Defence is at a crossroads - The Times

[The B Word]

Anyone read this today? Defence is at a crossroads – with no signpost | Allan Mallinson - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6985479.ece)

Just a couple of lines caught my eye:

The RAF, too, must transform itself from a fast-jet flying club into a tactical air force. It must shift its focus to helicopters and transport aircraft, whose pilots are the real light-blue heroes of current operations. But instead the Eurofighter, a ruinously expensive air-superiority fighter, is being subtly rebranded as a “fighter-bomber” — that’s like putting a roof-rack on a Ferrari and calling it a family car. This is no way to deliver fire support to ground troops.

We used to be ruthless in identifying failure and taking corrective action; it was one of the reasons that our relatively small Armed Forces had disproportionate effect. Even success could be followed by savagery, as Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding discovered in 1940, sacked after winning the Battle of Britain because Churchill was persuaded that others could have won it better. We need that spirit back, and quickly.

Then I read the following about the author:

Allan Mallinson is the author of The Making of the British Army, and a former army officer

And I thought...C0ck!

If Mr Mallinson is reading, I quote from Sir Hugh "Stuffy" Dowding's biography: "From 1938 Dowding was advised of five separate retirement dates, but each one was rescinded for various reasons, therefore, his replacement in November 1940 as AOC in C Fighter Command, when flush with success in the Battle of Britain was seen as a snub by many, although it had in fact been planned." He had been AOCinC Fighter Command for 4 years from 14 Jul 36 and was 58 years old, did you expect him to stay AOCinC for ever???

[vecvechookattack]

The RAF, too, must transform itself from a fast-jet flying club into a tactical air force. It must shift its focus to helicopters and transport aircraft, whose pilots are the real light-blue heroes of current operations. But instead the Eurofighter, a ruinously expensive air-superiority fighter, is being subtly rebranded as a “fighter-bomber” — that’s like putting a roof-rack on a Ferrari and calling it a family car. This is no way to deliver fire support to ground troops.

He has hit the nail fair and square with that point. The RAF really does need to refocus on what it is supposed to be doing.

[Rigga]

VVHA,
Seconded.

[camelspyyder]

At least there was no unfair bias in the article...

Mallinson did slag the Navy off in it as well

CS:)

[Ivan Rogov]

This chap is a perfect example of why the Royal Air Force was created in the first place. He doesn't consider the Air to be a battle space, sure there are many individuals in the Army that do but as an organisation they just want to be moved from A to B. That's all well and good today but what will we face tomorrow?

[Tallsar]

What Mallinson has been quoted as writing above is simplsitic tosh that does not reflect the realities of what has happened and continues to happen over the last 2 decades to the RAF. While it is true that the recent wars have exposed our under investement in both battlefield rotary and strategic transport, anyone who analyses what has happened to the RAF in that time since GW1 can see how UK has divested itself of much signifcant FJ hardware (and Nimrods - very sad for a maritime nation) all of which means we are no longer a potential big player in a "proper" war of the future. We will have difficulty defending our own vital interests when the need arises. While counter terrorism requiring much brave land effort is the flavour of the moment - it will not always be so and our lack of standing firepower - particularly in the air (and no doubt on the sea) will either severley restrict our future politcal options, and most certainly mean we are a mere bit player at the political and military decision making tables - How sad ...its taken only 70 years to go from the World's only superpower - to a 3rd world player. and yet all this when the very people who make up our armed services are simply the best the nation can produce and have kept Britain "up front" despite the withering of all our other instititutions.

Mallinson really does need to take a wider and strategic long term view and not be mislead by todays (important) but nonetheless narrow requirements. He certainly should refrain from churning out populist and simplistic rubbish that is not worthy of anyone who wants to see the UK continue to carry a punch equitable with its place in the world. FJ and ISTAR defensive and offensive air power will always be vital to a major conflict and we under invest in it at our future peril.....

Cheers
A long term and proud rote!!

[Airborne Aircrew]

The RAF, too, must transform itself from a fast-jet flying club into a tactical air force. It must shift its focus to helicopters and transport aircraft,No... It must not. This is the fallacy thrust upon you by our "great political leaders". Political expediency at it's best. The politicians garner votes not by having an effective retort to any threat but rather by minimizing the expense of defence and giving the savings to the feckless chavs and immigrants in the form of benefits and entitlements. Right now the "buzz" is close air support and transport, (both long range and battefield), in sandy places. So, everything else is being sacrificed. Pointy jets are irrelevant for the defence of the home skies and they are hardly needed against Terry. Aircraft carriers, the very pinnacle of force projection, are a bit useless in Afghanistan so they are under the hammer. Big battle tanks aren't much good there either and small, fast moving recce vehicles and lightly armoured vehicles are no answer to the IED's found there - so they are sacrificed for IED safe vehicles... and on and on...

Everything is being done to "patch the holes" for current operations at the cost of the Forces ability to fight any conflict. It is a short sighted, politically motivated mistake that needs to be stopped immediately. Either we commit to fighting in sandy places while maintaining a proper ability to fight when and where needed in the mode that fight requires or we do not fight in sandy places. Right now we're close to being defenceless if Belgium and Holland gang up on us.



Tallsar: I'm pleased to see I'm not the only one un-hypnotized by our "leaders"... :ok:

[Grimweasel]

Agree with Tallsar - did we not go thru the same ruinous process during the inter-war years? Massive underinvestment in fighters etc as we didn't think we'd have another war - then WHAM! Here comes your Black Swan event. WW2.

Today's wretched announcement of more 'Battle Winning Chinooks' taking the fleet to 70 is very short sighted in my opinion. Why, if Gordon Brown is talking of reducing our commitment to Afghan by 2011, is the MoD investing in another 22 odd Chinooks that won't be delivered until 2012-14??

This short sighted focus is being driven by the Army who have ditched all their long term plans in favour of fighting THE war as apposed to retaining extra capabilities to fight A war?!!

It's these illogical short term budgetary constraints that end up causing more angst down stream as potential adversaries decide it may be worth having a pop at under resourced nations (Think China etc who yesterday tested another satellite killing missile, as they have realized that we are totally dependent on GPS for all our weapons and navigation)

This Government has ruined the Military and the wider country. Good riddance come May although the rot is that bad it will take years to fix no matter who's in power!

[Tallsar]

I am pleased to see that we are on frequency together - and I trust our seniors are fighting to the death (behind closed doors of course!!!) to save our nation's fighting capability.

Sadly I believe that none of our political parties have the policies or the culture anymore to understand why defence spedning is so vital to the nations future and their own poltical influence - too much softy "liberal" UK focussed politics has become received wisdom and assumes all nations wish to just talk and not squeeze us out of our privelged positon as a top nation (if the opportunity arises). At the same time they persist in pandering to the belief that the majority of the nation will only vote for them if they pour yet more buckets of cash into the inefficient NHS and social security systems (backed by the infamous HR Act of course!). A less than 10% "efficiency saving"in the NHS would prevent any budget cuts in Defence!! We have a culture where people are encouraged to be sick rather than defend their personal and national interests (Rant - soz!!)

I always remember my early officer training defence strategy lecture about the rules and politics of war. ..."Never mirror image" - ie never believe a potential enemy or competitor will think and act the same as you"

Have we forgotten why Galtieri and his Junta thought the FI could be attacked ---defence cuts send signals particualry to other countries who do not hold our views or our best interests at heart....and we will rue the consequencies...unlike '82, we don't have the firepower (and maybe even the willpower) anymore!!

Cheers

PS - I am also somewhat outraged at Mallinsons's allusion that the FJ part of the RAF is a "flying club" Whatttttttt????? several generations of Tornado, Harrier, SHAR, Jaguar (and no doubt Typhoon soon - a rhyme!!) have demonstrated their world class combat professionalism (and paid the ultimate price) in recent decades - I am beginning to think he has his head stuck up his a**e)

[NutLoose]

Simply redirect the 900 odd million we give each year to India to fund their schools and let them pay for it themselves out of the 10 C-17 budget funding....

redirect the funds we give to Russia etc too, in fact all overseas aid.

Close the whole department that deals with car taxation and put the cost onto fuel, at a stroke you will have freed up billions, cut down on bureaucracy, got rid of all those civil servants, rid the country of the no doubt billions we lose on car tax dodgers and allowed a fairer system of taxation.........

As for the the UKs illegal immigrants when arrested if they cannot provide any form of identification to allow their deportation, arrest them, transfer them and pop them on some uninhabited desolate Island up the top of scotland as a detention centre...... no walls just several miles of nothingness to swim across.... give em some sheep, cattle, building materials and a new way of life......... The Auzzies put em on an island so should we........ they will soon want to leave.

[Melchett01]

Tallsar, AA - hear hear!

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the Forces, politicians and public do not see this. We are back in the Wilderness Years, fighting a questionable campaign with a questionable strategy. To put all the country's eggs in one basket is short sighted, lacking any appreciation of military capability or effective intelligence in terms of defence strategy and planning.

Far from those who advocate a balanced military with a credible firepower capability - Typhoon, JSF AND armour, carriers, destroyers etc - being Cold War warriors with no place in the contemporary operating environment, those who repeatedly stick their head in the sand and constantly argue for the disestablishment of anything that doesn't fit in with their own agendas has no place in the defence of this country are frankly a bigger threat to this country than the Taliban. Whilst not a fan of Jock Stirrup, it is for this reason that the Army must not be allowed to dominate the very senior levels of Defence, and the politicians must be told in words of less than one syllable the likely consequences of their short sighted actions.

