone new. It's like they're trying to see how far they can go without paying before they get caught (and by caught I mean embroiled in a disaster brought about by being spread too thin).
By: Anonymous - 30th August 2006 at 23:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am sure most Americans have know idea that the US Military is "Forced" to purchase equipment that the Services don't want or need every year!!!! I have no doubt its the same the world over........ :(
Posts: 114
By: RonOO - 31st August 2006 at 01:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Latest (June) number for UK F-35's is 136.
By: Anonymous - 31st August 2006 at 01:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wouldn't be surprised if that number goes up dramatically with time! Regardless, 136 F-35's is more than enough for two Carrier Airwings. Especially, considering two are rarely at sea at given time....... :rolleyes:
Posts: 847
By: Turbinia - 31st August 2006 at 14:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The MoD is already softening us up for big budget cuts via off the record briefings and leaks and they're drip feeding leaks which indicate the F35 buy will be heavily cut along with a lot of other programs. With the budget pressures right across the government, the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan and various high profile programs escalating wildly there is going to be major cuts right across government IMO and defence is always a prime target when the government is looking to economise. Friends of mine still in the RAF are telling me they're now thinking the F35 buy will be a lot smaller and that 80 has been mentioned.
By: Anonymous - 31st August 2006 at 15:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The RAF would say that, because they don't want the CVF to go ahead. They'd prefer the money is spent on them and the RN become a glorified coastguard. So don't trust what you hear unless it's an official statement - everyone in the services has good cause to exaggerate.
Posts: 847
By: Turbinia - 31st August 2006 at 17:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only partly true, don't forget the F35 will also be an RAF aircraft and they themselves want the F35 badly. There are also rumours about helicopter, Eurofighter and transport numbers too if the government budget targets defence again as the easiest department to take cuts. Another factor is that the army needs quite a bit of emergency funding related to Afghanistan and Iraq, new APC's and vehicles and personal equipment etc. which is eating into the new equipment budget.
Posts: 629
By: Rob L - 31st August 2006 at 18:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't think the UK government can be that stupid. To cut the defence budget in the current situation is madness. Besides I thought the 1 Billion Pounds cut had been denied by Drayson.
Posts: 1,039
By: Super Nimrod - 31st August 2006 at 18:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According to the letter Des Browne sent to the Guardian yesterday, the defence budget is increasing well above the rate of inflation. He did imply though that some budgets were having to be temporarily cut and others increased. I guess the MOD is no different to any other large organisation in that respect
Posts: 847
By: Turbinia - 1st September 2006 at 13:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You also have to look at price inflation in military equipment, which has far outstripped the general inflation rate in the UK.
By: Anonymous - 2nd September 2006 at 15:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Exactly. They want the F-35s all for themselves on top of the Typhoon. What better way to do that than to talk down CVF and F-35 numbers?
"CVF? Well it won't work because there won't be enough JSFs for it. Much better just to give them to the RAF and save the money on a pointless project. After all, these days, who needs a navy when you have an airforce?"
By: Anonymous - 2nd September 2006 at 15:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well spending on the NHS is planned to be a lot lower than in recent years, so that should take pressure off the MoD for cuts. Also Brown has been putting a lot of stock into military projects recently, so cutting the budget would lose him the benefit of that. That doesn't mean he's going to give it a big increase, but it isn't true he hates the military and wants it massively cut - certainly not any more. If there's anyone to blame, it's Tony Blair by sending our lads off around the world without ensuring they had a proper budget increase.
Plus having Des Browne as SoS is useful, as his Treasury experience means he knows how best to manipulate the bean-counters.
Posts: 629
By: Rob L - 2nd September 2006 at 16:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agreed.