The Future of Britain.

[ComeonBritain]

It's been along time since Britain has stood among the ranks of the world's foremost powers, some today even believe that they have the power to affect the world around them today, but let's be serious, they don't. The current government sees the budget of the armed forced be flooded into other services, crippling it's power to project force. Nowadays the army is restricted, the Navy is suffocated and the Air force is being forced into a role it's not equipped for. But I believe, that Britain will once again stand tall, maybe not in the near future, but if people like UKIP are elected, the benefits are tremendous. They don't believe in strangling the armed forces as current governments do, they want to up the size. I just wanted to know some POSITIVE information about the future of Britain, and your thoughts on the idea of them being what they were 100 years ago (At the height of power in 1912).

 

[swerve]

UKIP is, to be polite, deluded. I read its manifesto before the last election, & it was a joke. Can one trust an organisation which can't spell, or check the most basic facts, with running the country?

But I digress. Back to business. This thread starts with what is, in effect. a party political statement, & that is not in accordance with the spirit of this forum. I suggest that you come up with a less party-based & clearer statement of what this thread is meant to be for.

PS. The UK accounted for 2.5% of world population, & 10% of world GNP in 1912, & the Empire for another 23% or so of world population & >15% of GNP. We're not going to be in charge of a quarter of the world's population & output ever again, so there's no point fantasising about it. Also, it wasn't the height of British power. We'd been overtaken industrially by the USA (by a very large margin) & Germany. The height of British power was probably 50 years earlier.

 

[gazzzwp]

It's been along time since Britain has stood among the ranks of the world's foremost powers, some today even believe that they have the power to affect the world around them today, but let's be serious, they don't. The current government sees the budget of the armed forced be flooded into other services, crippling it's power to project force. Nowadays the army is restricted, the Navy is suffocated and the Air force is being forced into a role it's not equipped for. But I believe, that Britain will once again stand tall, maybe not in the near future, but if people like UKIP are elected, the benefits are tremendous. They don't believe in strangling the armed forces as current governments do, they want to up the size. I just wanted to know some POSITIVE information about the future of Britain, and your thoughts on the idea of them being what they were 100 years ago (At the height of power in 1912).

I agree with the sentiment having Britannia in my blood; One small problem however. Like Spain and Italy, the UK is totally broke. Pray that no serious conflict makes a demand on us for the next 10 years.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The height of British power was probably 50 years earlier.

Probably before that even. The first politically "visible" indicator being 1947 when she was bankrupt and sought US assistance to deal with Greece

 

[Astute]

Yes Britain was nearly bankrupt , that what happens when the Uk got involved in 2 world wars to keep europe and the world free, and just being a few miles from occupied nazi europe the UK felt the full force of nazi bombing raids which destroyed many of britains cities, britain also payed the cost of sending weapons,tanks etc to russia and arming the free french,free polish free dutch etc forces during the war,and also had to pay to rebuild it self after, and on the point of Greece britain was supporting the greece goverment for years, and yes they did formly ask the US to take over and why not they made plenty of money out of ww2 and it was in there interest to get involved as they feared greece coming under the influance of the russians,

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes Britain was nearly bankrupt , that what happens when the Uk got involved in 2 world wars to keep europe and the world free, and just being a few miles from occupied nazi europe the UK felt the full force of nazi bombing raids which destroyed many of britains cities, britain also payed the cost of sending weapons,tanks etc to russia and arming the free french,free polish free dutch etc forces during the war,and also had to pay to rebuild it self after, and on the point of Greece britain was supporting the greece goverment for years, and yes they did formly ask the US to take over and why not they made plenty of money out of ww2 and it was in there interest to get involved as they feared greece coming under the influance of the russians,

lets not perpetuate the myth of the US participating in WW2 and making plenty of money.

lets show some respect.

count the US war dead in the two theatres of WW2.

britain sending arms and supplies to the russians invariably involved the lend lease gear provided by the US in the first place. churchill made strategic and tactical decisions to redirect it to the russians for a number of reasons.

jingoism needs to be checked in threads like this as it doesn't serve the debate

 

[brian00]

The Uk needs to seriously rebalance its economy, however change seems slow to occur, even the much fabled cuts are not actually cuts, so much as 'not increasing budgets as fast as inflation'.

