Your PM is unsure if he wants the RAF.

[L J R]

Hoping that this topic remains about Military aviation, I note that the Brit PM is sseking a public debate about funding the UK military for his future sabre rattling


For the Mods - This is relevant to Military Aviation

[Kitbag]

Any references that we can see where the great man has actually said he wants a debate? (too busy @ work and all that to spend time looking right now)

[Maple 01]

He's opening the debate (:yuk:) about something that's been talked about in the Armed forces for a while, I think the short version is

Does Britain want to have a dominant role on the world stage?
Two choices,

a, No,
Stay at home, small defence force, loss of capability and assets but current funding levels just about suitable, bin nukes

b, Yes,
Big world role for the UK (still missing the Empire?) requiring increased funding, new equipment, enhanced training etc – all of which will go down like a lead balloon with the treasury and Mr G Brown

Of course governments of all political shades want option b, with the funding of option a, :ugh: :ugh:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm

[An Teallach]

What actually happened was:

TB: How can we move the press agenda on from Bush's latest flash of strategic brilliance?

Spin Doctor: Release some tosh about a debate on Britain's future military role in the world.

[RobinXe]

...or perhaps:

TB: Look [ernest concerned face, open hand gesture] they're not gonna go for the travel tax (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/) so in order to fund Cherie's hairdoos we're going to have to sell Trident.

[BEagle]

I'm sure it will be a productive debate with a whole mass of politicians and senior officers involved.

After all, our Trust-me-Tone is a renowned mass-debator, is he not?

[Saintsman]

After all, our Trust-me-Tone is a renowned mass-debator, is he not?
You mis-spelt Mass-Turbator

[Single Spey]

Pre-emptive strike on defence spending. Anything less than a resounding committment to a global role opens the door to 'savings' commensurate with the reduced capability. Bye-bye Typhoon Tranche 3 and Carriers.:{

[mbga9pgf]

Pre-emptive strike on defence spending. Anything less than a resounding committment to a global role opens the door to 'savings' commensurate with the reduced capability. Bye-bye Typhoon Tranche 3 and Carriers.:{
I wouldnt Exactly say tranche 3 is any major loss...
Now, where is my shopping list for C-17. C130J, Merlin and lots of chinooks?
In all seriousness, if we had spent all the cash we have on this illegal war on reconstruction work in Pakistan after the earthquake, sent peacekeeping forces into Darfur and helped with a massive global airlift using our military forces after the Tsunami, would our international reputation still be in tatters? I very much doubt it.
Perhaps Blair should think about the "Force For Good" mission statement that we had thrust upon us by this pinko sissie socialist government.

[Brakes...beer]

Single Spey,

I think you're absolutely right. Blair himself might be in favour of a world role, but with his reputation this automatically prejudices the rest of the country against such a role. This 'debate' could easily be hijacked by Brown et al and used to justify colossal cuts in defence spending after a withdrawal from Iraq.

The last thing the Armed Forces want is this Prime Minister on their side.

[mbga9pgf]

Single Spey,
I think you're absolutely right. Blair himself might be in favour of a world role, but with his reputation this automatically prejudices the rest of the country against such a role. This 'debate' could easily be hijacked by Brown et al and used to justify colossal cuts in defence spending after a withdrawal from Iraq.
The last thing the Armed Forces want is this Prime Minister on their side.
Looks as if the slime ball is on TV Now...

Also looks as if he hasnt practised his speech... lots of erms.

[NURSE]

Can anyone tell us where we go to take part in this debate?

[mbga9pgf]

Can anyone tell us where we go to take part in this debate?



He has completely lost it.

[tornadoken]

Or you could take the issue at face value. Maybe he is responding to a 10-year lead-time to kit and crew capability.
Contemplate, after the demise of renegade-Saudi- and drug-funded energy gangsters, a disciplined, equipped sovereign taking up their game of influencing energy supply. Our friend the Shah did that to Holland, 1973.
So: Gulf States' role in energy supply security diminishes, (ex-USSR States') grows - Russia "observes" today in NATO/HQ. 2% GNP? We are junior in Big Issues - say, Spain's role in GW2. 3%? We make some noise. Solo? EU-Force? UK/US/Oz/Canada/some free Europeans (sound familiar? Not France, snug and warm in its nuclear-electric blanket). Try a standing UN Force? What to spend the money on is secondary to first defining our purpose. Ireland and Japan did very well, economically, by being defended through the Cold War by (inter alia, UK). What to do?
Govt. has a problem in getting to voters past the roadblock of sound bite-scribblers ("carpet-bombing"), with no knowledge of history, blagging unprepared to tight deadlines, trying to get their words/minutes out, the other guy's spiked. They do that by conforming to the paymaster's party line...and sloppily researching by picking up rants here.

[NURSE]

the PM wants a debate on defence where does he want the public to have it?

[mbga9pgf]

Or you could take the issue at face value. Maybe he is responding to a 10-year lead-time to kit and crew capability.
Contemplate, after the demise of renegade-Saudi- and drug-funded energy gangsters, a disciplined, equipped sovereign taking up their game of influencing energy supply. Our friend the Shah did that to Holland, 1973.
So: Gulf States' role in energy supply security diminishes, (ex-USSR States') grows - Russia "observes" today in NATO/HQ. 2% GNP? We are junior in Big Issues - say, Spain's role in GW2. 3%? We make some noise. Solo? EU-Force? UK/US/Oz/Canada/some free Europeans (sound familiar? Not France, snug and warm in its nuclear-electric blanket). Try a standing UN Force? What to spend the money on is secondary to first defining our purpose. Ireland and Japan did very well, economically, by being defended through the Cold War by (inter alia, UK). What to do?
Govt. has a problem in getting to voters past the roadblock of sound bite-scribblers ("carpet-bombing"), with no knowledge of history, blagging unprepared to tight deadlines, trying to get their words/minutes out, the other guy's spiked. They do that by conforming to the paymaster's party line...and sloppily researching by picking up rants here.


