UK General Election 2019

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It can be a pretty rough ally too. The Jerusalem Post listed 15 Americans killed by Palestinians in an article in 2017. Of course, the IDF killed 34 Americans in one day during the '67 conflict...

Yes...

Israel makes you guys look reliable.

*Cough* don'tbelateforworldwarthreewe'verunoutofships *Cough*

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes...

Israel makes you guys look reliable.

*Cough* don'tbelateforworldwarthreewe'verunoutofships *Cough*

Israel is a very predictable ally. And, based on the selflessness of their behavior, not all that far off from some of the "allies" I have made in Total War games.


And I think what you lot have done in drawing down the RN is crazy. What is left of the RN is neither strong enough to matter nor cheap enough to make sense.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Israel is a very predictable ally. And, based on the selflessness of their behavior, not all that far off from some of the "allies" I have made in Total War games.


And I think what you lot have done in drawing down the RN is crazy. What is left of the RN is neither strong enough to matter nor cheap enough to make sense.

The situation with the RN is the result of a number of complex circumstances. Firstly, you have the constant downward pressure on the armed forces what British politics has always exerted in peacetime - better to cut manpower than raise taxes. Secondly, you have the ongoing draw-down from the post-Cold war "peace dividend" which has continued even in the face of rising global tension. Thirdly, you have the "tonnage problem". From at least the 60's onwards RN ships have generally got bigger, heavier and generally more capable with a corresponding rise in cost that has meant a reduction in numbers.

Our new carriers are the largest in the world aside from American ships, but the Labour government cheaped out on then by trying to run harriers off them and hence they are not CATOBAR. Even so, the total tonnage of the two new ships is roughly double the tonnage of those they replace. Likewise, the Type 45 "Destroyer" is in reality a light cruiser given it's tonnage is roughly equivalent to the Leanders built in the 1930's and it is equipped to function as a taskforce flagship.

So, in really the UK has a "destroyer gap" in that we don't have any - the new Type 26 Frigate has the capabilities of a Destroyer but it may only reach 26 knots, too slow to be an escort ship, and in any case we are only building 8 to the Canuks 15. Even so, the RN has employed the policy of taking fewer, larger, ships in the hopes they can eventually build more smaller ones. This is the idea behind the Type 31 Frigate - Of which there were originally to be five but it looks like there will now be 8, which is three more frigates thean we have at present.

Overall, though, the UK remains in a state of post-Imperial decline, a rut we have been unable to get out of since 1946.

[Furunculus]

The royal navy's problem is the cold war - which forced a bankrupt Seapower culture that employed a Sea-Power strategy to move to a Land-Power strategy.

We never became a Landpower culture - as evidenced by our difficulties in joining in with the required self-absorption to be a successful EU member - but a combination european enthusiasm and osama bn laden in the New Labour years prevented us from abandoning the Land-Power strategy.

But that is changing, and you may well witness in the next 12 months a dramatic change at the next SDSR whereby:
1. The Army continues to shrink (115k SDR98 / 96k SDSR10 / 82K SDSR15 / 75k SDSR20).
2. And the Navy expands for the first time since the second world war.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The royal navy's problem is the cold war - which forced a bankrupt Seapower culture that employed a Sea-Power strategy to move to a Land-Power strategy.

We never became a Landpower culture - as evidenced by our difficulties in joining in with the required self-absorption to be a successful EU member - but a combination european enthusiasm and osama bn laden in the New Labour years prevented us from abandoning the Land-Power strategy.

But that is changing, and you may well witness in the next 12 months a dramatic change at the next SDSR whereby:
1. The Army continues to shrink (115k SDR98 / 96k SDSR10 / 82K SDSR15 / 75k SDSR20).
2. And the Navy expands for the first time since the second world war.

The British Army is already pitifully small, it comprises only 2 combat divisions (1st and 3rd) with the 6th Division really just being a paper formation to group all the army's SIGINT units together.

If the Navy is in danger of becoming a joke the army is a Greek tragedy. It's not just the reduction in combat troops, it's complete lack of real invard investment, such as the failure to procure new tanks so that the old Vickers works has been shut down. Essentially, the UK would need to start from scratch if it wanted to build new armour.

There's no point in re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. At a bear minimum the RN needs to grow its escort fleet by 50%. Ideally we'd start building a run of new light carriers to supplement the hulking monstrosities Gordon Brown saddled us with - but that's not going to happen.

Ask yourself what any of the services might feasibly be required to do - then ask if they can do that job and continue to defend the British Isles - in every instance you'll see the answer is simply "no".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...-anti-semitic/

Over one third of Corbyn's supporters are antisemitic, as opposed to just over one fifth of Boris Johnson's.

[Furunculus]

The British Army is already pitifully small, it comprises only 2 combat divisions (1st and 3rd) with the 6th Division really just being a paper formation to group all the army's SIGINT units together.

If the Navy is in danger of becoming a joke the army is a Greek tragedy. It's not just the reduction in combat troops, it's complete lack of real invard investment, such as the failure to procure new tanks so that the old Vickers works has been shut down. Essentially, the UK would need to start from scratch if it wanted to build new armour.

There's no point in re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. At a bear minimum the RN needs to grow its escort fleet by 50%. Ideally we'd start building a run of new light carriers to supplement the hulking monstrosities Gordon Brown saddled us with - but that's not going to happen.

