Phil FosterAgain, tell me what threat the UK faces that requires increased defence spending,
I cannot accept that China nor Russia nor both together will never pose a threat but crystal balls aside one reason to increase defence spending (and I’m not going to get into the percentage argument because I have no idea about costs) would be the care of injured personel. I don’t think for a second that shutting down all of the dedicated military hospitals and handing over the care of injured troops to NHS facilities is in any way adequate for their needs. Headley Court is a rehabilitaion centre in Surrey and is the only dedicated facility left yet even it has to rely on charity donations to plan for what I think are essential rehabilitation facilities such as a swimming pool used for physiotherapeutic treatment. Currently they have to use a public pool and this is becoming unworkable because of protestations from civilian users.
A pool was recognised as a requirement by the MoD themselves but a lack of cash precluded one.
It is only one example and I’m sure sombody will argue that injured troops are perfectly adequately catered for. I also accept that it is just one example of why an increase might be required. However, if we agree that injured personel should not have to rely on charity to recieve the care that they need and if we agree that the money should come out of the defence budget; if we agree that the current defence budget cannot accomodate it then it stands to reason that the defence budget should be increased to take it into account.
Perfectgeneral sneering and belittlement is to some here like breathing, it is a fact of life. You will see demands for detail and example and none will be returned. Sit back, settle down and try not to care too much about it, life is too short.
Phil FosterI might not be fully up to speed on this but I think the CVF are easily big enough and modular design will apparently make STOBAR and CATOBAR easily integrated at any stage, even after launch. I could be reading that wrong though.
Phil FosterDo we need VTOL? Yes we can make the B model work but it will cost more. Have you seen all the debates on the British defence budget? Apart from that it will be heavier, thirstier have a smaller payload. Allround it will be inferior and yet cost more. Britain cannot afford the luxury of VTOL. Its a painful truth and funding is at the root of all the other discussions here as well. The British will have to pull out of Iraq if they want to continue the fight in Afghanistan. Its all about the funding and even preasure from the US government will not budge the British government, they will not spend the required cash.
Phil FosterDis. I think we will end up with the F35C personally and IMO preferably. I think the B model is a lame duck.
Phil FosterThe operative part of what I said and you chose to overlook was:
“what I see is a nationalistic slanging match that nobody is winning”
SOC. Congratulations on your ancestry, I would not have known about it had you not said anything, which suggests to me that it is more important to you than anybody else. Generally the rest of us just go through life not bleating about ours or expecting people to comment on it. Also we don’t generally fall off our horses when somebody does.
In direct answer to your question, as you know I have had issues with your moderator status for a while. It is indeed one of the reasons I don’t post here very much anymore and no, its got nothing to do with your nationality. There you go again, it has to be about nationality with you doesn’t it? Its a real chip on your shoulder and I don’t understand why. Yet you keep on mentioning it and directing your own insecurities at others.
Phil FosterIs there something wrong? As far as I am aware I have not broken any of the forum’s guidelines with any of my comments. And I haven’t edited any bit of this discussion as I have gotten myself involved, there are other moderators who are more than capable and can even edit my own postings if they see fit.
To explain the bit which I am sure has caused you to find my presence entertaining once again, it is clearly obvious that the UK will not be in Iraq for that much longer. A year, two, maybe, but they aren’t willing to sit through it for the entirety like we will (whether we want to or not). Which is perfectly fine, if they want to make a political decision to act in what they perceive to be their best interests, then that is by all means their right to do so, as the situation has clearly changed in Iraq, correct? My point is that if it is alright for one nation to act in what it perceives to be its own self interest, it is right for all to do so. The concerns over a lot of the JSF stuff from this end had to do with the fact that British export restrictions are not the same as ours, and there is a possibility that JSF technology could end up someplace we don’t want it to end up.
What’s really interesting is that the other half of that argument has yet to reappear, that of the second powerplant.
No what I see is a nationalistic slanging match that nobody is winning. You however have that big stick don’t you? You’re not afraid to swing it around either. You add a certain edge to your vitriol that others dare’nt because they know you are a ‘moderator’.
Phil FosterI see you ‘moderating’ again SOC.
Phil FosterYou also need to take defence spending trends into account rather then statis figures. For eg, the current defence budget for pakistan is $4.55billion (3% of GDP) and has been showing a consistent decline in terms of % of GDP for about a decade now.
I would think most countries stabilize between 2.5% to 3% in the long term. (excluding war spending).
Its the last bit I latched onto. Stabilisation at 2.5 to 3%. Thats it right there. Of course it might just be your own opinion but it seems perfectly reasonable to me. This is not peacetime there are two major ops still in progress and we are currently at about 2.1% and declining. Even the NAO says it isn’t enough.
Phil FosterSwerve, Phil Foster, you seem to be saying that 3%, the level in 1995, was not enough and won’t be enough from the present GDP. The ‘top brass’ at the UKNDA http://www.uknda.org/ that asked for 3% do have some idea of what is needed to run the armed forces and keep it equipped under present circumstances.
Please support my petition. If you have a minor quibble with the wording, by all means, submit another to number ten. The more the better. I’ll probably sign it.
Okay okay I’ll sign it. 🙂
Phil FosterYes, about right, I’d say.
I agree there’s a case for an increase*. What I disagree with is the approach of this “3%” initiative.
*We need to spend more just to meet the costs of what our armed forces are doing, as well as spending to maintain “insurance policy” capabilities that aren’t being used now but may be needed in future.
Firstly –
1) the troops personal kit, pay & conditions.
2) airborne transport shortfalls – transport helicopters & some freighter aircraft needed ASAP, the latter to fill a gap until the A400M start arriving, the latter to fill both immediate needs & what looks like a long-term deficiency.