[Widger]

Aircraft carriers, the very pinnacle of force projection, are a bit useless in Afghanistan so they are under the hammer

Point of order AA!

Aircraft carriers are not useless in the stan. As anyone who has spent any time there will verify, a significant amount of the CAS effort is supplied by the USN, using Aircraft Carriers. The reason the UK cannot do this is because the ships we have are not big enough to provide an appropriate air platform. QE will be big enough but then there is the problem of having a jet with the legs and the capability to carry a decent payload.

I am not in any way diminishing the contribution of land based air, just correcting a misconception that aircraft operating from the sea are not relevant in the current operation.

Since entering the U.S. 5th Fleet Area of Operations Sept. 18., CVW 11 has flown more than 1,800 sorties and totaled more than 10,000 cumulative flight hours in support of OEF.

Nimitz provides 30 percent of the close air support to the coalition force in Afghanistan.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Widger:

I am aware of the Naval air component. Unfortunately, the unwashed masses that vote for their benefits don't see the Royal Navy as "ships of the desert". I'll concede I could/should have been clearer...:O

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

With the exception of vecvechookattack and Rigga, I agree with all of you. I also appreciate the humour clearly intended by NutLoose.

As for the the UKs illegal immigrants when arrested if they cannot provide any form of identification to allow their deportation, arrest them, transfer them and pop them on some uninhabited desolate Island up the top of scotland as a detention centre...... no walls just several miles of nothingness to swim across.... give em some sheep, cattle, building materials and a new way of life.........
That does sound attractive; except for the dangers that would follow. Upon having been there for some time, these “Stateless” people would probably become sufficiently self governing to make a plea for Independence. Such a plea to the UN would probably receive support. After all, a significant precedent was set with Kosovo.

Anyway, reacquiring Thread centreline, the Government of the day will need to think carefully about British Overseas Territories and British mineral extraction rights in certain parts of the World. To pursue those aims, I suggest a Landcentric defence force would not be particularly useful.

[Gainesy]

that’s like putting a roof-rack on a Ferrari and calling it a family car. This is no way to deliver fire support to ground troops.

Totally agree, ground clearence on those is crap.

On a serious note and a gen question, why are all the tanks Challenger IIs and their associated gear such as ARVs sat in Germany being polished to death? One would think that they are pretty impervious to most IEDs and would be useful in the convoy escort role at least, despite their slowness.

I understand its tank doctrine to not go solo but in formations, so send enough to do formations. And that, is the limit of my knowledge of the beast except don't kip under them.:uhoh:

Any Panzer mates care to comment, as I say, genuine question, not banter.

[hulahoop7]

Because they suck up logistics and head count like a $20 whore. Do you want a big percentage of your head count maintaining tanks or patrolling from a FOB?

[dctyke]

Well, we are spending money on Helo's .......... I despair!


Daniel Kawczynski MP.
I recently returned from an International Development Select Committee trip to Kenya and Tanzania.
We currently give Kenya and Tanzania £50 million and £150 million respectively each year in international aid, yet a great deal of what our money is being used for in Kenya could easily be provided by Microfinance.
All the local newspapers in Nairobi during our stay had stories about how the President and senior ministers are about to spend £100 million on buying new helicopters for themselves from Russia.
Can an incoming Conservative government really continue to give so much to Kenya?
British pensioners are cutting back on meals to save money as Kenya spends so much on luxuries for its government. And guess what the monthly salary and expenses package is for a Kenyan MP? It is £8,000!

[Blacksheep]

"Never take your eye off the ball."

The primary purpose of the Royal Air Force is the defence of UK Airspace against external threat. All other possible uses of air power are subservient to that purpose.

Likewise, the primary purpose of the Royal Navy is the defence of the sea lanes upon which our survival as a nation depends. All other possible uses are subservient to that purpose (and it is worth keeping in mind that the Somali pirates are a bigger threat to us than the Taliban.)

Perhaps Mr. Mallinson would like to express his opinion on the primary purpose of the Army? Or for that matter, the fitness for purpose of our whole defence structure?

[BombayDuck]

transfer them and pop them on some uninhabited desolate Island

Bad idea. A few generations down and they'll only come back and regularly kick yours - well, everyone's - arse at sports.

[VinRouge]

How about we use that island they tested anthrax on?

[Jabba_TG12]

A Pongo he may once have been but on reading the article, where he says:

"No senior military heads rolled over Iraq, nor is there recognition that the mess into which the defence programme has descended is at least in part to do with poor military judgment. "

and
"But although ministers, with their civil servants, decide the priorities (though they have singularly failed to take those decisions these past ten years), they are advised by uniformed officers in the MoD."
and

"In evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, Lieutenant-General Sir Freddie Viggers spoke of “amateurism” among ministers and officials in the planning for the Iraq war. But was there not amateurism among the men in uniform? Some of the evidence to Chilcot does not give an impression, in the run-up to war, of the incisiveness and grip expected of senior officers. Everything seemed to depend on events going one way only, as if hope were a principle of war. That unwillingness by some of the top brass to confront inconvenient truths looks all of a piece with the unwillingness these past ten years to face the facts of a decreasing defence budget and the eye-watering growth in the cost of big equipment projects, let alone the changing requirements of modern conflict. Without crystal clear advice and a sense of priorities, we get short-termism and suffer unnecessary casualties — just as we are now seeing."
I have to concede that he has a point. Its not just the politicos, as abject, visionless and self serving as they are. Our own leadership has led us to this point.

The sign that might just be visible in the distance at the crossroads may well give us the choice between either punching at or below our own weight or spending significantly more. Its about time that our leaders grew a big enough pair, either singularly or collectively and made sure that this choice is as starkly visible to the nation and the political elite as it is indeed to the likes of us. The current path is unsustainable.

[Gainesy]

a $20 whore

Picky, picky, picky.:)

Well, helos aren't exactly cheap in £ or manpower either. Any other reasons?

[Grimweasel]

MoD to slash jet fighter orders as it struggles to save aircraft programme | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/12/defence-aircraft-jet-fighters-budget?)

...and so the picture darkens - we need a good inter-state spat some place in the world to raise these so called 'leaders' from their slumber.

Last one out turn off the lights.......

[whowhenwhy]

On a slightly less serious note, it did make me chuckle reading about the fast jet flying club. In my experience the only part of the air force that operates like a flying club is the Chinook world (in the UK at least). The normal plan is for the front-enders(MGD please note) to rock up, see what cab's available whilst hoping that the crewman has sorted their lives out for them and then go flying. Somewhere.....

[vecvechookattack]

How about we use that island they tested anthrax on?

Sadly, Gruinard Island is now clear of Anthrax and has been declared safe. I landed on it a couple of years ago during a dull moment in a JMC (Or whatever they call it nowadays)

[Torque Tonight]

Nice try WhoWhenWhy.

Do noit bite. Must not bite.

[Golden Legspreaders]

One would think that they are pretty impervious to most IEDs and would be useful in the convoy escort role at least, despite their slowness.

The armour is designed to withstand anti tank weapons (RPGs, missiles, shells and the like) so underneath is quite poor in terms of protection.

Disclaimer - so I'm led to believe.

[Cows getting bigger]

I do recollect that tanks were pretty useless in Kosovo/Bosnia as well. In fact, short of having another go at Rommell in N. Africa or being sacrificed on the N. German Plain, tanks should be melted down and made into more bayonets.

Jumping off my high horse, this article is just typical of the traditional, stove-piped (sorry, I needed at least one buzz word ;)) inter-service willy-waving. The reality is that the whole military isn't adaptable, has been whittled away to small, specialist elements and it can no longer react to a different threat. So, let's say we re-structure to a COIN type force with lots of helos and increased mobility for small packages of troops; what will we do when the next threat is another Falklands.

One final point, our author seems to have completely neglected to recognise the contribution airborne ISTAR has made/is making. A previous point about a decade or so of overwatch between GWI and GWII is also most valid. Unfortunately, the crap that has been regurgitated in the Times will be believed.

[minigundiplomat]

The normal plan is for the front-enders(MGD please note) to rock up, see what cab's available whilst hoping that the crewman has sorted their lives out for them and then go flying. Somewhere.....


Noted. With requisite amount of mirth......

[Jackonicko]

At least we have another name to think of when describing a 'brown army biased', know-nothing ****wit (that **** is 'half', of course), and don't have to compare all such to$$ers to that @rse, Lewis Page.

[Sgt.Slabber]

How about we use that island they tested anthrax on?

Sadly, Gruinard Island is now clear of Anthrax and has been declared safe. I landed on it a couple of years ago during a dull moment in a JMC (Or whatever they call it nowadays)

What about An Garbh-eilean off the NW corner of Scotland?

Overview of Garvie Island (http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/features/featurefirst1641.html)

[Tallsar]

Jabba - thanks for your post - having singular failed to get to read Mallinson's full article my previous comments were entirley in response to the posts on here. He does have some good points there and its a shame he spoilt it with such crass and infantile land centric remarks on other matters. My experience in and working with MoD suggested that too many senior military were happy to go native to ensure career success rather than do the job they were sent in to a Ministry for ie clearly representing the military! The MoD is privileged in being the only Dept of State that has the "workers" working alongside civ servants and ministers - it appears we often forget that and suffer as a result. You would like to think that the emerging generation of 1 and 2 stars who are now truely combat proven would bring with them a differing and revitalised approach as there forebears did during WW2 and immediately afterwards - but I fear not. Especially as the way things are going there will not be much air power left to argue about!