I doubt the coalition's capability to carry out the necessary reforms, one issue which has me questioning the coalition and the previous government is immigration

Seems to me that the coalition is continuing the policy of bringing in as many foreign workers (and non workers) as possible, and not just from the EU, i've met many from countries like Turkey, Colombia and South Africa, as well as the other usual suspects. The only other country which is also following this policy is the US, where the mexican border seems intentionally porous.

It's not my intention to be racist, my mother came to london from hong kong in the 70s.

But I have wondered why our government is pursuing this policy, which many of the indigenous population are against, is it simply to keep wages low? or possibly because they genuinely care about the welfare of these poor unfortunate people? (the least likely reason).

My conclusion is that our government is completely desperate for GDP growth, despite the obvious cost to society. Adding 0.5-1million people a year certainly adds to the economy. This coupled with QE, ZIRP and a 9% budget deficit, shows what is needed to keep our economy growing

I've heard alternate reasoning, in particular that it is all a matter of buying votes and political support, if our leaders are indeed carrying out this policy simply to keep themselves in power, then the situation is worse than i feared

 

[Bonza]

The Uk needs to seriously rebalance its economy, however change seems slow to occur, even the much fabled cuts are not actually cuts, so much as 'not increasing budgets as fast as inflation'.

I doubt the coalition's capability to carry out the necessary reforms, one issue which has me questioning the coalition and the previous government is immigration

Seems to me that the coalition is continuing the policy of bringing in as many foreign workers (and non workers) as possible, and not just from the EU, i've met many from countries like Turkey, Colombia and South Africa, as well as the other usual suspects. The only other country which is also following this policy is the US, where the mexican border seems intentionally porous.

It's not my intention to be racist, my mother came to london from hong kong in the 70s.

But I have wondered why our government is pursuing this policy, which many of the indigenous population are against, is it simply to keep wages low? or possibly because they genuinely care about the welfare of these poor unfortunate people? (the least likely reason).

My conclusion is that our government is completely desperate for GDP growth, despite the obvious cost to society. Adding 0.5-1million people a year certainly adds to the economy. This coupled with QE, ZIRP and a 9% budget deficit, shows what is needed to keep our economy growing

I've heard alternate reasoning, in particular that it is all a matter of buying votes and political support, if our leaders are indeed carrying out this policy simply to keep themselves in power, then the situation is worse than i feared

This thread is veering deeply into politics, and unless it can be steered back towards defence then it's going to get closed in quite a hurry.

I understand some of you might wish to discuss these things but this is a defence forum, NOT an immigration policy forum. Thanks for your understanding.

 

[t68]

One has to wonder about the priorities of the current government and the way they have slashed the budget for defence. If you cannot afford to arm your ships when you send them to a hostile event, you have to expect that they will be able to defend themselves if and when it is necessary, better to go to an operational area and not expend the ammunition then need it and not have it bit late then. Wonder if it had been the son or daughter of the PM or a member of the Royal family deploying, would they worry about the budget then?

Libya warship 'had just four missiles' - Defence Management

 

[Todjaeger]

One has to wonder about the priorities of the current government and the way they have slashed the budget for defence. If you cannot afford to arm your ships when you send them to a hostile event, you have to expect that they will be able to defend themselves if and when it is necessary, better to go to an operational area and not expend the ammunition then need it and not have it bit late then. Wonder if it had been the son or daughter of the PM or a member of the Royal family deploying, would they worry about the budget then?

Libya warship 'had just four missiles' - Defence Management

A few things come to mind when reading the article. The first is a question, namely how accurate is it?

The second has to do with what the estimated risks were. One must remember that the Sea Wolf SAM is a point defence SAM, comparable to the Sea Sparrow SAM or RAM. Given a max published range of 10 km and max altitude of 3 km, the Sea Wolf missiles would only have been used in self-defence, other assets would have been tasked with providing area air defence.

Given the limited capabilities of the Libyan armed forces, particularly with regards to maritime strike, a vessel having a minimal number of missiles for self-defence sounds like a calculated risk to me.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Given the limited capabilities of the Libyan armed forces, particularly with regards to maritime strike, a vessel having a minimal number of missiles for self-defence sounds like a calculated risk to me.

-Cheers

considering the fact that its stad practice for specops to be in town prior to fielding major assets, one would assume that they had a high level of confidence to commit the ship as loaded.

self defence missiles are normally vollied - so that means two responses against a high level threat. one would assume that the INT coming back would have reported back on all threat options.

I do think that irrespective of the issue of loadout (and missiles are not its only onboard option) this has been blown out proportion.

