I’ll take that as a ‘knowbody knows’ then.

Good skills from the pilot and the ground crew put a lot of faith in the pilots abilities. Hats off to them.

At a guess I’d say it was because some MPs dad or brother didn’t get a proper back hander over the Dilligence so its services were no longer required and in comes Challenger with a proper back hander for some high ranking MPs mate.

Or am I being a bit cynical?

All of the above plus the Northrop F20 Tigershark.

“A few less Typhoons” is exactly the problem. Its often a case of a few less this and that, and you find that you’ve loss a significant proportion of you’re capability. DOn’t know about the nationality but are you sure you’re not a politician?

I have to admit that once or twice the politician thought did cross my mind too but I don’t think Lawrence is at all. You need to ask the right questions and you will soon see what angle he is coming from, Lawrence jump in if I am getting above myself.

As I understand it what he is saying is simple, logical and fair. If we as a nation intend to remain a major world player we must accept that the armed forces need to be funded adequately which at present (IMO) they are not. We cannot maintain a world class military capability on a shoestring. If we insist on shoestring budgets for the armed forces we cannot be a major world player and need to withdraw from the world stage.

So we need to make a decision one way or the other, we cannot remain in limbo. However making blanket statements like ‘we need to spend 3%GDP on defence’ is not going to address the problem either, not accurately at any rate. Accepted, after a decision is made and requirements correctly identified then the 3%GDP figure might be accurate afterall but how do you know what the percentage of GDP will be until you have identified the requirements? If the decision is made to withdraw from the world stage you might find that we require even less than we are spending right now.

However whilst we remain in limbo not daring to jump one way or the other we do not know what the future requirements will be and therefore cannot speculate how much cash we will need to fund it.

Simple really.

An interesting question for you, if the budget level was maintained at its current level, but the UK withdrew from the largest part of its overseas commitments, what would the UK armed forces be able to fund then in terms of troop numbers and equipment?

I think this question is hypothetical especially seeing as I think the government will not withdraw from anywhere anytime soon and so, as I have argued but from a different angle to PerfectG that the defence budget should be increased.

Do we assume that we will remain committed to the South Atlantic Dependancies which of course includes the Falkland Islands? Do we also assume that we remain committed to NATO, the UN and the Commonwealth?

The thing is that if we remain committed to all of the above then there is still (IMHO) an argument for increased defence spending? Sorry to ask for clarification but I am willing to take a stab at it. I just want to know exactly what we would be withdrawing from and to.

However it does go to show that money can be found within the existing budget.

At the cost of……………..? Ammunition? Training time? Extra helicopters? Apologies for using a tired cliche but robbing Peter to pay Paul is not an example of ‘being able’ to find cash out of the existing budget.

The treatment of wounded and ex service personnel is as much a case of military attitude as it is of funding. As far as the military is concerned once a man is no longer able to serve they are no longer useful and thus the establishment dislikes caring for them. It is the same reason why widows are given so little time to move out of Army accommodation.

Now I am in agreement with you about this but I can’t quite work out your feelings about it. Do you regard this as a positive fact of life or are you disgusted by it? Personally I am disgusted by it and wish to see a change. To change I feel there needs to be an increase in the defence budget. I think it needs to be taken from the defence budget because any other department will resent it, misdirect it and ultimately turn a blind eye to it and stop funding it. The money needs to come from somewhere, the MoD must take responsibility and to do so it needs extra cash.

Social or no, as I said, if we agree that the money needs to come out of the defence budget because afterall it is a defence related matter and that the defence budget currently cannot accomodate it then the defence budget needs to be increased to accomodate it.