Cheers

[Could be the last?]

Mallinson was the CO of the 13th/18th Royal Hussars many years ago. He earned the name......

'Mad Mal'



He had the regt doing BFTs and CFTs wearing the S6! and that was just the start!:mad:

[Airborne Aircrew]

He had the regt doing BFTs and CFTs wearing the S6! and that was just the start!

II Squadron RAF Regiment were doing those every Friday afternoon at Catterick in 1979 and when we finished we were knocked off... :ok:

[RobinXe]

Daniel Kawczynski MP.

Take with a pinch of salt, Mr Kawczynski has been known to take any platform he can to get the limelight, even to the extent of openly supporting opposing viewpoints.

[Geehovah]

Could I be radical and offer a potential scenario

Iraq is now off the political agenda

Give it two years and economic reality will set in and we will withdraw from AFG. Far fetched I know.................

So returning to Air Power 101

Rule No 1. Defend the Home Base

Task No 1 of a campaign. Establish Air Superiority over the battlefield
Task No 2. Police the AOR
Task No 3. Defend the LOCs
Task No 4.................... Well, let's leave this speculation to campaign planners

Now lets just consider what we may need to cover those tasks as an Air Force. I suspect Typhoon may have a long term future in this role.

Lets not lose sight of the reason we are an Air Force and lets not allow the Army to talk us out of what we should be planning for. We have politicians to do that.

And I won't offer any observations that we appear to have insufficient cash to fund a small scale intervention at what used to be considered Squadron strength.

Now maybe the leadership hasn't actually been blinded by short-termism....

And before anyone says it; I'm not decrying the invaluable contribution of all the combat support forces who do miracles with worn out kit. Heroes to a man/woman.

[Lima Juliet]

Brigadier Allan Mallinson was a serving cavalry officer. Besides the Matthew Hervey series, he is the author of Light Dragoons, a history of four regiments of British Cavalry, one of which he commanded, and a regular reviewer for The Times and the Spectator.

Also his Bibliography shows he is a "true expert" on Joint Service matters:

1. A Close Run Thing: A Novel of Wellington's Army of 1815 (1999)
2. The Nizam's Daughters (2000)
3. A Regimental Affair (2001)
4. A Call to Arms (2002)
5. The Sabre's Edge (2003)
6. Rumours of War (2004)
7. An Act of Courage (2005)
8. Company of Spears (2006)
9. Man of War (2007)
10. Warrior (2008)
Honorable Company: A Novel of India Before the Raj (2000)
11. Light Dragoons: The Origins of a New Regiment (1993)
12. The Making of the British Army (2009)

Here's a few of his book covers:

http://img1.fantasticfiction.co.uk/thumbs/n37/n189172.jpg http://img2.fantasticfiction.co.uk/thumbs/n18/n94475.jpg http://img1.fantasticfiction.co.uk/thumbs/n18/n94468.jpg

A "true expert" as long as Joint Service means Napoleonic Cavalry or British Army history! Why on earth does the Times listen to this Bozo's ramblings??? :ugh:

[Lima Juliet]

PS. Here's a list of recent articles - the man has a serious chip on his shoulder (maybe he was chopped by the Army Air Corps? :E).

ARTICLES

Would a soldier serving on the Chilcot committee be ruthless enough?
- The Times


We are now fighting in Afghanistan without enough helicopters and without enough men - The Telegraph


Our hard-pressed Army must have more manpower to win the war against new enemies - Yorkshire Post


“A question of trust at the heart of the Ministry of Defence'” - The Telegraph


The Army is too small to fight all of the battles facing Britain - The Telegraph


“A question of trust at the heart of the Ministry of Defence'” - The Telegraph


“Gordon Brown must stop shying away from the word 'war'” - The Telegraph

“Helmand: The more troops you use, the less you lose” - The Telegraph

Gordon Brown must put 'boots on the ground' in Afghanistan” - The Telegraph

“War has changed. We need men on the ground, not aircraft carriers” - The Times

“The Gamble: General Petraeus and the Untold Story of the American Surge in Iraq, 2006-2008 by Thomas E.Ricks” - The Times (book review)

“Afghanistan: it will be tougher than we think” - The Times

“Our armies are marching out of step” - The Times

“We must rebuild a military base in the US” - The Times

“Should Sir Richard Dannatt be made Chief of Defence Staff?” - BBC Audio Discussion

“Sir Richard Dannatt has done Gordon Brown a great service” - The Telegraph

“To win Iraq war, we must fight properly” - The Telegraph

“Does Britain want an independent RAF?” - The Telegraph

“Prince Harry can look every soldier in the eye” - The Telegraph

“How Britain can respect our Servicemen” - The Telegraph

“Basra has seared the British Army's soul” - The Telegraph

“Gordon Brown's hollow seasonal greetings” - The Telegraph

“PM's foreign evasion is highly dangerous” - The Telegraph

“This silence on the Army speaks volumes” - The Telegraph

“Patience is the key to General Petraeus's surge” - The Telegraph

“Allied rivalry isn't new, but we need each other ” - The Telegraph

“How much longer can the army fight?” - The Telegraph

“We must fight a battle we can win” - The Telegraph

“Harsh questions for defence ministers” - The Telegraph

“Tories should spend serious money on defence” - The Telegraph

“Cash for sailors just another symptom of rot in the MOD” - The Telegraph

“What the Army must learn from Iraq” - The Telegraph

“A disturbing case for over-stretched Army” - The Telegraph

“Ministers cannot gag the generals” - The Telegraph

“The army needs 10,000 more men” - The Telegraph

[Azee]

Has this chap Mallinson confessed as to what his shortcomings were that precluded him making it to Major General rank, or even a real Brigadier ?

Anybody know one or two of his former superiors at the higher level, a general perhaps who could be persuaded to comment here on the chap's annual appraisal reports which 'doomed his further promotion prospects ? Someone MUST have identified that AM had clearly reached his ceiling in the competence stakes and written him up accordingly, otherwise he would have 'stars' on a red plate on his Fiat Punto or whatever he drives.

Something is seriously affecting his thought process, has he PTSD perhaps after his exursions in NI or Balkans ?

Someone once said that a Defence Attache job was for those 'not quite up to the mark' for demanding real military assignments, and it was a last chance to redeem themselves before going off to tend roses. Permanently!

Perhaps we should feel sorry for the dear fellow ?

[mr fish]

still, as long as we never have to go to war against another "fast jet flying club", i guess everything will be ok.

damn unsporting of some countries to carry on with the misguided notion of a "fast jet" club.

how much easier would the falkland's war have been if the pesky argies had played the game and only used choppers!!!

[Vage Rot]

As much as I banter the girls of the Womens Auxilliary Balloon Corps, without the 'Fast Jet Flying Club' the Pongo's job would be much more difficult in Iraq and Afg. How many time do you hear 'Request CAS at Grid xxxxxxxx' on the airwaves? Sorry old chap, the flying club hasn't got enough members anymore!!

C0ck

[glad rag]

Funny how some find it "trendy" to lose sight of the big picture...

Russian jet flies within 90 seconds of Hull - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3107008/Russian-jet-flies-within-90-seconds-of-Hull.html)

[WhizzzWheel]

It's quite amusing to see the FJ indignance at the bandying-about of the 'flying club' banter. Methinks thou may protest too much?

It is, of course, absolutely correct that we should have a military equipped for all eventualities that may befall the shores or interests of this island, in the absence of any dependence on our allies, but unfortunately we are a few billion quid short of this mark, and insistant that we maintain the illusion of being a world player on the big stage.

Given that we are not likely to commit any further funds to our established obligations overseas, it does seem rather incongruous that we would divert funds that could be used for the here-and-now into yesterday...

Yes yes, you say that the Grey Arrow can be used as a strike aircraft. I'm sure it will be commensurately better at that job for its cost than other established ground-attack platforms. I'm sure that Terry and his mates will be all the more in awe of it killing them, given the fact that it could have transited to its holding position at several times the speed of sound, and was less likely to be detected on the way by the radars that they do not have.

Yes yes, if the Norwegians were really to fail to give us a bell as the Soviet bombers passed by, and they really did get within 90 seconds of bombing a sh*t-hole of a city back to the stone-age (or yesterday as they call it up there) then it would be nice to know that the crews who were waking up and pulling on the top halves of their goon-bags whilst the bombs were falling would have been jumping into a voice-activated jet, had they had enough time.

I agree that we should guard against becoming a one trick pony, but whilst we are being asked to perform only that trick, that pony has got to be the best we can make it before we start gilding the big-top.

[Easy Street]

The anti-Typhoon, GR4, Carrier, Type 45, Trident etc etc arguments all hinge on the proposition that neutralising the threat of Afghan-based terrorism is the be-all and end-all for the Armed Forces. This proposition seems to be gaining the lofty status of "FACT" in the media, which means it won't be long before the government agrees and acts accordingly. This obviously suits the Army (and malcontent non-members of the FJ "flying club"!) who are taking the opportunity to expand their slice of the Defence pie.

I believe this approach is a very dangerous one for the Army (and the malcontents) to take. I will temporarily accept the above proposition, before embarking on a tongue-in-cheek argument with a heavy dose of reductio ad absurdum. Doesn't make it any less valid though...