 

[t68]

A few things come to mind when reading the article. The first is a question, namely how accurate is it?

The second has to do with what the estimated risks were. One must remember that the Sea Wolf SAM is a point defence SAM, comparable to the Sea Sparrow SAM or RAM. Given a max published range of 10 km and max altitude of 3 km, the Sea Wolf missiles would only have been used in self-defence, other assets would have been tasked with providing area air defence.

Given the limited capabilities of the Libyan armed forces, particularly with regards to maritime strike, a vessel having a minimal number of missiles for self-defence sounds like a calculated risk to me.

-Cheers

From what I can work out there was a risk assessment done, its not like she was operating alone, but considering she has room for 32 but was only allocated 4.

Correct me if I am wrong but when the system is used 2 missiles are let go in a single engagement, if the threat became real she would only have 2 shots to protect a crew of 185 RN sailors considering Libya possesses the Exocet missile system, both the RN and USN have taken hit’s by the Exocet (HMS Sheffield, USS Stark) it is calculated risk, but if you were placed in harms way would you like that same risk assessment done for budgetary reason’s.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Correct me if I am wrong but when the system is used 2 missiles are let go in a single engagement, if the threat became real she would only have 2 shots to protect a crew of 185 RN sailors considering Libya possesses the Exocet missile system, both the RN and USN have taken hit’s by the Exocet (HMS Sheffield, USS Stark) it is calculated risk, but if you were placed in harms way would you like that same risk assessment done for budgetary reason’s.

see my prev comment....

 

[StobieWan]

A few things come to mind when reading the article. The first is a question, namely how accurate is it?
-Cheers

It seems to be accurate, there's an image of Westminster during or just post deployment and you can quite easily see which of the silos are loaded in that shot. I've mixed feelings, four seems low but then again, the ship was in theatre with a pile of other assets including an RN Type 42 which could have provided area defence.

Given the overwhelming superiority from the air, I can't see how anything other than a snap shot from a surface launched sea skimming missile could have been mounted, so as long as she wasn't trawling up and down the coast then she was likely safe as houses.

Can't say I'd fancy going to sea with just four missiles,

Ian

 

[swerve]

britain sending arms and supplies to the russians invariably involved the lend lease gear provided by the US in the first place. churchill made strategic and tactical decisions to redirect it to the russians for a number of reasons.

Not invariably. The UK sent Churchill & Valentine tanks & Hurricanes to the USSR, for example. Our first aid convoys sailed before the USA started providing any lend-lease aid for the USSR (it shipped some stuff in summer 1941 - but was paid in gold). We'd delivered a few hundred free Hurricanes before the USA had even agreed to send anything without cash payment, & kept shipping them - and tanks, & anything else we could spare & they could use.

In summer 1941 the UK had aircraft & tanks to spare, & limited opportunities to use them. The Mediterranean war was limited more by our ability to deploy forces than our overall strength. With the Wehrmacht headed east, there was no threat of invasion of Great Britain. So we gave stuff to the USSR.

Overall, of course, most of the aid sent to the USSR was provided by the USA - but not all.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Not invariably. The UK sent Churchill & Valentine tanks & Hurricanes to the USSR, for example. Our first aid convoys sailed before the USA started providing any lend-lease aid for the USSR (it shipped some stuff in summer 1941 - but was paid in gold). We'd delivered a few hundred free Hurricanes before the USA had even agreed to send anything without cash payment, & kept shipping them - and tanks, & anything else we could spare & they could use.

In summer 1941 the UK had aircraft & tanks to spare, & limited opportunities to use them. The Mediterranean war was limited more by our ability to deploy forces than our overall strength. With the Wehrmacht headed east, there was no threat of invasion of Great Britain. So we gave stuff to the USSR.

Overall, of course, most of the aid sent to the USSR was provided by the USA - but not all.

I don't think I was implying all, but certainly the bulk of equipment redirected to the soviets was lend lease material.

IIRC the shift of lend lease material happened as early as the first murmansk convoys (initially intended for GtBritains use and was a decision that did not entirely sit well with the cabinet.

