Quote:According to confidential defence documents leaked to the French press, less than half of France's Leclerc tanks – 142 out of 346 – are operational and even these regularly break down.
Less than half of its Puma helicopters, 37 per cent of its Lynx choppers and 33 per cent of its Super Frelon models – built 40 years ago – are in a fit state to fly, according to documents seen by Le Parisien newspaper.
Two thirds of France's Mirage F1 reconnaissance jets are unusable at present.
According to army officials, the precarious state of France's defence equipment almost led to catastrophe in April, when French special forces rescued the passengers and crew of a luxury yacht held by pirates off the Somali coast.
Although ultimately a success, the rescue operation nearly foundered at an early stage, when two of the frigates carrying troops suffered engine failure, and a launch laden with special forces' equipment sunk under its weight.
Later, an Atlantic 2 jet tracking the pirates above Somali territory suffered engine failure and had to make an emergency landing in Yemen.
"External operations, in the Ivory Coast and Lebanon are a fig leaf: we are able to keep up the pretence but in ten years our defence apparatus will fall apart," one high-ranking official said.
The disclosure comes just ten days before President Nicolas Sarkozy announces a major reform of the armed forces, with a defence white paper outlining France's military priorities for the next 15 years.
He is expected to argue that the situation can only improve by reducing the number of France's operational troops from 50,000 to 30,000, and its fighter aircraft, as well as closing military bases.
He will also use the occasion to push for greater military integration in Europe, an issue that France will highlight when it takes over the EU's six-month rotating presidency in July.
French proposals circulating in Brussels show that France wants a new EU military headquarters based in the Belgian capital and run by Europe's new foreign policy chief. It is also calling for a bigger rapid reaction force and for countries to spend more on defence.
France has played down its European defence ambitions for fear of boosting the No vote in Ireland's referendum on the Lisbon treaty on June 12.
In parallel to beefing up the EU's defence capability, Mr Sarkozy is keen on France becoming a full member of Nato's integrated military command structure, which Charles de Gaulle left in 1966. But he is unlikely to make a decision on this until next year.
Before anyone accusing me of anything let it be known that I like the country of France and a sizable portion of the French peoples. I do wish that their military is strong and I hope that this article is wrong.
I have to ask, does this article have any truth in it?
"Korea has not been the only battle ground since the end of the Second World War. Men have fought and died in Malaya, in Greece, in the Philippines, in Algeria and Cuba, and Cyprus and almost continuously on the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. No nuclear weapons have been fired. No massive nuclear retaliation has been considered appropriate. This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin--war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It is a form of warfare uniquely adapted to what has been strangely called 'wars of liberation,' to undermine the efforts of new and poor countries to maintain the freedom that they have finally achieved. It preys on economic unrest and ethnic conflicts. It requires in those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training."-President Kennedy's Address at Graduation Exercises of the U.S. Military Academy, 1962
------------------------------
"The reason I'll be released is the same reason you think I'll be convicted. I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of these men are the enemies of your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss - the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year - sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So. You call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
"Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
What I have found is that besides the BBC almost all other European newspapers and agencies are terrible. But even the BBC has its troubles.
"Korea has not been the only battle ground since the end of the Second World War. Men have fought and died in Malaya, in Greece, in the Philippines, in Algeria and Cuba, and Cyprus and almost continuously on the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. No nuclear weapons have been fired. No massive nuclear retaliation has been considered appropriate. This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin--war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It is a form of warfare uniquely adapted to what has been strangely called 'wars of liberation,' to undermine the efforts of new and poor countries to maintain the freedom that they have finally achieved. It preys on economic unrest and ethnic conflicts. It requires in those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training."-President Kennedy's Address at Graduation Exercises of the U.S. Military Academy, 1962
------------------------------
"The reason I'll be released is the same reason you think I'll be convicted. I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of these men are the enemies of your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss - the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year - sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So. You call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
"Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: French army falling apart, documents show
No score for this post
June 7 2008, 7:38 AM
Might be due to the fact that most European news sources post articles in their domestic languages.
I have to ask, does this article have any truth in it?
Without a doubt they are but remember how old aircraft like Mirage F1 are. They didn't post the stats for the Mirage 2000 nor the Rafale.
From a UK site, why am I not surprise
Tell me next time you see an American or Chinese paper post anything about French forces other than the big obvious stuff or collaberations that involve one of said country
"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Rob L(iar)! The NEWS is that Taranis is an UAV, NOT an UCAV, troll!!!!
Lo there do I see my father.
Lo there do I see my mother.
Lo there do I see my brothers and my sisters.