3) troop numbers. Could be helped by 1), but more recruits need to be paid for.Then –
Planned future purchases of equipment aren’t funded. That needs to be covered.We don’t seem to be plannign to buy enough of some things, & not replacing valuable capabilities. e.g.
Escorts for the carriers & amphibious ships.
Naval resupply
Tankers for the RAF.
Photo recce. Satellites can’t do everything)And financing methods which save short-term costs at the expense of more spending in total. Has to stop!
That’s a start.
The point about the approach to acheiving 3%GDP is a good one, any perfectly valid case can be defeated if it is argued for incorrectly so I can see the folly of my argument.
What seems to be happening is that any extra cash has been given up on and the services are now fighting over the scraps. the army has the most immediate requirements and so they attack Typhoon, Astute, CVF, T45 etc and the RAF and Navy are left fighting for what little funding they have left with a perfectly valid argument that is unfortunately falling on deaf ears.
Instead of fighting each other for these scraps, the services need to get together, maybe build their own PR machine to drum up public support (which ironically appears to be growing by the day) and fight together for all of the funds they need to ensure the future of all of the projects that they need.
As you say, the argument needs to be watertight.
Phil FosterPopulation
UK 60.6 million (official estimate, 30 June 2006)
Germany 82.3 million (official estimate, 31 December 2006)GDP per head is slight;y higher in the UK than Germany nowadays. German total GDP is about 25% more than the UKs at PPP, but since British prices are now slightly higher, the difference is less than 20% in nominal terms.
1.5% of German GDP is therefore less than current UK spending, however you figure it.
Okay if you are correct it would compare with the UK spending at 1.8% GDP? Sounds right? This figure sounds almost adequate for a peacetime defence force to me.
Fair enough but the case for an increase is still relevant even if it isn’t 3% when you take into account the two countries differing commitments surely? 3% is perfectly doable. I mean £24bn for a bank in trouble, loan or otherwise, but less than £0.5bn for an unquestionably ailing military machine year on year??????? They have the money, they can do it and they have no excuses.
The navy needs its new ships and the air force needs its new aircraft but the army needs better support right now. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not the answer, the only way the figures can be squared is by inputting more cash and the Northern Rock debacle proves that there is plenty of floating cash in the treasury.
Phil FosterGermany had military budget of 1.5% GDP in 2003. You got still a long way to go.. 😉
Germany has something like twice our population and as a result at least twice our income. That would mean, if my maths is right, that 1.5% GDP is the equivalent of 3% GDP for us in terms of the amount of cash spent.
Phil FosterThe Hawk T1 is a completely different aircraft from the Hawk T2. This has been said time and again but I do not think that this fact is being taken seriously.
All this aside lets suppose that the T50 and the M346 really start to hurt Hawk sales. This is what I think BAE will do.
They will re-engineer the Hawk with a full authority, fully configurable digital fly by wire flight control system and possibly, but less likely a new engine. The wing may be redesigned again to incorporate, I don’t know, maneuvre slats and some other modifications that I do not have the technical knowledge to describe. What you would have at the end of it though is an aircraft that still looks ‘superficially’ like the Hawk we have today.
Now because it would still look like the Hawk and would most likely still be called ‘Hawk’ there would be those convinced that it is a ‘legacy’ Hawk in dire need of replacement. You could make the thing supersonic if needs be and it would not make any difference, we would still be having the same argument.
Phil FosterHawk has been a good trainer in the past time.
It can retire with honour.
So that it can step aside and let the M346 in? 😉
Well maybe you are right but only maybe. Its kind of hard to know what they would come up with that was a truly better system. How would we know if the T-50 or the M346 was turning out below standard pilots because they were making life too easy for the student?
I think that there is a bleeding edge to military flight training (any training for that matter) you have to know what is right for the standards that you seek. BAE Systems have a strategy and I am sure that every year they take a good look at the Hawk and try to decide if now really is the time to replace it on the production line. I think that every year they think that enough have been sold and that they probably can spend money on a completely new design but I think that every year they decide that the only replacement for a Hawk is another Hawk.
A better more refined Hawk and that a completely new design would be nothing more than a marketing ploy that they do not want to follow unless the business depends on it. Go back to the SU27/SU30 analogy. The Hawk that flew 30 years ago is not the same Hawk that is coming off the production line today, it only looks very similar and what is the point of changing the shape for changes sake? That would just be pandering to fashion which would not make good sense either for the customer or for the business. The Hawk will be replaced when it needs to be and not before.
Phil FosterI think what Jack is saying (and I agree) is that blaring headlines such as ‘high AoA capable’ and ‘supersonic’ are advertising headlines designed to draw a crowd and make people gasp a bit (sorry if I sound simplistic but I am a simple kind of bloke).
Think about it. If, as a student pilot, you have cut your teeth in a subsonic jet lacking some of the capabilities of many of the oponents you will train against, does that not make you a better pilot? You cannot go supersonic and you cannot pull high alpha maneuvres and so you learn to accept the aircraft’s ‘shortcomings’, learn to play to your own abilities rather than rely on the capability of the aircraft to get you out of trouble? Isn’t this what training aircraft are supposed to do? Train you?
They are not supposed to molly coddle you and hold your hand at every twist and turn, they are designed to teach you good airmanship and so in the Hawk we have an aircraft that has some superficial aerodynamic and performance limitations (deliberate limitations I might add) yet has state of the art electronics and avionics. You get the best of both worlds, you learn how to fly an aircraft with limitations, properly, and you also get a good working knowledge of the systems you will be using in a frontline squadron.
Up front costs are explained by the comprehensive avionics suite but more than offset by the through life costs.
Jack just tell me if I am repeating what you are saying please.
Sign In