NEUTRALISING THE THREAT OF AFGHAN-BASED TERRORISM IS THE BE-ALL AND END-ALL OF THE UK ARMED FORCES

1) Army - F35, Harrier, Carriers, Type 45, Trident replacement, GR4, Typhoon are all irrelevant to the above aim. Chop them! Strategic Defence Review 2010 - OK then, if you say so. We didn't really have the money available anyway. Shall we get rid of the hopelessly fast-jet centric CDS as well?

SOME TIME ELAPSES. FOUR BRIGADES HAVE BEEN AND GONE, AND EACH BRIGADIER HAS BEEN PROMOTED FOR REGAINING CONTROL OF A DISTRICT THAT HIS PREDECESSOR RELINQUISHED. AFGHANISTAN IS GENERALLY STABLE AND KARZAI IS STILL GIVING JOBS TO EX-WARLORDS WHO MIGHT DESTABILISE HIM IF NOT KEPT ONSIDE. HOWEVER, TERRORISM IS STILL IN THE NEWS JUST AS MUCH AS IT EVER WAS BEFORE.

2) Fed-up public finally see through the spin - We already know that Islamist terrorists are being trained and tasked from other locations - see for example the 2009 Christmas Day airline bombing attempt, originating from Yemen. Therefore attempts to stop terrorism simply by stabilising Afghanistan alone are futile.

GOVERNMENT (BRIEFLY) CONSIDERS THE IDEA OF EXPANDING MILITARY OPERATIONS TO COVER ALL POSSIBLE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIST TERRORISM...

3) Any organisation or individual with 2 brain cells to rub together - The international community is barely able (perhaps even unable) to bring a successful conclusion to the current operation in Afghanistan. The idea that Western nations could keep a lid on Islamist terrorism by simultaneously deploying ground forces to all possible terrorist havens is a non-starter.

THE ARMY, AND MALCONTENT NON-MEMBERS OF THE FJ "FLYING CLUB", FINALLY REALISE WHAT'S IN STORE. OOPS.

4) Government, keen to free up cash for tax cuts / welfare payments (delete as appropriate) to shore up its core vote - Given the futility of conventional (non-SF) military intervention in preventing terrorism in the West, it would make sense to adjust our posture. Withdraw from Afghanistan, declaring glorious victory. Wholesale cuts to all branches of the Armed Forces involved in Op HERRICK. Re-allocate the cash to defensive measures such as airport and port security (whole-body scanners cost peanuts compared to military forces), MI5 / GCHQ, domestic police, UK-based EOD, computer network security. Small-scale and extremely short-term offensive action to be carried out by SF in concert with MI6 where specifically required.

NOW WHAT? YOU CUT ALL OUR TRADITIONAL WAR-FIGHTING CAPABILITIES BACK IN 2010, AND NOW YOU'VE DECIDED THAT THE BEST WAY OF DEALING WITH TERRORISM DOESN'T INVOLVE US!

5) Government - don't worry! After all, state-on state warfare is dead! The traditional causes of international conflict - resource shortage; ideological, racial and religious differences; ancestral territorial disputes - all gone! Plus potential new causes of global unrest, such as climate change, are massively overblown (MoD assessment only. Treasury and Dept of Environment assessment may differ). We have coped OK without all those FJs and ships, and we'll now cope OK without the infantry and helicopters. What exactly are we supposed to do with them in a non-interventionist world?

BUGGER.

It's late at night so I'm sure my language could be dismantled fairly easily. However, I think the underlying "drift" could easily be shaped to pass the public opinion test over the space of a couple of years. What do you all think?

[WhizzzWheel]

malcontent non-members of the FJ "flying club"

HAHAHA! Don't sit on the fence mate, let us know exactly which non-warfighting camp you are in! Clearly anyone who disagrees with you is a non-patriot who doesn't have the country's best interests at heart, but just wants more money from the defence pot!

I don't think anyone has suggested that Afghan is the "be all and end all", perhaps a head-rectum removal is required! The fact of the matter remains that the first priority with limited resources has to be current commitments, with future plans remaining a firm second until that priority is firmly met.

[Like This - Do That]

Have we all drawn breath, ladies? Feeling better after a cup of tea and a lie down?

Disclaimer I'm an Armoured Corps officer, but RAAC, not RAC, and I'm not a tankie.

Many have fallen into the trap of attacking BRIG Mallison's utterances by putting up their own ignorance-driven bogymen (although a couple of rants veered dangerously close to ad hominem attacks). Questioning the efficacy of Chally II, or of MBTs in general, is as silly as BRIG Mallison's nonsense.

Gainesy & Cows, not having a go at you, but using your posts to help mine, hope you don't mind.

I understand its tank doctrine to not go solo but in formations, so send enough to do formations.

In fact, short of having another go at Rommell in N. Africa or being sacrificed on the N. German Plain, tanks should be melted down and made into more bayonets.

The MBT can fit perfectly into the combined arms team, not just for REGT or BDE - sized thundering around Northern Europe. In complex terrain, urban or rural, COIN or Three Block War, nothing matches the MBT as a versatile, responsive, intimate blend of hardened, networked firepower. It has comms, it can provide cover, it can carry stores, it has sensors. Nothing matches it in that final, terrifyingly lethal last 300m - which is a universal condition of every battlefield.

I should add that AIR is also a part of the mix; it's purple.

And quite right Gainesy, don't sleep under 'em, nor behind 'em, and don't get in front of 'em :eek:

Ivan, couldn't go without one last dig :}

...sure there are many individuals in the Army that do but as an organisation they just want to be moved from A to B.

Maybe the Army should get all the RW lift capability then :ok:

[Gainesy]

Well, thank you, that pretty much answers my question, so why are the tanks not out there? (MBTs, did see some Warriors in AFg footage t'other day}. One or two at each FOB maybe?

As to the IEDs even the Army spokesfolk are describing them a s "Roadside Bombs", now, is this just dumbing down for Joe public or are they, as I took it literally, firing slugs sideways from a roadside location as in the latter throws of Iraq, rather than buried in the road as per conventional landmine?
(I doubt this is an opsec thing as the gits know how they set them up).

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The fact of the matter remains that the first priority with limited resources has to be current commitments, with future plans remaining a firm second until that priority is firmly met.

On only your second Post, it’s good to see that you’ve grasped the opportunity for comedy on PPRuNe.

Having, clearly, comprehended the objective of HERRICK, perhaps you would share and define it for the rest of us? That would, incidentally, place you as a significantly better communicator than HM’s Government.

I’m also impressed with your agreement with the Government on “future plans remaining a firm second”. What particularly interests me is how the numerous “gapped” capabilities will be “ungapped”, once (or if) they are considered affordable again.

The harsh evidence points to a Government (and political Party) that has no interest in the Military other than providing the diplomatic means of keeping up with the Transatlantic Joneses. What they don’t want to do, on the other hand, is pay for it. What we should be transmitting to the Government, wall to wall fives, is that they should be increasing the Budget, not mortgaging the assets and capabilities that are essential to an island Nation with significant possessions and responsibilities overseas. To that, we often hear the parrot squawk “we’re broke and can’t afford it”. I would strongly suggest that is bollox. As a Nation, we can but won’t. That would require honesty with the British people and some sacrifice. How a Government that has based its existence on posturing and “spin” could find that so difficult is beyond my understanding. For those who might think I’m being partisan, I would also advise Mr Cameron to get his poo in one sock with regard to military imperatives.

In summary, if we gap the capabilities many of these informed people are proposing, it will be hell’s own job to get them back. If we do get them back, it may be too late for when we might need them.

[Ivan Rogov]

MRT were used to great effect in Iraq by Coalition forces. The Canadians found them very useful in Afg too, so much so they are buying "new" ones - Leopard 1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_1#Canada)
(See the Canada entry and links)
LT-DT Purple works at the coal face because we need to rely on each other, but further up the the ranks the Services just don't trust each other and it is obvious, far too much political manouvreing and positioning going on to secure their slice of the pie :ugh: Lets hope those at the top work together on the SDR for the good of defence and not just their Service.
Re the dig, I know it was slightly in jest but why should the Army get all RW lift? How would they be better placed to provide it than the RAF, who's job it is to understand and operate in the Air battlespace.

[Like This - Do That]

Ivan

Sorry, it's a bit of a running joke (or open sore?) in Oz since RAAF handed over the new S-70s to Army in the late 1980s.

Quite agree, senior officers squabbling over their slice of the pie is an unedifying sight. When the pie is either shrinking, or is perceived to be shrinking, the worst in people is brought out.

For what it's worth I think taking eyes off what may give us the fright of our lives 10 years from now is a poor course of action. Do we want to take the fight to the baddies under friendly skies, or hand over supremacy of the air to the other team?

[steamchicken]

Also, the Americans are now operating in Afghanistan with a date set to begin drawdown. It is not obvious that this is the right moment to massacre the rest of the UK's key capabilities to pour money into "Afg kit"...

Did you hear the one about the two shipwrecked sailors on a raft? One said to the other - "So who did win the cyberwar?" But the other one had died of hypothermia after the ship sank, so he couldn't answer.

[Geehovah]

I'd also add that it's interesting to see how Government priorities change.

You may be interested to read how a previous Government (Labour again) had neglected the Country's conventional defences. Happily the subsequent investment meant that we won the Cold War.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/DeeGee/Miscellaneous/74Jets.jpg

It's a good job we have more than 74 air defence aircraft to deploy (ergo defend the UK) nowadays (tongue in cheek BTW) ..................................... But I suppose we'll never face a resurgent Russia with over 200 conventional aircraft. They're our friends after all.