Lo there do I see the line of my people back to the beginning.
Lo they do call to me;
they bid me take my place among them in the Halls of Valhalla,
where the brave may live forever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There were 481 occasions were Typhoons were cannibalised last year in the RAF to keep the rest of the fleet running... Jwcook <<<<<<<<<
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"et le succès du ponant cache mal l'état de nos moyens. en effet deux frégates ont eus des problèmes de moteurs, et un zodiac ou une passerelle de lancement (launch laden) avec de l'équipement des forces spéciales a coulé aussi un atlantic s'est posé en catastrophe au yemen alors qu'il traquait les pirates.
décidément on nous cache des choses."
If true, then the French leaders need a spanking. Their army needs more funds!
Mobile airpower
"The enemy dies relaxed," observed a Lockheed Martin manager.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
French should be happy they're not wasting money on upkeep of weapons which are going to get dropped or handed over to the enemy in times of war when the French inevitably do what they do best....run home to thier mothers, wives and girlfriends and let the rest of hte world do their fighting for them.
French should stick to what they know best, making fancy perfumes, shoes and handbags, so their women look pretty when they come back home defeated!
I Hail The Flag
This message has been edited by DirtyDirtyDirtyBird on Jun 8, 2008 2:07 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
No it was linked to the French press. I'll rather face the problem than hide my head in sand pit. The French army is in dire state. Thank you, Sarkozy!
---------------------------
De Gaulle to the General Koenig, Norman hero of Bir Hakeim: "Hear and tell your troops: the whole of France is watching you, you are our pride."[
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Quote:A FORMER head of the SAS has quit the army after criticising the government for risking soldiers’ lives by failing to fund troops and equipment.
Brigadier Ed Butler, one of Britain’s most experienced and decorated special forces soldiers, is the most senior of three key commanders to have resigned in the past year amid widespread anger over lack of funding.
News of his resignation comes in the same week that General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the army, called for better treatment for the forces and more money to be spent on defence.
In a statement issued through the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Butler said he was leaving for “a number of factors and reasons” and singled out difficulties faced by service personnel.
He praised the “extraordinarily brave men and women” who repeatedly did their job well in the face of “constraints and restraints”. He said the country owed them “a huge debt of gratitude”.
The MoD said it was “not a protest vote”. But close friends said Butler was disappointed that the government put soldiers’ lives at risk by failing to pay for sufficient troops and equipment.
“He was very frustrated at the cuts going on in the army at present,” one close associate said. “Sadly, many of the concerns held by senior officers have not been resolved and, across the armed forces, there are a lot of officers and soldiers who are not happy.”
Butler, 48, was widely expected to become the next director of special forces, friends said.
He led the first British deployment to southern Afghanistan in 2006 and said in his statement that his decision to quit came “after a great deal of discussion and deliberation over the last six months”.
Six months ago the board of inquiry into the death of Captain Jim Philippson, the first British soldier to die in action in Helmand province, cited Butler’s criticism of the failure to provide troops and kit and blamed “political machinations” for his death.
Butler was highly critical of John Reid, then defence secretary, for keeping troop numbers low and of the failure of the Treasury under Gordon Brown to fund equipment.
Lieutenant Colonel Rick Williams MC, another commanding officer of the SAS, resigned last July after being criticised by senior officers for spending too much time on the front line with his men.
He was followed in November by Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Tootal, commanding officer of third battalion, the Parachute Regiment.
Butler’s special forces career during the 1991 Gulf war, in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan had him marked down for great things.
He is the grandson of Richard “Rab” Butler, the former Tory foreign secretary and chancellor.
He was mentioned in dispatches in Northern Ireland, awarded the Distinguished Service Order twice, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and was made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire for his time in Helmand.
He is currently the commander of Joint Task Force Headquarters which is based in the UK and contains a strong special forces element.
There seems to be a pattern here. Two of the top armed forces of Europe seem to be underfunded and underequiped.
"Korea has not been the only battle ground since the end of the Second World War. Men have fought and died in Malaya, in Greece, in the Philippines, in Algeria and Cuba, and Cyprus and almost continuously on the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. No nuclear weapons have been fired. No massive nuclear retaliation has been considered appropriate. This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin--war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It is a form of warfare uniquely adapted to what has been strangely called 'wars of liberation,' to undermine the efforts of new and poor countries to maintain the freedom that they have finally achieved. It preys on economic unrest and ethnic conflicts. It requires in those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training."-President Kennedy's Address at Graduation Exercises of the U.S. Military Academy, 1962
------------------------------
"The reason I'll be released is the same reason you think I'll be convicted. I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of these men are the enemies of your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss - the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year - sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So. You call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
"Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Underfunded for what? They dont any large enemies, UK or France couldnt possibly recreate an invasion on a country like Iraq 10 years ago and they still cant. Even at that they have virtually nothing to worry about, with no real enemies and a passive government they couldnt be any safer.
