Forces Funding

Fibonarchie

Venerated Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Posts
968
Reaction score
623
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.
 

Fibonarchie

Venerated Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Posts
968
Reaction score
623
@Rover just clocked the spelling mistake. Could you change to ‘Forces Funding’. Something seems wrong with ‘forced’.
 

Hyperhippo

Veteran Contributor
Joined
Jul 12, 2015
Posts
596
Reaction score
449
This was my reply to the original thread..

Which service requires more funding in the UK - RAF, Navy (including RM), Army (including paras), UKSF or trident? Why?

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
 

Kangarooj

Valuable Contributor
Joined
Oct 6, 2016
Posts
266
Reaction score
262
Plus I darent even think about how much the fuel costs are for a single vessel. Along with other upkeeping and maintenance.
 

Rover

Moderator
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Posts
3,825
Reaction score
5,920
The SBS,SAS and SRR all come under UKSF for funding, so having their own pot to dip into.
 
D

dodgyknees

Guest
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.
 

Fibonarchie

Venerated Contributor
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Posts
968
Reaction score
623
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.
Yeah but fast jets are cool. Nobody ever said ‘nah let’s not watch top gun, I want to see top transporter’.
;)
 
D

dodgyknees

Guest
Fair one. Defence review by coolness would be interesting. Pretty sure my job would go:(
 

Pendo

Moderator
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Posts
43
Reaction score
115
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.

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
 
D

dodgyknees

Guest
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.
 

Collieryboy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Posts
125
Reaction score
96
Not forces but what about MI5/MI6, and perhaps in the current climate, GCHQ?
 

westy

Venerated Contributor
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Posts
1,850
Reaction score
387
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.

The Falklands conflict in 82?
 
D

dodgyknees

Guest
The Falklands conflict in 82?

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.
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,409
Reaction score
14,051
...but more ability to force project that power to the other side of the world that caused most of the issues.

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.
 

westy

Venerated Contributor
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Posts
1,850
Reaction score
387
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.

As it’s stands, we’d be knackered
 
D

dodgyknees

Guest
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.

Suspect we'd write them a strongly worded letter, ensuring not to cause any offence.
 

Latest posts

New Threads

Top