The UK Governments betrayal of the armed forces

[Douglas Nicol]

Ever since the infamous 1957 Sandys Defence White Paper, every succesive UK Government has run down the armed forces of this country. Some of this was the result of disarmament after WWII and the ending of the Empire, but every decade seems to bring more cutbacks to an armed forces increasingly in crisis.
THe list of screwups through the years is endless

The scrapping of HMS Ark Royal, and her sister ship HMS Eagle, who for many years served as little more than a source of spare parts for the former.

The SA-80 rifle. Theis piece of junk has no excuse for its poor performance, it was in development for many years.

I'll post more later.

[Hamblin]

Or the Falklands. That war wouldn't have gone so badly, had the Royal Navy not suffered severe cutbacks over the previous thirty or so years.

[Bob Dole Jr.]

Well, at least an atrophying military isn't purely an American problem.

[Ahab]

You know sorry to say this, but I'm no sue if this is serious or just poking fun at some of our members who are vocal about the US military.

[Hamblin]

I think it's just saying "Look how much worse it could be" to our US members.

[CT17]

At least I feel that Bush while decreasing our military's #s, is increasing quality.

For you UK people: is Tony Blair getting rid of older equipment in favor of new stuff, or is he just degrading the UK military in general?

[Ahab]

Tony Blair is just smiling no matter what he does. There we go. I'd been building up to make fun of Tony for a few weeks now. Good that its out of my system.

[CT17]

Originally posted by Ahab
Tony Blair is just smiling no matter what he does. There we go. I'd been building up to make fun of Tony for a few weeks now. Good that its out of my system.

What do the Brits here think of their PM?

[Meester Bond]

He's an idiot. Mind you, better him than "Bandwagon-a-minute Balding Hague" and his Crackpot Party.

[Hamblin]

Tony Blair is the best of a bad lot.

I heard nothing about the military during the recent general election campaign, but apparently, there were promises on both sides to not decrease the military budget any further.

For the Navy at least, we have only been getting rid of old equipment (The Destroyer HMS Birmingham was recently decommissioned, as was the Frigate HMS London. Both of these ships were the oldest active service ships of their respective classes).

Plus, we're planning brand new ships that, while not as great as they could be (Due to, you guessed it, a low budget), they are better than what we have now (The Type 45 Destroyer and the two Trimaran Aircraft Carriers are the ones I'm looking forward to).

Oh, and before I forget, while Birmingham and London were decommissioned, the Frigates HMS St. Albans, HMS Portland and the LPD HMS Albion have been commissioned over the last two years, the latter as the first of two ships (The second being HMS Bulwark, due to be commissioned in 2003) to replace the ageing HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid (the latter of which was decommissioned due to her poor condition, and probably high maintenance costs).

[CT17]

Good luck with your new carriers.

I just wish the US would get some new carriers, or at least improve defensive power of the ones we have.

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by Douglas Nicol
Ever since the infamous 1957 Sandys Defence White Paper, every succesive UK Government has run down the armed forces of this country.

It's amazing how where- and whenever you mention the Defense White Paper it never fails to piss people off. Even worse is looking at lists of projects that were cancelled by the government. Avro had almost finished a prtotype for a mach 2+ bomber in the 60s before the government slapped it down

Ho-hum... best to stop living in the past

[Hamblin]

Oh yeah, don't forget the CVA-01, and the Type 82 (Special Destroyers that were going to be designed, from the keel up, with the purpose of escorting the CVA-01's). The CVA-01's were going to be the most advanced Carriers of their day!

[Bryan]

Weren't the Brits working on some sort of DD-21-like destroyer? One with stealthy coolness and all that?

Anyway, I just saw some of Bush's budget plans. He wants to add $250 billion over the next 10 years to the DoD budget.

In 2011 that'll give the United states military a 560-580 billion dollar budget.

[CT17]

Originally posted by BigBryan

Anyway, I just saw some of Bush's budget plans. He wants to add $250 billion over the next 10 years to the DoD budget.

I'm not trying to criticize you, but what are your sources for that. I read in the paper that he just wants to up it by $18 mil. this next year.

[Hamblin]

Damned Defence White Paper! Grrrrrr!

Oh well...then again, I suppose there are more important things to spend that money on than the military.

[CT17]

I guess that attitude is better than not supporting the military at all.

[Vendetta]

Build more Battleships and Bi-planes I say!!

