NY Times article on Royal Navy

[XabbaRus]

Wow just read the article and am amazed at it.

First of all on strategypage.com there is a serving RN officer goes by the name horriblesailor who has said that the RN isn't mothballing 19 ships in its fleet and that Invincible isn't being scrapped but put away but will be rady to use at quick notice.

Second it states that even welfare states such Germany and France spend more on their military. so how come Britain has the second biggest defence budget after the USa spending 2.5% GDP on defence which is £64 billion for just over 200,000 active personnel. France spends ONLY £41.5 billion or 1.95% for 259,050 personnel.

Also the articel relies heavily on the Daily Telegraph. Thing is I have scoured the net and Beedal's Navy matters homepage is very good, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that the 2 CVFs will be cut. In fact I see cutbacks in the current fleet to be in order to pay for them.

[Bort]

Second it states that even welfare states such Germany and France spend more on their military. so how come Britain has the second biggest defence budget after the USa spending 2.5% GDP on defence which is £64 billion for just over 200,000 active personnel. France spends ONLY £41.5 billion or 1.95% for 259,050 personnel.



The answer to this is likely a simple one: operational costs.
The French aren't committing nearly as much of their miliatry to ops as the Brits are. It's one thing to have stuff, it's quite another to use it.