 

[Astute]

lets not perpetuate the myth of the US participating in WW2 and making plenty of money.

lets show some respect.

count the US war dead in the two theatres of WW2.

britain sending arms and supplies to the russians invariably involved the lend lease gear provided by the US in the first place. churchill made strategic and tactical decisions to redirect it to the russians for a number of reasons.

jingoism needs to be checked in threads like this as it doesn't serve the debate

I would never show or have shown any type of dissrespect to the war dead of any country i dont know were you got that from, myself and my family know the cost of war very very well, and the contribution of the US,Austrailia,Canada,Russia and all countries involved in ww2 as never been or has been questioned or played down in any of my posts and never will, and the rest was what you decided to read into it not what was said.

Firstly britain had no money to prop up greece. yes thats true because we had not long come out of the second world war in 21 years so , i gave some reasons were the money went and what it was been used for at the time so
Secondry i said the US came out of ww2 100% stronger economical and military and had the money to prop up greece, which yes they did and the fact the US thought greece might come under the influance of communist Russia at the time made this bale out more important,

Were you got the rest from i dont know

 

[gf0012-aust]

I would never show or have shown any type of dissrespect to the war dead of any country i dont know were you got that from, myself and my family know the cost of war very very well, and the contribution of the US,Austrailia,Canada,Russia and all countries involved in ww2 as never been or has been questioned or played down in any of my posts and never will, and the rest was what you decided to read into it not what was said.

Firstly britain had no money to prop up greece. yes thats true because we had not long come out of the second world war in 21 years so , i gave some reasons were the money went and what it was been used for at the time so
Secondry i said the US came out of ww2 100% stronger economical and military and had the money to prop up greece, which yes they did and the fact the US thought greece might come under the influance of communist Russia at the time made this bale out more important,

Were you got the rest from i dont know

my comment wasn't a salvo at you - it was intended as a general remark that when there are comments about a US late entry into WW1 and/or WW2, or that they generated benefit, that the comments often ignore the thousands and thouands of dead americans who fought because they believed it was a right cause.

they were volunteer soldiers, and people need to remember that when they talk about US contribution - it went beyond bankrolling the allies - or bankrolling by proxy.

there were some americans (like all other nationalities) that made a profit from war that were altruistic - in fact the US can be held thankful for the creation of insider trading laws due to the corrupt behaviour of Joseph Kennedy (JFK's father).

 

[Chips]

If I might weigh in a bit here, back on topic too, I am a firm believer that if the UK wants to have any kind of influence, be it political, military or otherwise, then the future is the EU.

I know that I'll come under a lot of flack for saying that, but it makes sense and it is realistic. The EU doesn't work at the moment because all the big member countries, especially France, Germany and the UK, are clinging on to agendas that were outdated and unrealistic a long time ago. No country in Europe can be great any more, not alone at least, as no one has the economic power to, but as part of the EU we are the biggest economic power in the world. Of course, that doesn't automatically transfer into military power, but it is a step along that road. If military pooling were introduced in Europe by the time the UK has it's carriers we could have a sizeable carrier force (the two QE's with Charles de Gaulle, plus Italian and Spanish assault carriers among others as compliments), if Airbus were given some sort of subsidisation we could create a reasonable sized force of air tankers and troop transports, with which the burden could be shared between all EU member states similar to the way in which NATO assets are shared. Those are just basic examples, but if the EU had greater economic unity imagine the sort of force that could be produced from it as far as the military is concerned. Look at the sucess had with the Jaguar, Tornado and Eurofighter for starters.

Like I said, I'm sure I'll come under some flack for saying that, but I am British myself and it is because I want Britain to suceed that I want the EU to suceed. We seriously need to wake up and smell the coffee and stop living in the 1930's. We're not the empire we used to be and if we want to have any influence on the world stage it will have to be done in the future through the EU, like it or not. We are, after all, just a tiny island off the coast of Europe. It's a miracle we ever had the sort of power we did, we should be grateful for it, but move on and not try to cling to it in desperation.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

If I might weigh in a bit here, back on topic too, I am a firm believer that if the UK wants to have any kind of influence, be it political, military or otherwise, then the future is the EU.

No, I understand where you're coming from. But as you go on to say, the EU is divided and rudderless. The problem is that the French can't accept that they don't run it anymore and the Germans don't want to pay for it. An EU that accepted a military policy largely run and planned by the UK might get somewhere. But given that would mean many member states actually spending more than 0.01% of GDP on defence it isn't going to happen.

To be honest I think the UK is doing ok all things considering. It still punches way above its weight and is a top-tier power (the US aside, as it's in its own class). Complaints that things are otherwise are down to harking after the "glory" days of ruling a large chunk of the world and shooting brown or black people that wanted independence.