And the date:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v221/DeeGee/Miscellaneous/Date.jpg

[Capt Pit Bull]

Quite agree, senior officers squabbling over their slice of the pie is an unedifying sight. When the pie is either shrinking, or is perceived to be shrinking, the worst in people is brought out.

I recently rewatched the "World at War", good ol Mum saving the DVDs from the weekend papers. One of the interviewees remarked how much inter-service rivalries contributed to problems, causing failures and senseless loss of life, especially during the early days of WWII.

Seems like nothing has really changed.

[Hugh Spencer]

From today's Daily Mail I understand that the Government is also considering cutting back the funding of the BBMF. What a disgrace! The cost of the BBMF is £3,000,000, less than 0.1% of the MoD's £36.9 billion budget and 1% of the £300 million paid in bonuses to civil servants in the Whitehall ministry. I hope all of you will be prepared with your strong protests if this should be planned.

[TEEEJ]

All passengers on the outrage bus, please alight at the next stop!

Daily Mail Article - BBMF News

Battle of Britain Memorial Flight - News (http://www.raf.mod.uk/bbmf/news/index.cfm?storyid=3177BC8D-5056-A318-A877D2E906A0C1C6)

'You may have seen the article in the Daily Mail today speculating about the future of the BBMF. Air Command have advised us that the potential demise of the BBMF as a cost saving measure is untrue;

There is no plan to cut any funding from the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. We routinely review all spending to balance our resources and focus on the highest priority - operations in Afghanistan. A wide range of options are always considered in each annual planning round but not all of these are taken.'

TJ

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

A spokesman said in a statement: “We are satisfied we have the flexibility to launch as many aircraft as the situation requires.”

This was in response to the near overflight of Hull by the Russkies.
Don't you just love them... the "spokesmen":*

[Hugh Spencer]

TEEEJ
I am extremely pleased to read that the people concerned are denying the information. I hope it won't be a case of 'I told you so'.

[dead_pan]

£3m for the BBMF? Sounds like an awful lot of money to keep these planes flying. I'm sure OFMC or TFC could do the job for a lot less, and get some serious sponsorship into the bargain. Listen chaps, when you're flat broke you can't be sentimental about these things. Everything should be up for grabs.

[Cows getting bigger]

LTDT, I may have been a little petulant in my MBT/bayonet anaology but far less than a retired one-star who should be mature enough not to call the RAF a flying club; I wonder which particular staff college he went to. :bored:

The fact is that the MBTs aren't being used. Nor have they been used for anything other than one or two phases of any campaign. Meanwhile, the stuff that is there throughout (ISTAR, CAS, CAP, AT, SH, AH, Warrior, infantry, logistics (lots of), signals, medics etc) are all suffering. It may surprise you that I agree there should be far more teeth arm troops. But maybe the focus for rationalisation should be spread across all three services rather than only having a pop at the RN and RAF.

I used to work with the Army (as an SH chap) and the bit that really grated was their inability to be flexible as far as unit formation was concerned (at the time concepts such as combined arms or joint fires were looked upon as a massively new and exciting whereas those of us in the RAF just looked upon them as common sense and nothing new). Call it regimental cap-badge arrogance or just plain ignorance, I don't know. What I do know is that we in the RAF made the effort to understand the needs, requirements and capabilities of the Army; we tried to be purple. I rarely saw anything other than an aloof, "you're here to support us" attitude in return. Sure, we had a pecking order in the RAF but the bottom line was that everyone actually realised where the priorities lay. In particular, I became most disillusioned at Staff College where many of my fellow students paid lip service to learning about the two blue services; we were most definitely looked upon third class citizens. Later I saw sycophantic colonels running around operational Div/Corps HQs trying to please their lords and masters with endless, beautifully scribed estimates whilst constantly manoeuvring to undermine their compatriots, almost completely losing sight of the actual task. For an equal ranked/status 'blue job' to offer a view was scorned upon; we were G3 Air and should only talk when talked to. Pity really as the other fighting troops I worked with (Royal Marines) were the epitome of intelligent, informed, fierce warriors who had a far greater understanding of the overall, Joint dynamic. It was a delight to work with them.

Anyway, the rantings of this particular retired RAF officer probably will not make much of a difference. I suppose it is time for a sherry. :)

[WhizzzWheel]

GBZ, in the apparent absence of proper comprehension/reading, I'll spell it out a little clearer.

I'd be interested to know where exactly you think I have suggested gapping any capabilities. In fact I explicitly said quite the opposite:

It is, of course, absolutely correct that we should have a military equipped for all eventualities that may befall the shores or interests of this island, in the absence of any dependence on our allies

I'd also like to know your take on the allocation of (insufficient) funding, would you find it preferable to hamstring current ops in order to prepare for a potential/imagined threat?

The fact of the matter is that we need to get value for our meagre resources, though more resources would be preferable! Reducing commitments would help enormously, but neglecting them would not!

I wonder how many aircraft would be required to deal with the situation of a bucket of sunshine having already been dropped on the lovely seaside resort of Hull. The fact of the matter remains that right now AD is a flying club. Sure they may cease to be in the future, and whether that day comes before pilotless fighters are the norm will only be known with the passage of time.

[cornish-stormrider]

OK- so we disband the junionr service and give all helos to the brown jobs and shirtlifter wafu's. We contract out AT to Dickie B and cadge all other options off the septics.

When (and believe me it is when, not if) the next war comes and we all get bombed to sh*t and lose the war as we have no Air Force what do we do then?

A salutory lesson would be GW1 where an intense bombing campaign = much less opposition ( Note I do not, and will not ever lessen or question the bravery and sacrifice of those involved. I merely said there was less of the enemy numerically than before)

You can jump up and down, stamp your feet and shout louder than me that the current war is more important - more important than what. A home? A nation where we can recoup, rearm and attack from again?

Do not be led down this blind folly that a COIN op ( against an enemy who may not even be there (Al Q) and we have been suckered into fighting the Afghan who will fight anyone who is there ) is the be all and end all for this nations forces.

As to those of you who doubt why we are in FI - Oil. FI gives us claim to Antarctica and the mineral wealth therein.

The bottom line is we should not be arguing about diverting all our defence budget to AFG but standing shoulder to shoulder and saying we MUST HAVE a bigger piece of pie.

This country is not broke. It has been mismanged to hell and all the money goes the wrong way.

If we do nothing and chop services we will eventually reap the whirlwind.

Most money spent in the defence does not get wasted - everything you buy and use has to be made. you all eat and drink. If we start buying more british produce we will help dig our nation out of the pooh.

[dead_pan]

Perhaps the review ought to start with a long term review of our foreign policy & security objectives? Our priority should be to defend our territory not to put the world to rights. Sure, we should play our part in NATO and whatever joint forces Europe eventually decides to put together, but only as long as there is consensus on action and an equal shouldering of any commitment.

I wonder what condition the armed forces would have been in had we not opted to support America in Iraq? They would have been more than happy to invade without us.

[Squirrel 41]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The reality - and it is reality, I'm sorry to say - is that there are painful cuts coming, irrespective of who wins the election. David Cameron was explicitly asked about this this morning at his launch of the Tory's national security strategy (nb, not defence) and replied that defence "was not ringfenced" and that "we will do more with less".

How much less? Malcolm Chalmers at RUSI (http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR_5.pdf) reckons that it could be 5% over the years to 2013/14 if we're lucky. His assumptions are in my view massively optimistic, and in line with the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the most likely scenario is a cut of about 15 or 16% - £5.5bn a year in 2013/14.

Full marks to Cameron for at least being honest. But it's going to be bloody, and the BBMF and the Reds are just the start. Remember, the RN's Historic Flight are privately funded(ish). It doesn't fill my heart with joy as a light blue, but make no mistake, many cows - sacred and otherwise - are going to get slotted over the next 18 months.

S41

[Vage Rot]

And the date:



Just before the last time that our nation realised that you can't hand out freebees to lazy gits that don't want to work!!

[Farfrompuken]

This country is not broke. It has been mismanged to hell and all the money goes the wrong way.


Cornish, I'm afraid UK plc is technically banckrupt. There IS no money. Just more borrowing.

We will, like it or not, get hammered. Clearly we could look at cuts elsewhere, like stopping welfare payouts to those who are on the make, but with limited manufacturing base, we've got little to sell to make that money.

El Gordo really has cocked this one up in style (not just the recent shambles but the last 10+ yrs).

I don't agree that we should be in the business of cutting capabilities, but we clearly don't need 100s of Typhoon. Sell a load and let's get what our punters need-more SH and AT. 22 chinooks are a start, but that's at the price of the Merlins. We (and I'm saying this on a daily basis at the moment) need to remember we're in the business of supporting the troops on the ground; failure to do so will seal our fate.

The War is NOT the Air War. Make CAS a SH dude. CDS Army, not some irrelevant cold war FJ REMF.

[Caspian237]

Here is a story that may interest you concerning the future funding of Britain's armed forces.

David Cameron: Tories could use aid money for defence budget - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6990793/David-Cameron-Tories-could-use-aid-money-for-defence-budget.html)

A paragraph that captures the essence of the story:


"..some Tories believe the party can honour that pledge [ 0.7% of GNP on aid] by counting some spending done by the Ministry of Defence as development aid, since the work of the Armed Forces contributes to the development of countries like Afghanistan"

[CirrusF]

Perhaps the review ought to start with a long term review of our foreign policy & security objectives?


