Figures reveal cost of new aircraft carriers decision

12 Sep 2010

I know no there has been no final decision made on these carrier's but with the Government finances the way they currently are, should we really be spending such sums on defence?
My view is, yes
Contracts worth about have been awarded for building two aircraft carriers even though the project may not go ahead.

12 Sep 2010

From what I understand, its not just spending large sums on defence, but its investing large sums in the economy at the same time. 2 birds 1 stone?

12 Sep 2010

Quote by vampanya
From what I understand, its not just spending large sums on defence, but its investing large sums in the economy at the same time. 2 birds 1 stone?

that can only be a good thing then :thumbup:

12 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
I know no there has been no final decision made on these carrier's but with the Government finances the way they currently are, should we really be spending such sums on defence?
My view is, yes
Contracts worth about have been awarded for building two aircraft carriers even though the project may not go ahead.

As long as the Government of this country (regardless of what colour tie they wear) will blindly accept that we have a 'duty' to be the world's 'protectors', then we have to fund the defence budget appropriately.
The defence review due in October will see the military decimated, our elected politicians will do more damage to our armed forces than any other opposing power or adversary ever could.
If played correctly (and you can bet your bottom dollar they won't) then not only could the armed forces be suitably supported financially and logistically, but UK contractors and suppliers being offered contracts would be a significant boost to this country's economy.
Sadly, things are looking bleak, in all area's of military and defence.

12 Sep 2010

I think it is worth every penny.
Defense has to be maintained for our future protection and for our current predicament.
If we spent as much on defense as we do on welfare, we would be unbeatable.

12 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
I think it is worth every penny.
Defense has to be maintained for our future protection and for our current predicament.
If we spent as much on defense as we do on welfare, we would be unbeatable.

We have been a second rate military since 1945. We could treble and treble again and come nowhere near other countries forces.
The big players are USA, Russia and China. I suspect that India may be getting closer as well now.
Dave_Notts

12 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
We have been a second rate military since 1945.

Strongly disagree.
We have within our armed forces some of the finest military units in the world.
SAS, SBS, SRR, Para's, Pathfinders, Royal Marines Commando's, Gurkha's to name but a few.
Government's going back decades may not have given the support they were due, but to suggest we are second rate is at best, short-sighted.

12 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
I think it is worth every penny.
Defense has to be maintained for our future protection and for our current predicament.
If we spent as much on defense as we do on welfare, we would be unbeatable.

We have been a second rate military since 1945. We could treble and treble again and come nowhere near other countries forces.
The big players are USA, Russia and China. I suspect that India may be getting closer as well now.
Dave_Notts
I would agree its been underfunded but not second rate

12 Sep 2010

Let me explain what I mean by second rate.
For aguments sake, we have the finest infantry regiment who is equipped upto the gunnals of all military hardware it wants. The USA, China, Russia can field 10 times the amount. In simple military terms they have a lot more than we have. We do not do the same amount as the USA military. People believe our own self-importance and not realise how much we have moved from being the biggest empire and super-power to being one of the littler nations..................and we are a help but not really neccessary to win any conflict the USA enters. We are there to show union with them.
Dave_Notts

12 Sep 2010

Quote by essex34m

We have been a second rate military since 1945.

Strongly disagree.
We have within our armed forces some of the finest military units in the world.
SAS, SBS, SRR, Para's, Pathfinders, Royal Marines Commando's, Gurkha's to name but a few.
Government's going back decades may not have given the support they were due, but to suggest we are second rate is at best, short-sighted.
The bit in bold are just infantry who get to the battle by different modes of transport. They have a good history but it doesn't make them elite or better than any other nations infantry.
The world over and man to man they are equivalent. It differs in warfare when you get an edge over the other in manpower, weapons, terrain or just plain luck.
Dave_Notts

12 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Let me explain what I mean by second rate.
For aguments sake, we have the finest infantry regiment who is equipped upto the gunnals of all military hardware it wants. The USA, China, Russia can field 10 times the amount. In simple military terms they have a lot more than we have. We do not do the same amount as the USA military. People believe our own self-importance and not realise how much we have moved from being the biggest empire and super-power to being one of the littler nations..................and we are a help but not really neccessary to win any conflict the USA enters. We are there to show union with them.
Dave_Notts

From the way I read history, the only thing that ever made us an empire/super power was our command of the sea, that dissapeared after the first world war

12 Sep 2010

Quote by essex34m

We have been a second rate military since 1945.