Ask yourself what any of the services might feasibly be required to do - then ask if they can do that job and continue to defend the British Isles - in every instance you'll see the answer is simply "no".

conversely, i'd argue the army has more men than it can afford to equip.
it has way to much light infantry that is not part of any combined arms formation capable of maneuver warfare:
they have no organic armoured mobility in their own right.
they have no combat support and combat service support to provide recon, artillary, engineering, logistics, signals.

additionally, we have too many heavy formations, which:
we don't need - because they are no use in the places we want to fight (far away, over large areas, with poor support)
we can't afford - we're never going to build another tank production line for just 200 tanks, we'll buy american or german.

the answer to the army's problem is strike in providing affordable medium weight wheeled brigades, in that:
they solve the post fulda gap problem - 64k troops in 160sq/km where today we only have 8k troops to cover 8000sq/km.
they are designed to self deploy 1000km, operate dispersed ti avoid attrition, and aggregate to provide decisive effect.

if we had one armoured brigade (instead of two) and three strike (instead of two), plus an airmobile brigade, we be no worse off in fighting effect and could do it with ten thousand less troops.

we could spend that manpower budget to uplift the royal navy:
who have exactly the right carriers - as endless design studies demonstrated.
but need more escorts - in a hi/lo T26/T31 configuration suitable for a sea-power strategy with affordable forward deployed assets.
and we need to rethink our amphibious forces of commandos and their vessels - to destroy and flip the a2ad bubble preventing insertion of carrier/strike follow on forces into the theater of operation.

[rory_20_uk]

I've thought there are two things the UK needs to do with the Armed Forces:

1) Accept we are a Tier 2 Force. Get tried and tested material rather than a miniscule amount of so new it'll break stuff and we can't really use it since we can't afford to replace it. Be that going with the USA or with others - such as Germany - to increase the volume to reduce costs.
2) Reorganise the whole lot into an integrated "Marines force". Just accept there are a few number of things we can do and many others we can't - such as using the Army in any way where there is a hostile force and realistically no ability to fight anywhere more than 20 miles inland without assistance. Almost every facet of the logistic chain is missing. Perhaps this might force Politicians to accept that the UK has no place in getting involved in overseas adventures.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

conversely, i'd argue the army has more men than it can afford to equip.
it has way to much light infantry that is not part of any combined arms formation capable of maneuver warfare:
they have no organic armoured mobility in their own right.
they have no combat support and combat service support to provide recon, artillary, engineering, logistics, signals.

additionally, we have too many heavy formations, which:
we don't need - because they are no use in the places we want to fight (far away, over large areas, with poor support)
we can't afford - we're never going to build another tank production line for just 200 tanks, we'll buy american or german.

the answer to the army's problem is strike in providing affordable medium weight wheeled brigades, in that:
they solve the post fulda gap problem - 64k troops in 160sq/km where today we only have 8k troops to cover 8000sq/km.
they are designed to self deploy 1000km, operate dispersed ti avoid attrition, and aggregate to provide decisive effect.

if we had one armoured brigade (instead of two) and three strike (instead of two), plus an airmobile brigade, we be no worse off in fighting effect and could do it with ten thousand less troops.

we could spend that manpower budget to uplift the royal navy:
who have exactly the right carriers - as endless design studies demonstrated.
but need more escorts - in a hi/lo T26/T31 configuration suitable for a sea-power strategy with affordable forward deployed assets.
and we need to rethink our amphibious forces of commandos and their vessels - to destroy and flip the a2ad bubble preventing insertion of carrier/strike follow on forces into the theater of operation.

The army needs another 10,000 men to fill the logistics gap - i.e. to support the troops we have. As things stand a lot of the logistics chain is provided by civilians - food, accommodation, medical etc. It's not sexy but it's what keeps frontline troops fit and capable. I'll never forget the eight hours I was stuck in a Guardhouse with a broken armoury alarm, and why? There was no REME detachment on base, that's why, because the MOD had sold the base to a private contractor based in Germany and was leasing it back.

As far as actually fighting goes - we can *maybe* deploy one division on a medium-term without American support, maybe. We certainly can't fight the Falklands War again.

The Armoured Corps has been drawn down to an unacceptable level and the Challenger II tank is undergoing yet another ultimately futile "life extension" program when it need to be replaced.

The Light Division is of no real value - it exists principally as a formation that lacks mechanisation (i.e. it's cheap). We should dispense with Light Infantry entirely, convert everyone to some form of mechanisation, whether that's Infantry fighting Vehicles or a lighter form of APC.

We will not be fighting another war like Afghanistan, unless we specifically go back to Afghanistan. We're much more likely to end up fighting something like a genuine mechanised war against, say, Iran, or we're going to fight China or Russia. We're already relatively close to neutralising intercontinental ballistic missiles and once that happens MAD will cease to apply.

At that point it's going to be rearm or die, and don't think there's no future where the US invades Canada or blockades Australia, because there might be.

Overall, we should be aiming to return military funding (which has been constantly falling) to what it was around 2005, and we should be looking to rearm to the sort of levels we were at at the start of the millennium. The idea we're a "second rate power" is just rhetoric used to cover the fact we're happier wasting money than spending it on something useful.

Same applies to not plugging the pension hole in the Royal Mail, or not rebuilding the railways.