Exactly - and in particular we need to review our stance on Israel. The root cause of the terror attacks in the UK, and just about every conflict in the ME since 1967, is because of our timidity in condemning Israel's continuous and ongoing breaches of international law.

[Melchett01]

Army chief calls for more troops and fewer ships to fight wars against insurgents - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7011209/Army-chief-calls-for-more-troops-and-fewer-ships-to-fight-wars-against-insurgents.html)


The head of the Army has said that more troops and fewer ships are needed as the changing face of warfare requires the most radical changes to military tactics for more than 80 years.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]General Sir David Richards, Chief of the General Staff, said that the rules of war had been rewritten by the challenges of fighting insurgents and the armed forces were now facing a new “horse versus tank moment” – when cavalry was phased out in favour of tanks in the First World War.

With a defence review set to follow a spring general election, Sir David said that it was time to rethink conventional “old-war fighting” involving heavy armour and ships.

Sir David suggested that more troops, unmanned spy planes and high-tech cyber-defences would have to be paid for by slashing the budget for ships and fighter jets.

"Soldiers give you the most choice and the most utility in today's sort of conflict”.

He continued: "People say I'm only talking about war with non-state actors [such as the Taliban]. I'm not. I'm saying this is how even war between states is more likely to be fought in the future."

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the military has faced a string of counterinsurgency or stabilisation operations in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sir David said: "In our heart of hearts, we thought that was an aberration and we'd go back to jolly old war-fighting like in the western desert or a hot version [with battle lines drawn] of the cold war."

But the general said the examples of Basra and Helmand have proved "unsophisticated opponents with very cheap weaponry" can pose severe threats – and said that future opponents were likely to use similar tactics.

"Why would you not learn a lesson from that and think, 'Actually, that's how I would bring down great nations and great alliances, much more subtly, cleverly and at much less risk'?" he said.

Sir David, who is due to speak today at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said he lived in "the real world" and envisaged significant spending cuts in the defence review.

He insisted that Britain still needed ships, aircraft and tanks. But there may have to be fewer of them because more soldiers are required, along with more helicopters to carry them.

Last month the Government announced that a £900 million package of 22 new helicopters, body armour and other support for troops in Afghanistan would be funded by closing a Royal Air Force base and scrapping a squadron of Harrier jets. In addition, two Navy ships will be retired early.

The move led to former military chiefs questioning whether the focus on Afghanistan risked leaving Britain exposed to other threats.

Sir David, however, compared critics to the cavalry officers who insisted, long after the introduction of the tank in the first world war, that it would never replace horses.

He also said that Britain will need to develop better defensive and offensive measures to ward off cyber-attacks.


So then, UBL has had SATCOM and broadband installed in Tora Bora and is going to nobble our electricity and gas supplies and air traffic systems is he? Well fair play to him if he has. But this does beg the question .... why Sir David, do we need thousands of more troops to defeat a cyber warfare savvy opponent? With all due respect to the incredibly dogged and brave troops slogging it out on a daily basis, if that is the threat we are facing in the future, thousands of regular infantry are exactly what we don't need.

If the way ahead is hi-tech cyber war, then I'm afraid the days of the regular infantry are limited and we are looking at hi-tech agencies, SF and intelligence led wars.

Care to re-think or have you really just shown the flaws in your Afghan army-centric thinking that most sane operators can see?

[Guzlin Adnams]

I'm just a civvy but I can see that there's some truth in what the General says. We do face different forms of threat but surely we have to cover all of the possibilities and that includes what some would call traditional threats.
I simply don't trust the politicians I'm afraid. Is there a conspiracy to reduce our forces at all costs as part of a carefully managed decline of this nation. Are they perceived as a drain on the public purse as money spent on them does not win votes. I would argue against that last point at this moment in our history as there's a massive appreciation out there now for what the military is doing for us.
Surely all in each of the services should not be arguing with each other as I frequently see on this forum. What should be happening is a one for all approach to ask why the hell is defence spending already too low and why the hell are further big cuts even being considered when we can send India £800m for their schools, afford to give banks billions, allow immigrants into the country at such a rate, send millions to Brussels every day, not trim 50 % of the fat from Health, Education, local authorites and every "centrally controlled" government department (including the MoD.)
Too much red tape, bureaucracy, too many regulations and the fact that we're over governed by politicians who are concerned that their importance will wither on the vine if they're not involved in every thing that we do.
God we've got it so wrong in the UK. Time for radical changes maybe. Take responsibility for funding the armed forcs away from politicians.
Less of my babble, too much highland juice affecting the brain.
Sorry to go on.

[dead_pan]

General Richard's comments does highlight the muddled thinking in the higher echelons of the armed forces - it sounds like he's been told about cyber-warfare by one of his staff but has absolutely no idea what it is. Perhaps he's planning to procure Modern Warfare 2 to get his troops up to speed?

Cameron's comment about dipping into the aid budget is a bit left-field as well. The military have found a useful role in supporting humanitarian operations however it shouldn't be their primary raison d'etre (as the army would have you believe watching their TV ads). There are plenty of NGOs who can do these jobs, probably at a fraction of the cost.

[Metman]

maybe it is a horses Vs tanks moment, but I read his statement almost as advocating replacing tanks with horses, rather than the other way around! You'd never guess he was an Army man, would you...

Guzlin, I'd agree about not trusting politicians, but I'd argue that the senior ranks are as political as the worst of politicians now.

Defence needs more money. Full stop. We need to fight the war we're fighting, yes! We also need to protect the bloody country and remember what the point of defence is! Why the hell generals / admirals / air marshals are trying to get one over on each other and even offering cuts in baseline capability god only knows! Man up, pull together, and say NO to the bloody politicians! Defence is peanuts now in the grand scheme of things!

It strikes me that this country, and the organisations and companies in it (and I count my ex-employer in that list) have failed and completely lost sight of their core business and reason for being, and got completely distracted by fluff and triviality and targets and mission statements and crap!

[Geehovah]

Am I the only one who sees this as slightly single service centric for a potential future CDS?

His arguments may have a few flaws:

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the military has faced a string of counterinsurgency or stabilisation operations in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. Didn't the Balkans and Iraq campaigns start with a "minor" contribution by Air?

Britain will need to develop better defensive and offensive measures to ward off cyber-attacks. I'd be interested to see the Army plans for Cyber and I don't mean Military Influence.

Britain still needed ships, aircraft and tanks. But there may have to be fewer of them because more soldiers are required, along with more helicopters to carry them. Does that mean a large mobile army with no air or maritime capacity. Are they planning to walk to the next theatre of ops. And I won't get back onto air superiority over the battlefield.

Hi ho........

[Widger]

I have got to say, that my blood is boiling! I thought with the departure of the last CAS and CNS that the MOD had entered a new era of trying to work together to save the collective skin. How naive of me! His comments totally omit many of the other tasks and interests that the UK has around the world, especially economic ones. The earthquake in Haiti has shown quite clearly the utility of both strategic air transport and naval forces in situation other than warfighting. I echo the sentiments above. How does the good general think his troops are going to get to theatre, how will they get fed and supplied with fuel and ammunition, who will provide them with CAS and ISTAR? Certainly not the many Challenger IIs sat in hangars in Germany. What will the UK do when we are competing for mineral and food resources in remote parts of the world such as Antarctica and around all those other, very valuable little bits of rock that we have around the world.

He has declared his hand very early and publicly and his comments are not helpful in the current situation, with an SDR and a new Government on the way. The other services would do well to sit up and note!

[VinRouge]

I would love to see his opinions on the growing threat from global piracy and how we protect our future energy requirements in the future, especially in his brown job world lots more troops is the answer?

Resource war anyone? Likely to be fought as a proxy war in a far flung land with state sponsorship of a despot regime. Like to see how useful thousands of extra troops will be without the mobility offered by Sea, force projection offered by a Sea/Air mix and air superiority provided. He would be well advised to read monty's comments on this issue for a start.

What concerns me most is the fact the article in the telegraph makes it blatantly clear he has not idea of where the most likely threat to UK security will come from.

Lots of extra boots on the ground might be cheap and impressive on paper (great for politicians) unfortunately, its F*ck all use to protect out way of life, especially with the way the world is going over the next 50 years.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

WhizzzWheel. Clearly I did misunderstand you and misattributed to you a gift for comedy. Sorry about that.


You see, to be comprehended, you really need to avoid writing things like


It is, of course, absolutely correct that we should have a military equipped for all eventualities that may befall the shores or interests of this island, in the absence of any dependence on our allies

in close formation with

unfortunately we are a few billion quid short of this mark

To my, no doubt, simple loggie mind, that averages out as pretty negative and will result in "gaps". To that, my salient point remains


What we should be transmitting to the Government, wall to wall fives, is that they should be increasing the Budget, not mortgaging the assets and capabilities that are essential to an island Nation with significant possessions and responsibilities overseas.

That was my answer to the question you had not yet asked


I'd also like to know your take on the allocation of (insufficient) funding, would you find it preferable to hamstring current ops in order to prepare for a potential/imagined threat?

Now if I could be tedious and re-ask my earlier question, prompted by your


The fact of the matter remains that the first priority with limited resources has to be current commitments, with future plans remaining a firm second until that priority is firmly met.
What is the prime objective in the ‘Stan that makes everything else secondary?

[Polikarpov]

Response to General Richards forthcoming:

Military strength vital: Navy chief

The head of the Royal Navy will warn that Britain must maintain its military capabilities if it is to retain its influence in the world.