Strongly disagree.
We have within our armed forces some of the finest military units in the world.
SAS, SBS, SRR, Para's, Pathfinders, Royal Marines Commando's, Gurkha's to name but a few.
Government's going back decades may not have given the support they were due, but to suggest we are second rate is at best, short-sighted.
Bang on the money Essex.
A third rate military? I think most of the armed forces would find that offensive in itself.

12 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777

We have been a second rate military since 1945.

Strongly disagree.
We have within our armed forces some of the finest military units in the world.
SAS, SBS, SRR, Para's, Pathfinders, Royal Marines Commando's, Gurkha's to name but a few.
Government's going back decades may not have given the support they were due, but to suggest we are second rate is at best, short-sighted.
Bang on the money Essex.
A third rate military? I think most of the armed forces would find that offensive in itself.
203,000 in the US Marine Corps, just one of seven military arms of the US Forces.
113,000 in the whole British Army.
Yep I can see why you think we are still first rate. The armed forces would agree that it would be a tad stupid to take on a force this size and expect to win. We could hold our own mano a mano but times have changed and our military capability has reduced to a state that we are unable to support fully the theatres we go into. That is not first rate to me.
Dave_Notts

13 Sep 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
I know no there has been no final decision made on these carrier's but with the Government finances the way they currently are, should we really be spending such sums on defence?
My view is, yes
Contracts worth about have been awarded for building two aircraft carriers even though the project may not go ahead.

i always find it interesting that keynsian economics only seems to be acceptable in the arms industry.
Thanks to a brief introduction to Keynsian economics, I know have better understanding of what Kaz means (Thanks Kaz passionkiss

)
In my view aircraft carriers are now the backbone of any navy, so vital if we are to play any part in a conflict, or even to protect our selves. As my grandfather was in the navy for many years I feel some sort of connection to it.
The secondary fact that the contracts may come to home shores was just an added bonus to me. Now of coarse I understand there was a higher logic at work here

13 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

We have been a second rate military since 1945.

Strongly disagree.
We have within our armed forces some of the finest military units in the world.
SAS, SBS, SRR, Para's, Pathfinders, Royal Marines Commando's, Gurkha's to name but a few.
Government's going back decades may not have given the support they were due, but to suggest we are second rate is at best, short-sighted.
The bit in bold are just infantry who get to the battle by different modes of transport. They have a good history but it doesn't make them elite or better than any other nations infantry.
The world over and man to man they are equivalent. It differs in warfare when you get an edge over the other in manpower, weapons, terrain or just plain luck.
Dave_Notts
They are not just infantry, their selection, training and roles does make them elite, and they are not the equivalent, by your definition, because they are not infantry, they are the envy the world over, and to say otherwise shows a significant amount of ignorance to their operational activities.

13 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

We have been a second rate military since 1945.

Strongly disagree.
We have within our armed forces some of the finest military units in the world.
SAS, SBS, SRR, Para's, Pathfinders, Royal Marines Commando's, Gurkha's to name but a few.
Government's going back decades may not have given the support they were due, but to suggest we are second rate is at best, short-sighted.
Bang on the money Essex.
A third rate military? I think most of the armed forces would find that offensive in itself.
203,000 in the US Marine Corps, just one of seven military arms of the US Forces.
113,000 in the whole British Army.
Yep I can see why you think we are still first rate. The armed forces would agree that it would be a tad stupid to take on a force this size and expect to win. We could hold our own mano a mano but times have changed and our military capability has reduced to a state that we are unable to support fully the theatres we go into. That is not first rate to me.
Dave_Notts
The wife told me size does not matter dunno

