Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
I think that a Strategic Spending Review is overdue to sort out exactly what we should be doing and what we should not be doing. This would enable us to stop trying to do everything but never quite enough to succeed at any of them and so some things well.
UK defence spending is already low, 2.4% in 2005 according to Wiki, and I believe still falling. There is a strong arguement that it should rise, as it is already well below the Cold War peak. Now, if you would allow me to respond to your points.

RAF hasn't got much of a need for an independant role. Amalgamate the relevant bits into the Nazy and Army.
Financially, this may make sense. However, the RAF was created because Army Commanders are usually not pilots, and therefore do not understand pilots and aircraft. I don't believe this has changed much, and the need for the RAF remains so that there is an Air Marshall to stand up to the General.

Less on sexy hardware without thought to use. Eurofighters might be technically great, but are so few in number they will be unable to make a strategic difference. In a serious conflict they;ll quickly be worn out or destroyed by missiles.
True, we need more Eurofighters, or a cheaper interceptor designed to launch missiles from long range.

Massive blue fleet navies are pretty and I imagine for men who'se own members are failing are reassuringly phallic. We need to protect our vestiges of Empire, but that's about it. Several, smaller modern ships can deal with any threat that we would be involved in. If the Falklands are a concern, build some decent bunkers, a lot of SAM sites and station some troops over there. Showing up with a naval force and undertaking a amphibious landing shows we were not prepared.
Ships are useful for so many things, including patrols, anti-piracy, hummanitarian efforts, etc. Also, they are built in Civillian dockyards, which are major local employers when successful.

Get rid of heavy armour. Blitzkrieg was great, but we've not got the numbers for this, nor a potential conventional foe. They cost a lot of money and do practically nothing. We can barely move them out of Germany in a reasonable time scale.
The main purpose of Armour is to support infantry. Also, if you dispand a particular Corps it is incredibly difficult to recreate it. Be assured, the army keeps twice as many tanks moffballed as in service, so that armour can be mobalised if needed.

Increase special forces and appropriate equipment for their use.
Special forces are drawn from the rank and file, less rank and file means either less Special Forces or a drop in quality.

In essence have a small force that can defend the homelands, detect and pick off pirate threats and do what they do well; it will also mean that we'd be unable to get entangled in wars. We might possibly have more respect with the current system, but we so quickly become overstretched I don't imagine that this lasts.

And a military budget that is shrinking by the year needs to be rectified as building up at the last minute for defence is expensive and risky at best.

What you describe is what we currently have, "a small force". Only two British Divisions can be deployed at short notice, and the total stength of the regular army, trained, is around 98,000. Consider that as a proportion of the total population of the UK.