In what appears to indicate significant differences with the chief of the Army, First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope will stress the continued importance of the UK's "hard power".

His comments follow General Sir David Richards' call for a "radical" shift in priorities, away from "hugely expensive" equipment towards getting more troops on the ground.

The Chief of the General Staff said future conflicts would require an unprecedented focus on hearts and minds initiatives rather than conventional military might.

But, amid fears that major defence equipment programmes may be on the line, Admiral Stanhope will insist that Britain needs a fleet that can handle "high-intensity warfare".

Arguing that the Armed Forces needs to win wars with "hard power", he will say: "We must look beyond Afghanistan... we must be prepared for surprises and strategic shocks.

"The Falklands war was such an event. It came in from left-field."

The difference of emphasis between the two services chiefs comes amid a review of defence policy.

Initial proposals are due to be published in a Green Paper early this year.

General Richards told the International Institute for Strategic Studies: "Future wars of mass manoeuvre are more likely to be fought through the minds of millions of people looking at computer and television screens than on some modern equivalent of the Cold War's North German Plain."Military strength vital: Navy chief - Yahoo! News UK (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100119/tuk-military-strength-vital-navy-chief-6323e80.html)

[Wyler]

Personally, I find it quite sad that our very senior officers see fit to air their dirty washing in public this way. Maybe I am missing something.

I think Afghanistan is the last Hurrah for the forseeable future. The resources will be given, for the shortest possible time, to to allow the Government to get out of the situation and 'spin' it to declare it a roaring success.

Thereafter Cameron will in no way wish to repeat the same mistakes as Blair. He will not want to be tarnished in History for commiting the country to unwinnable/unpopular/illegal(?) wars at the behest of America.

Consequently his focus is on 'different approaches' to International troubles and concentrating on 'the home front'. In other words, I am not going to use you unless hell freezes over. That means there are deep cuts to be made.

I think it will be the same if Labour is returned.

What a desperate situation.

[pr00ne]

Wyler,

Why is it a desperate situation?

If you think that neither political party is going to be deploying armed forces for the foreseeable future then cuts are the right thing to do, especially as we need to reduce public expenditure pretty rapidly.

You can't just exist for the sake of existing you know.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

pr00ne. Are you suggesting that HM’s Armed Forces should only exist if they are actually being used to do stuff? The whole point is that they are needed in case they might have to do stuff.

It’s been likened previously to an insurance policy. They are pretty tedious and expensive; until they day you need it and find that being un or underinsured wasn’t your brightest household finance move.

[ORAC]

The last time someone made cuts olong those currently proposed was the Geddes Committee in 1921 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geddes_Axe). The result was the "RAF Flying Club" of the late 20s and early 30s.

Unfortunately we don't have the Schneider cup to keep development going, and ramping up production when needed takes a lot longer than 1-2 years as well.

As for being able to see 10-20 years ahead, who foresaw the fall of the USSR, the Falklands war, the first Gulf war etc.

[Radar Command T/O]

pr00ne

Not to mention that capabilities such as those we are discussing, although they can be instantly cut with the flourish of a pen, cannot be instantly recovered simply by throwing money at the problem.

It takes a generation to recover a lost capability. So, even if you can absolutely guarantee 100% we will have no need for aircraft carriers or MPAs or Air Interceptors for the next 30-40 years, then we might justbe able to save some money for about 5 years, because then we have to start regenerating again.

Can anyone else predict that far into the future, or is it just me that lacks prescience?

[Wyler]

Desperate for the points made. It is easy to throw things away but the devils own job to get them back.
No politician will look further than the next election so a quick win is at the top of their list.

[dead_pan]

cannot be instantly recovered simply by throwing money at the problem.


I disagree- its amazing what we as a nation can do should the situation demand it, as the events of 2008 & 1939 have shown. I'm sure the Americans would happily lend-lease us a whole swathe of their arsenal in the unlikely event we needed it. In addition, our membership of NATO is always a good fall-back insurance policy in the even more unlikely event another nation were to threaten our shores (an attack on one being an attack on all).

So, even if you can absolutely guarantee 100% we will have no need for aircraft carriers or MPAs or Air Interceptors for the next 30-40 years

I can't recall us having any actual need for carriers since the Falklands crisis. All of our air ops ever since have been done from land bases
- we always seem able purloin one near the action. We also haven't had any real need for a maritime patrol and air interceptor capability since the break-up of the USSR.

I also struggle to imagine any threats which would require us to have any of these assets at our disposal. Terrorism is perhaps the biggest threat we face, apart from a few rogue states who fortunately are thousands of miles distant (apart from Iceland and we could 'ave 'em any day). Carriers, Typhoon, MPAs and MBTs for that matter are little use against the former.

Edited to add: The biggest threat to western civilisation? Western civilisation. The threat posed by terrorism, rogue states (including Russia) are really down in the weeds in comparison.

[pr00ne]

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU,

No, I am not suggesting that the armed forces should only exist if they are being used, that would be palpable nonsense!

What I am suggesting is that cutting back the number of Air Defence squadrons to the number of Lightning squadrons that were apparently deemed to be OK for the majority of the Cold War, and its peak period, is OK. Do we need aircraft carriers any more? Not sure if we do as we have only ever needed them once in 50 odd years after all.

The capabilities are not being cut by politicians, they are being offered up as cuts by the senior uniformed chappies in the 3 services. If THEY think we can reduce accordingly then who am I to argue?

The simple truth is that we are never going to have to fight another Battle of Britain or Battle of the Atlantic, or defend against a mass armoured thrust into Europe, so the size and scope of the armed forces can and indeed should change to face the new reality.

Every other western nation is doing the same. The only nations with armed forces that are not being drastically reduced are India and China, massive countries with huge populations who are many MANY miles away and present us with absolutely no threat what so ever.

[Jackonicko]

Having "the number of Air Defence squadrons to the number of Lightning squadrons that were apparently deemed to be OK for the majority of the Cold War, and its peak period," would be an increase over what we have, and over what is planned, old chap.

5, 11, 19, 23, 29, 56, 74, 92, 111. Nine squadrons.

Don't tell me: You'd exclude 19 and 92 because they were in Germany from 1965, and you'd exclude 56 (Cyprus 67-75) and 74 (Tengah 67-71). That still leaves five squadrons, plus 43 with F-4s as the smallest UK-based Cold War AD force (before that the Lightnings were augmented by Javelins and Hunters and the like).

So we should have six Typhoon AD squadrons? Excellent, one more than is planned.

And as we expect Typhoon to do a bit more than AD, and to be deployable in the AD and Air-to-ground roles, perhaps we should replace the three Jag squadrons as well.

Time to get the cheque book out.

[Widger]

Though it hurts me to say it....well said Jacko. Along with the same theme of correcting incorrect conceptions, this thread is very quickly descending into the same chaos many of the "incident" threads on Rumours and News become, with armchair pundits spouting their view of the world. Unfortunately, as on R&M, they are out of touch and just downright wrong.

Many of the comments on here have not just stopped at slating individual items of equipment but suggesting the removal of whole capabilities. Anyone who has served in any form of joint environment in the last 20 years could site plenty of examples of when these capabilities have been required. Note that the Falklands was over 20 years ago but remains more relevant today than it ever was, with the discovery of large oil and mineral reserves both around those Islands and also in Antarctica, which is in itself disputed. The so called British Antarctic Territory is also claimed by several other nations however, the UK is one of the few nations on earth that has a deep water port and airfield along with the air, naval and land forces to protect those interests. It was no co-incidence that the UK extended the economic zones around it's "territories" in 2009. Defence of the UK does not just mean England, Scotland, Wales and NI. To state that Maritime patrol has not been used shows equal ignorance and I do not mean to be rude there. there are many capabilities that to outsiders appear to be useless, but just because their successes cannot be trumpeted, does not lessen their value.

There are indeed tough times ahead, that is accepted. I would dearly like at least one party to state that after the election it would be the social security budget they would look at closely above all others (apart from Scotland probably ....joke alright!) because they would get my vote.

On a final note and I know that Jacko would argue against it but I hope that after my earlier support for his comments on his beloved Typhoon, even he could acknowledge at least two significant events that Naval forces are involved in at the moment. The first is anti-piracy and the second is the relief effort in Haiti, where naval forces (unfortunately not the UK's or French) are showing their utility in areas other than warfighting.

Good night and don't get trapped in tomorrow's snow!

[Jackonicko]

Though I would continue to maintain that carriers are a seldom-needed, 'nice-to-have-not-must-have' capability that is unaffordable in these times, I am a big fan of the Royal Navy.

I would therefore strongly support investment in the kind of specialised vessels best suited for anti-piracy, fishery protection, drugs interdiction, etc. and am nervous about the continuing loss of frigate/destroyer numbers.

The latter reduction has been less precipitous and less calamitous than the reduction in fast jet squadron numbers (where I see a need for some restoration of force levels), and is, in my view, a less significant loss, but I would not want to see any further reduction.

[Radar Command T/O]

Without wanting to get into another argument about the needs of one branch of the armed forces over another, I would humbly suggest that use of the word "unaffordable" is somewhat innacurate - any nation that can afford to spend £119bn healthcare, £105bn on welfare, £84bn on education and £83bn on miscellaneous "other spending" each year (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/), not to mention a bank-bailout payment of £850bn (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html) can probably afford the handful of billions required to procure and support the required (desired?) Air, Land and Maritime equipment.

