Increase defence spending.

The corvettes would be just doing general patrol tasks, no more than a few thousand miles from home. They wouldn't be all the way down in the South Ocean.

The Harriers are gone, the navy only seems to be getting 12 F-35B's in the first batch of 48, however all 48 can be used on the carriers. So I would just leave it at that. We are likely to get over 100 F-35B's by 2025, more than enough to operate on the carriers. We only need 12 to operate from a carrier, then we can rotate the other 48 in and out as needed. However the current plan is to have atleast 32 FAA F-35's and buy more for the RAF, which I think is a waste.

There would need to be some slight changes to the ships to operate British aircraft, but I think it could be done and save money. The Mistral are the ideal platform for the UK's needs.

Yeah, everybody says it. I just think why not just say you are cutting ships and capabilities with it. Then we can move on. Politicians, you know.

India is building a 4 carrier navy, getting more nuclear submarines and AAW escorts. Turkey hasn't do much yet, but if you take George Friedman seriously they will do in the next decade to challenge the Russians in the Black sea and Eastern Mediterranean. Indonesia is strange I agree, it will likely use Russian tactics to form it's navy, so will be larger than the Royal navy and able to defeat it. Brazil plans nuclear power submarines, Type 26 frigates and 2 new french built carriers, they will be a threat to out operations and control of the South Atlantic.

The Chinese navy to me looks like they don't know what they want. They have almost no corvettes and air cutting submarine numbers, moving away from Russian tactics to American. Yet still have loads of missile boats and long-range bombers.

 

We are already the fourth biggest spender on military forces in the world. We have no need to spend more, especially when out of the top 25 nations that spend on armed forces, 23 are our allies.

 

So how much do you think we spending on defence in pounds?

We currently have no need to spend more, but when it is needed it will be to late. Like before WW2 or the Falklands. Name the 23 countries you say are the UK's allies?

 

We currently spend 60.8 billion dollars, 2.5% GDP.

Our allies consist of all NATO, Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Rep, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, USA. On top of this, the common wealth nations- ranging from small nations such as British Virgin Islands, Pakistan to India. The rest of the EU nations, such as Cyprus. Then there is South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc.

Now the only two nations we are not allies with are Russia, and China who do spend more on their military's then the UK. However the USA spends 682 billion dollars. China 166 billion dollars, Russia 90 billion dollars. But in about line with the UK, Japan and France spend 59 billion dollars each. NATO with the USA 990 billion dollars removing the USA still spends 310 billion dollars on their military. The EU 274 billion dollars.

And this is with Russia and China being technologically disadvantaged compared to the USA, Canada, Australia, France, UK, Germany, Italy.

 

UK defence spending for this year is £34.1 billion, that at the current exchange rate is $55.8 billion. That is between 2% and 2.1% of GDP for 2013-2014.

So we have a treaty alliances with Pakistan and India? Or South Korea, Japan and Taiwan? They aren't our allies.

Russia has different naval tactics so doesn't need better technology to run right through the UK, Norway and Denmark before the US has a chance to do anything about. Where as against Chinese the US has a carrier group, air bases and a brigate of marines.

 

USA didn't have a treaty alliance with Britain in the world wars, and yet there was an ally. We also do have alliances with Pakistan and India via the common wealth. We have close links to South Korea, Japan and Taiwan.

Also the EU outspends both Russia and China. We also have a higher technology as shown multiple times, quality is better than quantity.

Also the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, for 2013 states it as 60.8 billion dollars in UK spending. 2.5% GDP.

Also, US Armed forces and UK forces are in Germany. The EU is more than capable of defending itself against Russia, and definitely long enough to defend against Russia for NATO forces to then add assistance.

There is no need, or justification for increase military spending.

 

We have a treaty alliance with the US, so I have no doubt they would help us help Norway and Denmark in the North Sea. However they have no naval assets based in the UK and it would take them a few day to counter attack and push the Russian back, by which them the Russians will have broken out of the GIUK gap and will be sinking NATO shipping. The Commonwealth isn't a military treaty alliance. We have no ties with South Korea or Taiwan and limited ties with Japan, they wouldn't feel any need to help us.

The Germans had better training and techology than the Soviets, so they used different tactics to defeat the Germans using what they had. Russian tactics today are very different to ours and they would destroy us easily within 36 hours.

The no doubt include foreign economic and military aid, as military defence spending. So they are wrong.

The UK forces in Germany as set to leave by 2015. The Russians would go clean through the Baltic state and be half way through Poland by the end of the first week with a push out of Belarus, they would also be well on the way to taking Finland. However once they got to the German border and had to start fight their way through Norway and Sweden the the Americans would be in a position to reinforce and then counter attack. However nobody know if the Americans could do that if the Russian submarines were able to breakout through the North Sea.

There is a need to have capabilities that make you very very hard to attack and make it easier for you to help your alliance. Right now we find it harder and harder to help our allies and wouldn't cause that much of a problem for the Russians. So I think there is a need to increase capabilities.

 

One Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would join, as the USA would. The US military alliances in the region are a definite factor. Secondly, Russia wouldn't just role through Europe, nor is their fleet very strong. Remember Russia will be facing a joint German, French, British, Italian, Spanish, Turkish forces. The British and French forces combined outspend the Russians. Also, with modern technology being so advanced, it's not just being slightly more advanced as the Germans were in WW2, we are hugely more capable with fire power.

Basically we're fine. You're just talking a hypothetical that makes the Russians out to be better than they are.