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Underfunded for what? They dont any large enemies, UK or France couldnt possibly recreate an invasion on a country like Iraq 10 years ago and they still cant. Even at that they have virtually nothing to worry about, with no real enemies and a passive government they couldnt be any safer.
Underfunded in order to carry out the sustained operations they wish to undertake. As for for projection forces, Russia would be even less capable of invading a country like Iraq at any given point on the planet.
"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
In plain words that means they are essentially wasting money, UK is a passive government that has nothing to worry about. Its biggest decision is whether to send a few thousand troops with US or stay home, you can do that even on the Lithuanian budget. Russia covers 1/8th of the land on this Earth, we dont need to go anywhere as our problems are bound to come through our border.
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
In plain words that means they are essentially wasting money, UK is a passive government that has nothing to worry about. Its biggest decision is whether to send a few thousand troops with US or stay home, you can do that even on the Lithuanian budget. Russia covers 1/8th of the land on this Earth, we dont need to go anywhere as our problems are bound to come through our border.
The British government will spend the defence budget as it see's fit, you may see the British spending as a waste, but many would also see Russia's attempt at trying to compete with the US as if it were still a superpower like the Soviet Union as a futile waste of money.
"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
We have China pointing nukes at us, Chechnya harboring terrorists, Georgia trying to screw with our resources and the arctic shelf to reclaim. The brits are surrounded by water and protected under the American umbrella, couple that with a weak foreign policy and your defense spending is a waste.
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
We have China pointing nukes at us, Chechnya harboring terrorists, Georgia trying to screw with our resources and the arctic shelf to reclaim. The brits are surrounded by water and protected under the American umbrella, couple that with a weak foreign policy and your defense spending is a waste.
We are also part of NATO, which involves meeting our commitments to the alliance. NATO countries can't just expect the American taxpayer to pay up for everyones defence whilst spending the "defence" money on themselves. That aside, defence spending maintains a huge skilled workforce in the UK and a provides a lot of exports too which alone enough reason.
"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Quote:In plain words that means they are essentially wasting money, UK is a passive government that has nothing to worry about. Its biggest decision is whether to send a few thousand troops with US or stay home, you can do that even on the Lithuanian budget. Russia covers 1/8th of the land on this Earth, we dont need to go anywhere as our problems are bound to come through our border.
What a load of bull. I don't know about the UK, but France, after the US, controls the largest territorial sea and have territories and departments scattered all over the globe. There are also threats from countries like Iran and other pariah states to reckon with. Also neglecting th army in a time of peace sets a bad precedence, because peace is merely the interval between wars.
---------------------------
De Gaulle to the General Koenig, Norman hero of Bir Hakeim: "Hear and tell your troops: the whole of France is watching you, you are our pride."[
This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Jun 8, 2008 6:29 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Lo there do I see my father.
Lo there do I see my mother.
Lo there do I see my brothers and my sisters.
Lo there do I see the line of my people back to the beginning.
Lo they do call to me;
they bid me take my place among them in the Halls of Valhalla,
where the brave may live forever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There were 481 occasions were Typhoons were cannibalised last year in the RAF to keep the rest of the fleet running... Jwcook <<<<<<<<<
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
In the past few years France and the UK have been required to deploy not insignificant forces to a huge number of places against a large array of threats. Since 2000 both countries have sent forces to theatres such as Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Iraq, Kosovo, Lebanon and Sierra Leone in addition to sending military forces to support international relief efforts, and maintaining standing commitments such as anti drug and piracy patrols. Plus as has been pointed both countries have a wide range of overseas territories, interests and allies that the respective governments have a responsibility to protect.
Just because neither are going to occupy a country the size of Iraq on their own doesn’t mean they don’t have a firm requirement for a very robust military capability.
UK interests abroad have shrunk for the last 2 decades, most industries still important to the economy are located well within the safe zones. All the forces abroad are in insignificant numbers, at least in military standards. Most of the bases have outlived their useful purpose, but even if you cut defense by 25% that still leaves more than enough for their maintenance.