[Arachnid]

Originally posted by CT17
At least I feel that Bush while decreasing our military's #s, is increasing quality.

For you UK people: is Tony Blair getting rid of older equipment in favor of new stuff, or is he just degrading the UK military in general?

I believe that they are buying our new guns and we are buying their used Naval Vessels

[Douglas Nicol]

Okay, here is a list of more compromises and screwups.

The governments now are going for the cheapest of the cheap in many cases. The uniforms that were designed in the 80's to replace the older 58 pattern gear was pathetically flimsy. It was said that a child could tear a combat jacket in two. The boots which came in were crap, and the leather upper came away from the sole.

The TSR-2 bomber was designed to replace the V bobers, the Canberra and to last a while in service. This was cancelled. Many defence specialists believe that this aircraft was so far ahead of its time that it would still be in front line service today, filling the role of the Tornado. An interceptor variant was initially in the pipeline that would most likely have replaced the English Electric/BAC Lightning. This aircraft, although a fine design was forced to stay in service for many years longer than it was designed for.
When the TSR-2 was cancelled it was decided to buy American F-111 bombers whicch were still fairly new technology. Unfortunately, at that time, the F-111 still had teething problems and the order was cancelled.

As Hamblin has mentioned, the Falklands conflict, although a victory, did have British losses. No provision was made in British ship design at the time to defend against non Russian made equipment. When questioned about the loss of HMS Sheffield, HMS Coventry, the Atlantic Conveyor, a senior MOD official simply stated that 'The Russian don't have Exocet'. This is despite the fact that the French arms industry will sell to almost anyone that can pay.

Many armoured vehicles are doing tasks for which they were not designed for, and the British Army has had to soldier on (no pun intended) with politicians compromises. The Humber 'Pig' 1/4 ton APC, designed in the 1950's serves as the main anti-riot vehicle in Northern Ireland. Over the years, added armour and riot screens have strained the engine till it is well over the designed weight limit.
The Alvis Saracen was withdrawn as being 'too aggresive'. (To be fair, the Army did like to drive through walls in them)
The CKN Saxon, the main wheeled APC of the British Army that a magazine quoted as 'looking like a 1950's butchers van' was not deployed in Northern Ireland as it was classed as too aggresive looking.
Any deployment of tracked vehicles are out of the question as the media instantly class anything with tracks as 'a tank'.
The British Army is also one of the few armies not to adopt a Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft gun. The US Army system is getting old, but at least they have the M-163 Vulcan.

It is strange to think that for many years the prime AEW defence of this country was in the hands of No 8 Squadron RAF. This squadron flew 1950's Avro Shackleton's, the finl design evolution of the Lancaster bomber. Attached to the fuselage was the radar system from Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm Fairey Gannet aircraft that had been decomissioned when the Ark Royal was scrapped. The Nimrod AWACs Mk 3 was a costly failue and now lies decaying.

More later.....

[CT17]

When it comes down to either settleing for cheaper second rate equipment or paying a little more for quality military stuff, I would choose option B.

[Rubberanvil]

Originally posted by CT17
When it comes down to either settleing for cheaper second rate equipment or paying a little more for quality military stuff, I would choose option B.

...And the politicans would rather choose cheaper second rate equipment.

[victorhadin]

About 4% of tax revenue in the UK is spent on the military. I think that's a good peacetime figure. The US should try for the same.

[Bryan]

Originally posted by victorhadin
About 4% of tax revenue in the UK is spent on the military. I think that's a good peacetime figure. The US should try for the same.

that is roughly $80 billion. And you have no idea of what that would do for the US military. Please come again when you know that the us, with all our commitments and obligations could not function off of 80 billion a year. Not to mention that it would mean the end for many defense contractors and the economic downfall of some major cities (Like the one I LIVE IN!)

And CT, I saw it on CNN

[Douglas Nicol]

Well the trouble with initially spending cheap on thngs for the military is that it often doesn't pay off.

The SA-80's were sent for a an expensive refit, which would probably not have been needed had a little more money been spent initially.

The uniform issue. If a higher grade, albeit more expensive uniform had been made, there wouldn't have been any need to make a replacement for the 85 kit.

One more thing was the Lee Enfield rifle was re-chambered for 7.62mm and was the British Army sniper rifle for many years. The MOD decided to replace it with a cheapish sporting rifle, that did not have the durability or accuracy required. Later on, IT was replaced by another design.

So the moral is that cost cutting, can sometimes be expensive.