Dismiss Notice
'Users of this forum are reminded they should not discuss performance of individual attendees at PRMC or in Recruit Training for PERsonal SECurity and in observance of Diversity & Inclusion legislation'.

Forces Funding

Discussion in 'The Debate Section' started by Fibonarchie, Dec 11, 2017.

  1. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    906
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Afternoon ladies and gents,

    As a new topic of debate to christen the new section:

    What branch requires most funding in UK present climate - UKSF, Navy (inc RM), RAF, Army (inc paras), Trident?

    I know there’s some cross over but treat them as separate for purpose of debate.
     
  2. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    906
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    @Rover just clocked the spelling mistake. Could you change to ‘Forces Funding’. Something seems wrong with ‘forced’.
     
  3. Hyperhippo

    Hyperhippo Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2015
    Posts:
    568
    App Stage:
    Joining other service
    This was my reply to the original thread..

    Surely trident would come under the Royal Navy?

    But yes it has to be the Royal Navy - they are the most diverse.

    Not only are they a Naval force, but they branch off and cover what the other services do and more. The Fleet Air Arm and the Royal Marines as well as the SBS, which is of course a unit within the Royal Marines but still under the overall command of the Royal Navy, so two of things listed in the opening question are covered by the Royal Navy, therefore require more funding.


    But now you’ve mentioned that there is a crossover I’ll have to rethink
     
  4. Kangarooj

    Kangarooj Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Posts:
    250
    App Stage:
    Joining other service
    Plus I darent even think about how much the fuel costs are for a single vessel. Along with other upkeeping and maintenance.
     
  5. Caversham

    Caversham Former RM Commando, Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Posts:
    3,734
    Done.

    Alan
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Rover

    Rover Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    3,176
    The SBS,SAS and SRR all come under UKSF for funding, so having their own pot to dip into.
     
    • Seen Seen x 1
  7. dodgyknees

    dodgyknees Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2017
    Posts:
    263
    App Stage:
    Parent
    I'm in the Army and my son is RM so hope I'm fairly neutral in this debate. Strategic enablers are what its all about to get us into operational area. The RAF need to stop fixating on Fast Jets and get more large aircraft to move equipment and personnel where they need to go...quickly. Even more valid if amphibious capability reduced.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 1
  8. Fibonarchie

    Fibonarchie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Posts:
    906
    App Stage:
    Not Applied Yet
    Yeah but fast jets are cool. Nobody ever said ‘nah let’s not watch top gun, I want to see top transporter’.
    ;)
     
    • Hoofin Hoofin x 1
  9. dodgyknees

    dodgyknees Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2017
    Posts:
    263
    App Stage:
    Parent
    Fair one. Defence review by coolness would be interesting. Pretty sure my job would go:(
     
    • Hoofin Hoofin x 1
  10. Pendo

    Pendo Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Posts:
    43
    But how are they going to move men into an area using heavy lift if they haven't got the fast air available to establish air dominance, or remove AA equipment? The same goes for the amphibious bit. You can't (or shouldn't) plonk blokes on a beach or kick them out of a plane only for them to get pounded with precision munitions from fast air.

    We can't always rely upon the assumption that the UK will only fight people's who's most effective AA weapon is a Dskha on the back of a Hilux, or that NATO/Europe/USA will have our back. If the UK ever comes up against an enemy with their own air force then I would rather there be more fast air protecting a limited number of troops, than a bigger number of troops being protected by a limited amount of fast air
     
  11. dodgyknees

    dodgyknees Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2017
    Posts:
    263
    App Stage:
    Parent
    Pendo - good point but can you give me a realistic example of a situation where the UK would commit troops unilaterally against a near-peer enemy? I can give you a few where I have been sat on my backside at various airheads around the world waiting for replacement aircraft.

    Of course we need fast jets, it is the balance I would question.
     
  12. Chelonian

    Chelonian Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    6,234
    Can't think how I missed this thread.
    Now all I have to do is think of something sensible to say.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Hoofin Hoofin x 2
  13. Collieryboy

    Collieryboy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Posts:
    70
    Not forces but what about MI5/MI6, and perhaps in the current climate, GCHQ?
     
  14. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Posts:
    33,263
    Any luck, yet?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Chelonian

    Chelonian Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    6,234
    It might be a long wait. :)
     
  16. westy

    westy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Posts:
    1,776
    The Falklands conflict in 82?
     
  17. dodgyknees

    dodgyknees Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2017
    Posts:
    263
    App Stage:
    Parent
    You may have found the exception to prove the rule!

    This was a bit before even my time but from what I have read, it was not the lack of fast jets in the UK's arsenal that was the issue, but more ability to force project that power to the other side of the world that caused most of the issues.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Chelonian

    Chelonian Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Posts:
    6,234
    Unsure how it could be done in 2018.
    The fast jet capability in that conflict was utterly dependent on the aircraft carriers from which they operated.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. westy

    westy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Posts:
    1,776
    As it’s stands, we’d be knackered
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. dodgyknees

    dodgyknees Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2017
    Posts:
    263
    App Stage:
    Parent
    Suspect we'd write them a strongly worded letter, ensuring not to cause any offence.
     
    • Gen Dit Gen Dit x 1