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Interests may have shrunk but not to a level where either France or the UK can ignore the rest of the world. Saying most industries are in safe zones is more than a little narrow minded; what about the security of shipping, energy sources, maintain good relations with allies, the protection of overseas territories (not necessarily overseas bases) and citizens, standing commitments, international security obligations, or unforeseen threats etc? Maintaining a strong military capability is about more than just being able to take on a specific enemy.
The relevant points are firstly were the operations listed above required and secondly would current funding be enough to maintain an armed forces capable of conducting those operations. The answer to the first, imho, is yes and the answer to the second is not any more. Hence the forces of France and the UK are being under funded.
Protection of shipping lanes and protection of companies abroad can be done on a Sweden's budget, even in volatile sectors of Africa where the British still have some investments you hardly need a sizable force. If an embassy gets taken over your government might send in a few commandos, if there is a larger problem the most likely course of action would be to pack up and leave. The large industries are usually located in countries that are well capable of dealing with any problems, or are under the US umbrella.
The British military today is a force that largely has no real task for a large portion of its assets. Nobody is saying you should cut defense spending to 0, but rather cut out programs that have long outlived their purpose.
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Filin, you’re kidding yourself if you think you can do half these tasks on Sweden’s budget. And again your narrowing the field, I give a limited list of the types of tasks undertaken and you boil it down to guarding a Tesco’s in Beirut.
The examples of recent operations I gave earlier were all vital to the interests of France and the UK, all involved thousands of troops, all require a sizeable military capability which itself requires a budget greater than what is currently being provided.
It’s not a hypothetical that France and Britain might have to use the forces they have, it happens all the time and it costs a lot.
Filin only thinks you need a military if you've got an enemy on your border or have a paper army comparable to Russia's otherwise you should just give up your forces and become neutral.
Personally, I think he just hates the fact that the UK's has powerful projection forces and can do things Russia cant.
"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
What exactly can you project nowadays? This isnt 1982 anymore and the British wouldnt be able to recreate the Falklands, the furthest place we need to get to is Cremia, our assets in Africa are limited. If you want to protect shipping lanes than you dont need Type 45 destroyers, in fact for that price you can get several smaller vessels that would be far more capable for the task at hand. Even Georgia can send in several thousand troops into Iraq on a budget slightly larger than $1b. UK can easily cut its budget and see no difference in the end result.
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Quote:The examples of recent operations I gave earlier were all vital to the interests of France and the UK, all involved thousands of troops, all require a sizeable military capability which itself requires a budget greater than what is currently being provided.
Exactly! Take Operation Palliser in Sierra Leone 2000. This operation required the use of:
2x Infantry Battalions + 1x RM Commando (slightly larger than the average Infantry Battalion)
1x Pathfinder Platoon
1x Artillery Battery
1x Squadron Special Forces (mix of 22 SAS and the SBS)
What we can project isn’t the point it’s what we need to project that matters and recent history has show that the UK and France has a requirement to project forces that themselves need an investment greater that what is now being made available.
You don’t seem to understand the kind of scale of operation I’m talking about; when I say protect shipping for example I don’t just mean sending a couple of OPVs to look for smugglers and pirates. While that may be the day to day nature of that type of work things can and have escalated to the point where the armed forces must directly intervene or have the ability to intervene in national or international conflicts in order to stabilise the region. We need this capability but also need to be able to maintain other standing tasks/commitments along with enough of a reserve to deal with unforeseen threats.
Sure Georgia can send 2000 troops to Iraq but they can’t send nearly 50,000 to take part in an invasion or maintain 8000 troops on operation as part of its commitment to NATO while at the same time maintaining forces elsewhere around the world. This is what the UK needs to be able to do, France has similar requirements; it costs money to be able to do this.
If i remember well you were among those fustigating France for not being involved in Iraq, as for what France needs to do if you please have the politeness to leave this to us, i think we know about it much better than you do, as you still go with comparisons where there is none to be made.
French and British policies are disctinctive enough and that's just as well.
Lo there do I see my father.
Lo there do I see my mother.
Lo there do I see my brothers and my sisters.
Lo there do I see the line of my people back to the beginning.
Lo they do call to me;
they bid me take my place among them in the Halls of Valhalla,
where the brave may live forever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There were 481 occasions were Typhoons were cannibalised last year in the RAF to keep the rest of the fleet running... Jwcook <<<<<<<<<
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
It doesnt cost 70b+ to do all of those things, there are countless projects that are just wasting money for almost no intent. Initial invasion into Iraq was for the benefit of the US, sure you did it, but there was no good reason to do it for UK. Spending even more will be like tossing money out of the window, UK should bring the force down to 150000 active troops and cut the budget to bellow 50b.