13 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
203,000 in the US Marine Corps, just one of seven military arms of the US Forces.
113,000 in the whole British Army.
Yep I can see why you think we are still first rate. The armed forces would agree that it would be a tad stupid to take on a force this size and expect to win. We could hold our own mano a mano but times have changed and our military capability has reduced to a state that we are unable to support fully the theatres we go into. That is not first rate to me.
Dave_Notts

You are basing this purely on numbers, which is wrong.
You put 100 U.S. special forces (Marines, Seals, Rangers etc) against 100 UK special forces (SAS, SBS, Paras etc) and I would put money on it, that in any given exercise, overall, the UK forces would do better. And I would put the UK forces against any special forces from around the world, and expect a similar outcome.
And as for the amount of U.S. forces there are, compared to the UK's, a) they are a larger nation b) they seem to think they are the world's protector, which in actual fact makes them the worlds biggest aggressor, c) many U.S. President's have long recognised that to enjoy good domestic support from the voters, then be involved in a war or conflict.

13 Sep 2010

This site may be of interest to some

13 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
This site may be of interest to some

Thank you.

13 Sep 2010

Quote by essex34m
They are not just infantry, their selection, training and roles does make them elite, and they are not the equivalent, by your definition, because they are not infantry, they are the envy the world over, and to say otherwise shows a significant amount of ignorance to their operational activities.

Infantry are infantry and each have the equal standards to achieve. Other Regiments that are serving on operations would look at this statement that they are inferior to the Parachute Regiment and Royal Marine Commandos and wet themselves laughing. Each believes/knows they are the best and each has proved themselves capable to do the job that is required of them. For example the Staffs (now Mercians) were at Arnhem but public memory puts it down to a Parachute Regiment operation only. Commandos was originally an army term that was adopted by the Royal Marines. Normal infanteers that volunteered.
So I believe I have said otherwise, and showed that I do not have ignorance of the regiments that have done the job.

Quote by essex34m
You are basing this purely on numbers, which is wrong.

History taught Hitler and Napolean in a full scale war that it is right.
Individual battles are different though. The time of a single battle to decide the war passed us by from the 16th Century onwards. From that time on it has usually been the mightiest that has won. The only exception is when the armed forces could not consolidate the ground. Most famous is Japan in China in the 30's, France and USA in Vietnam in the 50's and 60's...........and time will tell with us in Afganistan. Without getting a solid political will in the region then all this will be in vain.
Dave_Notts

13 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Infantry are infantry and each have the equal standards to achieve.

I agree, but the elite units have training, exercises and operations that go beyond what the infantry are trained for, that is why they are elite. That's why in some cases, the selection criteria is that much more stringent than the infantry selection criteria and joining success rate.

Quote by essex34m
You are basing this purely on numbers, which is wrong.

History taught Hitler and Napolean in a full scale war that it is right.
Individual battles are different though. The time of a single battle to decide the war passed us by from the 16th Century onwards. From that time on it has usually been the mightiest that has won. The only exception is when the armed forces could not consolidate the ground. Most famous is Japan in China in the 30's, France and USA in Vietnam in the 50's and 60's...........and time will tell with us in Afganistan. Without getting a solid political will in the region then all this will be in vain.
Dave_Notts
Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.

13 Sep 2010

Quote by essex34m

Infantry are infantry and each have the equal standards to achieve.

I agree, but the elite units have training, exercises and operations that go beyond what the infantry are trained for, that is why they are elite. That's why in some cases, the selection criteria is that much more stringent than the infantry selection criteria and joining success rate.
I agree with the true elite troops i.e. SAS/SEALS/GSG-9/Spetsnaz/etc but the Paras, Marines, Gurkas do no different to any other infantry regiment except by the way they get to the battlefield. They take it, consolidate and defend. Same as all other infantry.

Quote by essex34m
Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.