Unaffordable? I would contest that.

Undesirable, unpopular, un-vote-winning? Probably a little nearer the truth.

[Jackonicko]

In the context of a £35 Bn Defence Budget, even without the £35 Bn overspend over the next ten years, and even without the inevitable cuts (5%-17%), and in a force structure where we're tumbling down past 12 fast jet squadrons, carriers and JSF are unaffordable and represent an unwelcome distortion of force structure.

While you and other right wingers might see an easy solution in cutting back on aid to 'da.mned foreigners' (most of them darkies, for goodness' sake), and on all of those welfare programmes - health, education and the like - the things that you see no problem in relying on private provision for, and while 'lefties' like me would see an increase in direct taxation and a removal of child benefit for the rich, as being a solution to constrained budgets, NEITHER is going to happen.

The defence bucket is not going to get significantly bigger, and may well get much smaller.

[Radar Command T/O]

While you and other right wingers might see an easy solution in cutting back on aid to 'damned foreigners' (most of them darkies, for goodness' sake)

Be careful, Jacko. You've just managed to call me a facist and a racist in one sentence, and while I admire your manipulation of the English language that allows you to perform such a feat, I do take offence.

My point was that there is money out there. Present economic climate accepted, how the government chooses to spend its money is a matter of prioritisation more than overall affordability.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

No, I am not suggesting that the armed forces should only exist if they are being used, that would be palpable nonsense!


Clearly, I misunderstood you the first time round. You may have to write things like;


If you think that neither political party is going to be deploying armed forces for the foreseeable future then cuts are the right thing to do, especially as we need to reduce public expenditure pretty rapidly.

You can't just exist for the sake of existing you know.

more precisely, though, for the benefit of thick buggers like me.

[Jackonicko]

Radar, old chap,

I haven't called you a fascist, I've lumped you in with 'right wingers' - partly for comedic effect as I've also lumped myself (pro-defence, pro-nuke, pro-grammar school) as a 'lefty'.

Nor have I called you a racist.

I merely point out that many right wingers abhorr the idea of spending on overseas aid, and sent up what is an underlying thought, in many cases.

It was a cheap shot, as UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES I would myself support taking a selective axe to overseas aid spending.

The underlying point though is that however affordable a £70 Bn defence budget ought to be (and we probably both agree on that), we are not going to see appropriate tax rises to enable it, and nor are we going to see the money stripped from the bloated budget of the NHS, with GP pay being halved so that they're paid more like teachers than bankers.

However desirable that might be.

Defence is going to have to live within its means, and to make tough choices. In those circumstances, it is simply not sensible to spend on carriers and JSF.

[gijoe]

So redundancies then?

Form an orderly queue please.

:ok:

[Biggus]

Read point two in the following link....

BBC News - The Go Figure election guide, part 1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8459390.stm)

The current government has pledged to halve the current annual deficit in the next four years. If, and it might be a big if, the information at point 2 in the link is correct, they don't have to actually cut expenditure to achieve this - so no cuts in defence are required:D

Of course, there are several possible holes in this arguement. Is the information in the link correct, and is halving the ANNUAL deficit in 4 years actually going far enough......???

[cornish-stormrider]

hang on - they are going to halve the annual deficit in four years......

so they are saying don't worry about the money we have already put against your name but instead of 4000 per head per year we will only borrow another 2000.... so we would each be up to another 14000 in debt ON TOP of what we already owe.

What the F*** is going on in the treasury.....?

Who let these chinless wonders have the keys to the piggy bank and the company stamp that signs the loan agreements?

Most worryingly is who is holding the loan ticket?

[Radar Command T/O]

Jacko,

Glad we cleared that up, at least.

Agree with you on the overseas aid thing - we shouldn't stop it all, particularly in view of recent events in Haiti, but I think a little "streamlining" is in order right now.

Also agree that GPs pay is way too high. However, I believe salaries should be appropriate to the level of qualification required for the job and the level of risk and responsibility taken in that role. With that in mind, I would expect a GP to earn more than a teacher. (Mrs Radar is a teacher, before anyone accuses me of demeaning teachers)

But we digress....

I don't think we can afford to get rid of our carriers just because they are not required for the present conflict. We can't see what lies ahead - in 1918, who knew we would be at war again in 20 years? Who knew in 1945 that we'd be fighting in Korea in only 6 years, or for the Suez 5 years after that? In 1980 we had no idea that our decision to lose our big carrier capability would bite us in the arse so quickly. It's been mentioned that if we ever needed carriers in a hurry, we can get them quickly from the Americans. That's assuming that they would have any to spare, and in any case, even if we got the platform, we wouldn't have the experienced ship's companies or aircrews to man and fight them. It takes 3-4 years to grow a FJ pilot, 2 to grow a RN Observer, 20 to grow a Carrier Captain.

Carriers mitigate the need for HNS all the time, they can get a lot closer to the enemy while remaining mobile so that they can sail out of the fogbank in order to launch and they make a much larger visible statement parked 20 miles of someone's coast than saying you've put some jets in a neighbouring country.

However, I also believe we are going to do the big carrier thing, we should do it all the way, not peacemeal; thus I am far from convinced that JSF-B is what we should be putting on them.

[Widger]

I don't think we can afford to get rid of our carriers just because they are not required for the present conflict.

I know that I sound like a broken record but, i will say it again. Carriers ARE relevant to the present conflict. 30% of CAS effort in the Stan is conducted by the USN operating off carriers.

The reason the UK carrier option is so impotent is for a number of reasons. 1. They are too small.
2. The Flight decks are too small which means that the aircraft cannot carry the fuel/ordnance combination to make a difference over such a great distance.
3. Only GR7/9s can operate from CVS and they have been withdrawn, whilst the USN use FA18s.

So fast forward to 2016-18 and HMS QE is on the scene, with JCA/Rafale/Marinated Typhoon/F18s.(delete as required). The deck is large enough to allow the aircraft to carry the ordnance and the ship is large enough to carry the stores, spares, food, water and ammunition to support around the clock flying. Fast forward a few more years and MASC is no longer on a 1950s airframe but on a VH22 which can be launched from the same platform as can the UAVs providing ISTAR. The ship also carries CH53s and CH47s both of which can fit on the lifts and be stowed and serviced in the climate controlled hangar without folding and the whole ship is run with the same amount of manpower used on a current CVS (USN carrier requires many, many more!) Fast forward to the next calamity to befall a country with floods or earthquake and the same QE can be on the scene providing helicopter support, food, water, medical supplies and facilities.

Carriers ARE relevant in the Stan, just not the UKs CVS which , lets face it...are crap!

[hulahoop7]

Bravo, well put.

[Radar Command T/O]

I know that I sound like a broken record but, i will say it again. Carriers ARE relevant to the present conflict. 30% of CAS effort in the Stan is conducted by the USN operating off carriers.

The reason the UK carrier option is so impotent is for a number of reasons. 1. They are too small.
2. The Flight decks are too small which means that the aircraft cannot carry the fuel/ordnance combination to make a difference over such a great distance.
3. Only GR7/9s can operate from CVS and they have been withdrawn, whilst the USN use FA18s.

I could probably have put that a little better: Just because our present carriers are't suitable for the current task, doesn't mean we should not procure the CVF.

Fully agree with everything you said above - the US carriers are proving their worth, and I am convinced that if we had CVF right now they would be out their contributing in much the same way the CVNs are.

It is also very easy to dismiss our CVSs as as crap, but for 29 years they have been doing far more than they were ever designed to do. They were supposed to be ASW helo-carriers (hence the lifts in the middle of the runway!) and the RN wasn't supposed to have any Aircraft Carriers at all when they were built.

[hval]

Good evening all,

I have been following many of the arguments as to whether we should have carriers or tanks or planes, or nuclear weapons or what ever. Every one would appear to be picking their favourite toy and arguing for that. There are many, many threads and they all end up the same way.

Should we not be going back a step further and asking, as we all undoubtedly were at Sandhurst, Cranwell and at Dartmouth a number of questions (some of which I have seen asked). No groaning in the back there. These questions might include?

1/ How do you define a home land? Where is your homeland? Does it include colonies? Does it include In-dependencies? What about Commonwealth countries? How far out to sea does the homeland extend? Do people who have the same passports as us, but who are living and working abroad deserve to be defended?

2/ How do we defend the homeland? Military, politically, diplomatically, social engineering, corporates

3/ Do we defend the Homeland at all, or do we just let any invader come? Maybe we then use guerilla tactics

4/ Are we here to project power?

5/ Are we the worlds police men?

6/ Do we wish to expand our power base and take over more territories? If so, how? Doesn't necessarily require military power.

These are but a few questions that need answering, before any decision can be made as to what assets we require, and for what tasks they are required for.

I do realise that I am raising some very basic concepts from our youth, but I really don't see any point in these arguments about whether a submarine can fly faster than an Apache.

Hval

[Widger]

Radar Command,

Don't make the mistake of comparing the CVS platform with the people who operated in it or off it together with the aircraft. There is a big difference. If CVA01 had been around in 1982 and the Bosnia episode and GW1 and Telic and the current conflict. Things would have been very different.

In the same vein I would argue that the SeaKing Mk7 was crap but the kit that's it it and the people who operate it are not.

[Radar Command T/O]

Widger,

I concede your point. The CVS platform has been asked to do far more than it was capable of ever since it came into service.

Maybe if they were 3 times the size, with 36 jets rather than 8....... :}