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Quote:It doesnt cost 70b+ to do all of those things, there are countless projects that are just wasting money for almost no intent
Examples?
Quote:Spending even more will be like tossing money out of the window, UK should bring the force down to 150000 active troops and cut the budget to bellow 50b.
Why should the UK bring the force down? There have been countless times when forces could (and should) have been available to make a bigger contribution to global crisis. Besides, Britain can comfortably afford to increase defence spending by the amount needed to fund it at it's current levels. It's just down to political will to make a (relatively) small adjustment to Gov spending priorities and/or increase taxation to pay for it.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You cant even resolve your housing, education, children powerty, binge drinking, NHS, transport problems (and then some) while pouring billions on them!!!
Lo there do I see my father.
Lo there do I see my mother.
Lo there do I see my brothers and my sisters.
Lo there do I see the line of my people back to the beginning.
Lo they do call to me;
they bid me take my place among them in the Halls of Valhalla,
where the brave may live forever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There were 481 occasions were Typhoons were cannibalised last year in the RAF to keep the rest of the fleet running... Jwcook <<<<<<<<<
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
If Britain could comfortably increase spending you would have with the pressure from the US, the point is the budget is already stretched for no apparent reason. Surely the brits can find better use for $20b.
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You cant even resolve your housing, education, children powerty, binge drinking, NHS, transport problems (and then some) while pouring billions on them!!!
housing -> Housing prices are going up, not crashing education -> Loads more funding here children powerty -> Yea the UK does nothing about poverty in it's country, except hand out wads of cash to the unemployed and spend still more helping to find them work binge drinking -> Drinking isn't a problem, violent drunks are a problem. NHS -> The NHS has £110 billion ($216 billion) IIRC, the issue is a lack of skilled medical staff and this cant be resolved overnight with vast sums of money but rather with more facilities for training people which takes many years. transport problems -> The railway companies are cheapskates, they invest little despite something like a 30% increase in rail usage. Roads depends where you live, London gets good investment, much of the country doesn't though. A lot of this is more down to labour shortages though IMO.
If Britain could comfortably increase spending you would have with the pressure from the US, the point is the budget is already stretched for no apparent reason. Surely the brits can find better use for $20b.
The budget is stretched because they only just have enough to cover what they need, not only due to Iraq but also because of procurements stacking up. The UK can do many thing's with $20bln, cutting it from the defence budget is never going to happen so it's a pretty pointless debate, no matter how much you wish it would happen. Then again, Russia has a lot more issue of internal poverty, maybe they should cut 80% of the defence budget and try and at least give everyone some food
"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Sk!p the bull mate i leave here and watch TV, read the NEWS you're a damned troll pretending you're better informed then the Birtish press...
This is just a LIE.
The UK is in a full state of recession like the rest and that's a FACT ifit wasn't the case, you would not see procurements programes canceled and Typhoon T3 would gave been signed instead of RAF number looking to be reduced...
And BTW i work for charities in charge of supporting the local communities I GOT the right figure just in front of me, you're really full of it.....LOL.
Lo there do I see my father.
Lo there do I see my mother.
Lo there do I see my brothers and my sisters.
Lo there do I see the line of my people back to the beginning.
Lo they do call to me;
they bid me take my place among them in the Halls of Valhalla,
where the brave may live forever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There were 481 occasions were Typhoons were cannibalised last year in the RAF to keep the rest of the fleet running... Jwcook <<<<<<<<<
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Quote:If i remember well you were among those fustigating France for not being involved in Iraq
Err no you don’t remember well; do you have any proof of this.
What exactly is your problem? I’m trying to have a discussion about about whether Fance and the UK (yes Filin brought the UK up well before I said anything) both need the defence budgets they have and you decide to attack not just me but the entire UK for it? Why? Do you disagree with what I’ve said?
And if you can “handle this on your own” then fine, but if we’re going down the route of only being allowed to comment on threads that deal with your own country will you kindly **** off out of any to do with the UK? Thank you.
Filin, as Pymes asked, can you provide some examples of what we don’t need? Everything that we’re buying now are examples of types of kit that has been used in recent history. The requirements absolutely do exist; you can’t deny this with missions like Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Chad, Lebanon and all the other examples I gave on top of all other standing commitments. Now you can argue that the UK didn’t need to get involved in Iraq (I’d agree) but the fact is the government believed we did and in the past we have had to get involved with such major commitments and probably will have to again. Either way, were we not involved there I can guarantee the forces would only be sent to Afghanistan. With the budget we have now we’re barely able to support what we need to do the job, how could we do it with 20% less.