The Russians won by weight of numbers
The Finns had some spectacular successes though and these tactics were copied by the Russians against the Germans in the 40's, where weight of numbers won the day again.

13 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

Infantry are infantry and each have the equal standards to achieve.

I agree, but the elite units have training, exercises and operations that go beyond what the infantry are trained for, that is why they are elite. That's why in some cases, the selection criteria is that much more stringent than the infantry selection criteria and joining success rate.
I agree with the true elite troops i.e. SAS/SEALS/GSG-9/Spetsnaz/etc but the Paras, Marines, Gurkas do no different to any other infantry regiment except by the way they get to the battlefield. They take it, consolidate and defend. Same as all other infantry.

Quote by essex34m
Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.

The Russians won by weight of numbers
The Finns had some spectacular successes though and these tactics were copied by the Russians against the Germans in the 40's, where weight of numbers won the day again.
Surely some of this is subjective.
My father fought alongside the Gurkas during WW2, he held them in the highest regard as probably one of the finest fighting men on this planet. Highly trained, highly motivated, and fearless. Just one mans view I know.

13 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Surely some of this is subjective.
My father fought alongside the Gurkas during WW2, he held them in the highest regard as probably one of the finest fighting men on this planet. Highly trained, highly motivated, and fearless. Just one mans view I know.

Exactly. They are all infantry and mano a mano do a great job.
Have a read about the Glorious Gloucesters a tad after WW2. Each Regiment has its finest hour........even the enemies.
Dave_Notts

13 Sep 2010

The Chinese have a saying;
"Quanity brings it's own quality"
John

14 Sep 2010

Yes and this is a valid point John.
I think its just we all measure things in different ways.
For instance, if one has 2 pints of a quality real ale on one table and 5 pints of cheep lager on another table. If I drink the five pints of lager I would be far more drunk than drinking the 2 quality ales, But the ales are still the better ones. Well thats an insight into how my brain works lol

And I see the army in the same way, they may loose a battle if out numbered but they were still the better warrior.....
Or maybe its just because I am British wink

14 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.

The Russians won by weight of numbers
Obviously it is Wikipedia, so can't be taken as gospel, but if the figures quoted here are anything to go by, it would suggest the Russians did not win by weight of numbers.

14 Sep 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Or maybe its just because I am British

That is the main reason.
Dave_Notts

14 Sep 2010

Quote by essex34m

Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.

The Russians won by weight of numbers
Obviously it is Wikipedia, so can't be taken as gospel, but if the figures quoted here are anything to go by, it would suggest the Russians did not win by weight of numbers.

The link you supplied showed that the Finns lost and had to cede 11% of its country to the Russians.
The weight of numbers paid off as the Russians could keep sending their infantry to their deaths and had the manpower to replace them........where as the Finns couldn't.
The Winter War is studied to show how less can defend, but ultimately in an attritional war the numbers pay off.
So the Russians won by weight of numbers and forced the Finns into a humiliating armitice. So much so that they joined the Germans to fight the Russians a year or so latter. What they signed up to was to advance up to their original borders and they did not go any further i.e. just north of Leningrad.
Dave_Notts

14 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

Another exception for when the mightiest has usually won was in 1939 when the Russians invaded Finland.

The Russians won by weight of numbers
Obviously it is Wikipedia, so can't be taken as gospel, but if the figures quoted here are anything to go by, it would suggest the Russians did not win by weight of numbers.

The link you supplied showed that the Finns lost and had to cede 11% of its country to the Russians.
The weight of numbers paid off as the Russians could keep sending their infantry to their deaths and had the manpower to replace them........where as the Finns couldn't.
The Winter War is studied to show how less can defend, but ultimately in an attritional war the numbers pay off.
So the Russians won by weight of numbers and forced the Finns into a humiliating armitice. So much so that they joined the Germans to fight the Russians a year or so latter. What they signed up to was to advance up to their original borders and they did not go any further i.e. just north of Leningrad.
Dave_Notts
Fair point, well presented.
I had looked at simple fatalities, which showed the Finns to have lost less troops than Russia.