The T-50 is no more ‘modern’ or ‘new generation’ than the Hawk LIFT/100 series, and nor is the Yak-130/M-346.

Didn’t we have a similar conversation about the SU27 and the SU30? It was suggested that although the SU30 is superficially ‘only’ a modernised SU27 it is in fact a completely new beast altogether. I recall a similar analogy drawn between the Hawk T1 and the Hawk T2 (RAF). They are only ‘superficially’ the same aircraft.

How long ago were the CVFs announced? And what has taken place since? A long string of cuts………with no sign of it ever getting any better. No……there is just no way the carriers will ever be ordered. I hate to say this, but I think everyone knows this to be true…….those ships are just TOO tempting a target for “savings”.

Have you ever heard of the Millenium Dome? Bear with me, this is more relevant than it sounds.

You yanked my chain and with that post you are continuing the theme. Go google ‘Russia demographic crisis’. Then go and do in depth research into the state of the Russian economy, focus on the over reliance on the energy markets, at the same time look at the levels of defence expenditure of Russia and Europe and European countries, then come back here and take back your sarcasm and comments about BS.

Never mind. I still think we agree that the British armed forces are underfunded, please find the report you mentioned that the government said they needed 130,000 troops. Are you sure it was this government? Did they say how they were going to fund them? Was there a plan of any sort? I heard recently that they were planning to halve again whatever navy we have left! I think it was in a rag paper so didn’t pay it much attention. Its bad now and so far as I can see its only going to get worse and lets assume you really are right about Russia and I am just dreaming of ’emerging’ threats, further investment is absolutely essential nonetheless and if it doesn’t happen the front line troops are going to really suffer.

The only thing I disagree about is the level of investment. I don’t think it is simply a matter of underfunding Peter to adequately fund Paul, the level of under investment is across the board. I think we need the shiny new ships I think we need the shiny new fast jets but I also think we need to ensure that a requirement for however many T45 destroyers (as an example only) is not watered down to a little over half over a longer procurement period in order to direct the available cash at a more ‘needy’ branch of the armed services.

I hope you are right about Russia (as an example) and I hope you are right that we will never need to go it alone in a major military operation ever again. I just don’t think that these are realistic assumptions, certainly not in the long term.

Maybe I am being a little simplistic about what I feel is the level of funding required but I’m sure we all agree that a higher level of funding is required. We may disagree however about how much and how it should be directed.

You don’t, ever, pay up-front. Nobody ever has, & no sensible person ever will. You make stage payments. Payment schedule is laid out in the contract, depending on stages in the work. That’s how it’s done now, & how it should continue to be done. For major items, such as the aircraft carriers, we know pretty well how much we’ll pay, each year, from now until they are delivered.

The running costs, retention etc will not come to anything like the sum you mention. Spend on housing (new & refurbished) as fast as possible (there’s a physical limit to how fast you can build, there is not an infinite supply of building workers, refurbishments have to be done in stages or you take too much housing out of use & make conditions even worse), increase pay enough to maximise retention (there’s an effective limit, you know), spend enough to allow all the hardware to be kept in tip-top condition, rush buys of better personal kit, & I reckon spending will increase maximum 10% straight off. A replacement & enhancement of the entire current fleet train could be done for maybe 0.25% of GDP, spread over 10 years, i.e. 0.025% a year – and that’s taking the forecast cost of the MARS programme & increasing it to allow for underestimation & increasing capability. Unless you’re going in for a big increase in numbers, we can’t spend as much as you say.

C’mon, how many do you think we need? How many troops? How many transport aircraft? I reckon maybe another 4 C-17 for a total of 10, 20 A330MRTT bought outright plus refuelling kits for 10 of the A400M, maybe 6 C-27J to replace the SF Hercules, & perhaps a few converted secondhand A310MRTT to meet any near-term tanker shortfall. How many frigates & destroyers? Etc.

Agreed but you still have to budget for it up front even if you don’t pay up front. If you are working on the assumption that the British forces will face in short to long term what they are facing now then you are mostly correct. However, as the article in question said, ‘we are fighting the crocodile closest to the canoe’ and we are taking little or no notice of emerging threats and to do that we need to invest more. How many troops do we need. A minimum of 135,000 fully trained and ready to go. Currently troops are going to Iraq for 5 or 6 months, coming home for a few weeks and then are getting posted to Afghanistan for 5 or 6 months. This is fine in the short term but it cannot be sustained. Recruitment issues are cropping up now and so too are retention issues because an awful lot of soldiers are spending far too much time away from home and none of them signed up for 3, 9 or 22 years of that. How long do you think they are going to put up with it for? How long do you think the current tempo of operations are going to last for? A couple more years perhaps? Not according to the government themselves. And what happens when the voluteers dry up? National service. Are you happy with that?

Emerging threats? A resurgent Russia, China, South America plus a myriad of other smaller issues in other world hot spots. Have you given them any thought? How do you plan to deal with them on 2.5% GDP in the long term? You can’t, simple as. Don’t get me wrong, if this money can’t be invested we have another choice. Withdraw from the world stage and worry about what is going on closer to home. I’m happy with that unfortunately the British government isn’t.

I’m not actually disagreeing with you Turb’ but the Tories did spend a little more on defence, they averaged something like 3 to 3.5% GDP, maybe not wisely spent sometimes but it counted where it mattered most, it wasn’t much more but anything is better than nothing. The current 2.1% GDP being spent is being spent mostly on big ticket high prestige items to the detriment of day to day operating costs, training, nut and bolts. You get the idea. But its not just the armed forces, the medical research council suffers in a similar fashion, the police and fire services are underfunded as well. The only departments that have cash thrown at them are the NHS where it is wasted by non medical managers and the social services which is simply a gaping black hole in the public coffers. I mean what do you need 12% of an entire country’s GDP for FFS!?

I look around the world, & I see Illustrious & Ark Royal with no Harriers because they’re busy in Afghanistan, etc., serious concern about whether the Harriers will last until F-35Bs start arriving, because of the use they’re getting, & the RAF planning to send Typhoons (still with limited A-G fit) to Afghanistan. And I think to myself – “Why aren’t we using Tornado IDS instead?”. It’s our most numerous combat aircraft, it has a wider range of A-G weapons usable at the moment than Typhoon will have when it goes out there, & if we really need to stretch out the fleet we can probably get some German surplus, since they’re cutting back numbers, which isn’t an option for Harriers.

Why wear out the Harriers, why send Typhoons, when we have planes designed for dropping bombs & just about nothing else, not carrier-capable, with everything integrated, & (relatively) plenty of them?

Your thoughts please, gentlemen.

Cracking question and I think the first reply sums it up. They skimped on the Tornado as well mate. Its engines are high bypass turbofans optimised for low level operation and it was never bestowed with an abundance of power to begin with.

It does not plit it at all, it just means that the RN does not have an airforce. Like I said the RAF is currently using all the Harriers it would be even if the F/A-2 still exists. It is the Navy that is suffering. What is truly wrong is the incredibly poor level of CAS available from the British forces, a truly committed government would immediately order more Apaches.

We seem to be arguing a point that we agree on, some part of the British armed forces are suffering because aircraft were retired far too early. Joint Force Harrier is a joint RAF/RN organisation and they share the airframes. If the navy have airframes embarked on a carrier, excercising in the Adriatic for example, that means there are fewer airframes for the RAF to take to Afghanistan/Iraq when those excercises/operations could have been performed quite happily by SHAR. Am I missing some news here. Has the MoD suddenly decided that the FAA can’t have any GR9s afterall? Am I getting the maths all cocked up? A GR9 cannot be in two places at once, of that I am sure.