 

So is 30% of the joint Japan, Taiwan and South Korean fleet going to be in the North sea and North Atlantic fighting the Russians? No they would do what they could in the Pacific with the Americans, but they wouldn't come to help us. It would roll through Eastern Europe and if they are able to break out of the GIUK gap they could slow the Amerians down by weeks. By which time the Russians would likely have destroyed all the North sea oil rigs and pipelines, destroyed NATO based on Iceland, have taken most of Sweden and Norway with their armies being beaten back into Denmark. To be destroyed as the Russian armies move into the old western Germany and Low countries. Moving down through central Europe into the Balkans. The Russians have different tactics, there corvettes, submarines, heavy cruisers and long-range bombers would defeat the Royal Navy no bother, with the rest of the Royal Navy sailing to Canada to join up with the US/Canadian/UK/French fleet for the counter attack and to support the convoys moving to Europe. So the Italians, Spanish, French and Turkish, don't have troops anywhere near Germany and they wouldn't be able to moveup and get into a defensive position with a week, that would take a couple of weeks atleast, so they would like setup a defensive line somewhere near the old west German border and North Italy, using old NATO plans for the Cold war. yes but the UK and France spends money on power projection, no defensive capabilities needed to defeat the Russians. So Russian capabilities are better than ours. The Germans were miles ahead of the Soviets, much futher ahead of them than we are of the Russians, the only difference is build quality and safty, our equipment is better because it lasts longer and is easier to use. However their technology is based around their tactics, which were created to counter our tactics.

All military planning is based on hypotheticals that make the enemy out to be as good as you believe them to be.

 

You have made out the Russian military to be like the USA's, it's not. The European fleets outnumber and outgun the Russian fleet. Our airforce out match there's and so do our armed forces.

 

I largely agree but they do outnumber the EU in terms of land forces and most importantly in tanks because where they have an advantage.

The question is whether they become a threat in the future and there's little doubt that war is not looming over the horizon but nobody knows what the future will bring.

I'm against combining forces with the EU. I would accept a temporary defensive agreement if the UK is believed to be threatened by a foreign state.

 

Do you have any understanding at all of logistics? Of moving air craft, pilots, troops, tanks over 1,000 miles from Spain and Italy to Germany? Likely Turkey would have no part as Greece wouldn't allow them to. So likely that the Italians instead of moving to Germany have to move their forces to the Balkans and Northern Italy to support the Austrians and central Europeans.

However I am just talking about could the current Royal Navy hold the Russian North fleet in the North sea, the answer is no. It isn't just about numbers as I have said, it is about tactics and capabilities. Russian tactics in terms of air battle is very different to their tactics at sea or on land. They would rip apart the Polish and Batlic air forces. Likely Sweden would hold them off because they have more aircraft and better pilots. All the good European aircraft and pilots are west of Poland.

I have made the Russians out to be the Russians, I am not say they could invade the UK as the US could or start bombing the UK as the US could. They would defeat the Royal Navy, break out and start sinking ships in the Atlantic. Just take a look at the Russian Northern fleet and their reserve forces. The main worry is submarines and long-range bombers.

 

No most importantly attack helicopters. So they could move across the Eastern European Plain and just wipeout the Polish no bother. People need to understand the Russian attack would come from Belarus they would drive through to the Russian territory of Kaliningrad cut off the Batlic states and push for Warsaw under the cover of their air force, with the attack helicopters, tanks and infantry coming behind. While the Polish retreat destroying as much as they can to slow the Russian down.

Russian being able to defeat the Royal Navy, Danish and Norwegian navies already is a threat. The question is will the Russians act on it.

I want to see greatly increase training with the Norwegians and Danish, and have a plan with them to counter any Russian threat, along with our own plan which I think should include taking over Iceland and the Faroe islands.

 

Agreed.

I believe that Russia will seek to improve it's armed forces as time goes on.
It's unlikely that Russia will seek out a war with western nations but to show a comparative weakness is to lose credibility.

I know that we do have regular training sessions with Norway but I'm not sure as to whether that extends to the Navy as well.

I think that the Faroe Islands could be useful as anti ship missile station which could help curb hostile activity in the North sea.

 

I find it difficult to understand why there is a need for any agreement.

Was it not the case that the reason why britian went to war against Germany was the agreement between Poland an England. Signed ONE week prior to commencement of war.

The do as one will, Alistair Crowley and his cohorts seems to be the order of the day.

Regards
Highlander

 

I would like to state an alternative that claims, increasing defence spending would not be necessary if our politicians were more successful at diplomacy.

 

If you read my post a little more closely then you'll find that I was referring to potential of having to deal with aggressors to the UK and not the EU states.

And no it wasn't signed a week prior to the invasion of Poland also it is the UK not England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance


Alistair Crowley!? Seriously?

- - - Updated - - -

For once I agree with you although diplomacy is not always guaranteed to avoid war unfortunately.

 

Do people not understand that the military is only their to backup dipolmacy, it is never used instead of diplomacy.

Also the problems before WW2 is that we didn't have the military capabilities to support or agreement, not that we had an agreement in the first place.

 

True, we were sorely lacking in aerial and tank forces which could of meant that the BEF would have had a fair fight.

I understand completely the function of the military, in the words of King Louis XIV "Ultima ratio regum"

 

Ooooh. I stand corrected, Pray tell and how long was it signed prior to committing millions to death in a war, ......just to make it clear?

And then there is the proposed new one setting up the sheep.....
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-gr...urasia-towards-a-world-war-iii-scenario/22140

Regards
Highlander

 

I'm assuming that this is for the benefit of others.

March the 31st was the date in which Britain gave it's guarantee to both Poland and France and this was signed just after the occupation of Czechoslovakia.

This is someone else's opinion and not a report. It also does offer any substantial evidence in order to back it's claims of a global "great game"

And of course this is not about military preparations but the missile shield which to be honest is a joke and is not much of a threat to either Russia or the PRC.

 

We will see how Russia and china deals with "not much of a threat", hopefully it won't go to extremes, like WW1 and WW2 .

Regards
Highlander