Think you will find that is already the case, check case in point Iran pricing Oil in Euro and not $, that DID NOT go too well with the spams....

Other case in point, the US's shocking growth in M3/M4, all bought up by the Chinese. They could cripple the spams overnight by dropping the dollar for other currencies/ reinvesting in china.... the balance of power is most definately changing, and its not in our favour .... :uhoh:

[stillin1]

IMHO
Since, to paraphrase a very wise man, the military take over when the politicians have failed, we would appear to need a huge armed force to cope with this shower of to##ers in power!:mad:

[Arthur's Wizard]

'Your PM is unsure if he wants the RAF.'

Our PM is? So are the rest of us!

[geniculate]

I was reading the BBC's take on the The PM's 'debate' and I thought that £64bn defence spending in the table at the bottom looked a little high. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm

This compares to £33bn defence spend according to the MOD
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/Organisation/KeyFactsAboutDefence/DefenceSpending.htm

Now call me picky, but this figure the has BBC looks a little high, or is there £31bn in the pot that noone is telling us about
Any ideas?

:confused:

[RIDIM]

I was reading the BBC's take on the The PM's 'debate' and I thought that £64bn defence spending in the table at the bottom looked a little high. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm

This compares to £33bn defence spend according to the MOD
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/Organisation/KeyFactsAboutDefence/DefenceSpending.htm

Now call me picky, but this figure the has BBC looks a little high, or is there £31bn in the pot that noone is telling us about
Any ideas?

:confused:

It is in US Dollars. $64 Billion is approx £32 Billion.

[In Tor Wot]

[QUOTE=geniculate;3065081]I was reading the BBC's take on the The PM's 'debate' and I thought that £64bn defence spending in the table at the bottom looked a little high. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6254253.stm

Price on BBC website in dollars hence $64bn.

Having read Bliar's speech ( http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page10735.asp ) we will receive all sorts of new kit in the near future. Is it me or is this Déjà vu all over again :rolleyes:

We were to get Mastifs for Iraq by Christmas - 4 turned up.
We (more correctly, the Commanders) only needed to ask for equipment for Afghanistan and it would be provided - 1 Harrier was sent

Neither does any of it tally with a certain paper doing the rounds in town (at levels so high it needs oxygen) discussing what's to be cut next :sad:

All for the debate but lets be doing it with one eye on reality. BTW want to add something? Try asking Des: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page10732.asp

[opso]

From the BBC website:

DEFENCE SPENDING AND PERSONNEL
Country Defence budget %GDP Active personnel
US $470.2bn 4% 1,426,713
UK $64bn 2.5% 201,400
France $41.5bn 1.95% 259,050
Germany $27.9bn 1.30% 284,500

The implication to the civilian world being that we must be overpaid - after all, France and Germany have bigger armed forces for less money.

[NURSE]

yes but how many civil servants are we supporting as well?

[LFFC]

There's a very interesting article in The Independent this morning.

Brown's New Model Army (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2152472.ece)


For Mr Brown's expected arrival at No 10 this summer coincides with the announcement of the spending settlement for every Whitehall department for the next three years.

Most analysts think he will need to find an extra £15bn a year just to meet the existing commitments to procure new equipment and weapons systems. Improving conditions and pay of service personnel and increasing infantry strength to levels necessary to relieve the current overstretch could incur a similar bill.

Charles Heyman, editor of World Armies, says Britain's defence spending would have to rise to levels last seen at the end of the Cold War - around 3.5 per cent of gross domestic product - to meet all the current commitments.

Sums like these - which would require either tax increases or deep cuts elsewhere - are politically impossible. As Bill Kincaid, of the Royal United Services Institute, says: "The inexorable rise of defence equipment costs will inevitably make our equipment programme unaffordable in the near future. Something has to give - and soon."

Suddenly the future shape of Britain's defence budget is in question.

It looks like there will be some very big changes in the not too far distant future!


The kit we can ditch
Today's armed forces were shaped by a review in 1998 that foresaw expeditionary forces sent to enforce an ethical foreign policy. But analysts worry that the commitments made to "big ticket" items, such as two new aircraft carriers with JSF fighters, are not worth the price. And previous procurement horrors such as three Astute submarines (already £1bn over budget) could be a tempting target for a Chancellor looking to make sums add up. It is thought Britain has ordered too many weapons systems and not enough intelligence capability to ensure the right targets are identified and hit.

The kit we must have
In the short term, military airlift, particularly using helicopters, is desperately needed. The shortage of trained crews to fly what craft exist is one of the clearest signs of the manpower gaps opening up after years of overstretch. To attract and retain the tens of thousands of specialists modern armed forces need will cost billions in increased funding over the coming years. An emerging 'radical' group of military thinkers believes it is time Britain significantly beefed up its number of soldiers to counter emerging threats. It is "boots on the ground", they say, not hi-tech kit, that will help keep Britain safe in the 21st century.

[mbga9pgf]

It is "boots on the ground", they say, not hi-tech kit, that will help keep Britain safe in the 21st century. !
There goes the effects based approach then... looks as if they really want to bring back attritional warfare...
Agree we need far less pointy things, especially the 9g wonder jet, however, JSF/Carriers would surely give us significant global reach?

I personally would be a bigger fan of clinical strikes against individuals responsible for terrorism/ Turfing out the Sods resopnsible in the UK in combination of far more humanitarian aid globally....