Cuts endanger UK, RAF's Timo Anderson warns

[BEagle]

From the BBC:

A senior RAF officer has warned that cuts to military aircraft numbers would leave the UK vulnerable to attack.


Clearly someone not blighted by the sandaholic attitudes of many of his contemporaries, thankfully.

More at BBC News - Cuts endanger UK, RAF's Timo Anderson warns (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11529330)

[hulahoop7]

So cutting strike aircraft undermines UK air defence? He'll have to do better than that.:ugh:

[Jabba_TG12]

I dont believe a word he says.

Considering how much UK AD has been eroded almost to the point of non existence over the last 15 years or so thanks to some highly questionable decisions by Timo and his predecessors, to suddenly wail that the SDSR is going to result in disaster is laughable.

Who does he think he's trying to kid? :=

Silly Ar$e. :E

[Whenurhappy]

Loadofhoop & Jabba - you clearly haven't read his speech!

This is an excellent piece of work - drawn, inter alia, from AP 1300 - with excellent illustrations of what fast air does in theatre and the the emerging air power role of Combat ISTAR (although I do recall we used to have a thing called Armed Recce in the 1970s and 1980s).

Unfortunaely, this was delivered to a group of believers, however the ;leaking' of this speech to the Telegraph (and subsequently, the BBC) will widen its impact. Clearly moving to MAA hasn't killed off the Dark Lord or weakened his powers...

[flipster]

One hopes the MAA will come out as unscathed as possible.

If AVM Anderson's lot don't do their job well enough, the few aircraft that we will have left, post-SDSR, may be vulnerable to 'known' threats and hazards eg Nimrod, Hercules, Chinook, Sea King AEW and Tornado.

UK Armed Forces Ltd will not able to afford any such attrition if we are keep up the op output with limited resources (which presumably the politicians, of all colours, always seem to require)!

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Pontius Navigator]

Need to be careful harking back to a 9/11 scenario.

Suppose there were 4 aircraft targeted at major centres in UK such as London, Edinburgh, Liverpool and Bradford. Do we have 6 aircraft on QRA so that we could send 2 against each potential threat?

If he is serious about a 9/11 type threat he would need most of the ADF on some level of alert.

[ZH875]

If Bradford is on the Target list, then let them obliterate it, it will improve the area no end.


Bradford born and Bradford bred, I will not move back there, even if dead.

[Jabba_TG12]

Most of it, is nothing short of a sales pitch. "Dont cut us because..." Which is all fine and dandy.

I dont think the piece that led to this article has been misquoted though...

"The QRA Force is vital to protect UK territory and reassure the population and it is well used. Without such an air defence capability, the UK would not be able to guarantee security of its sovereign air space and we would be unable to respond effectively to a 9/11 style terrorist attack from the air"

So which mugs then, in light of such an observation have been quite happy to whittle away the QRA force, both ASACS and aircraft over the last 15 years to the point we are at now? How many radar sites have we lost? How much coverage?

[SRENNAPS]

Derr,

So when they don’t speak up they are Ar$es and when they do speak up, “While Still Serving” they are still Ar$es.

Absolutely nothing pleases some of you on this website.

I knew “Timo” very well on the Crusaders both as a Sqn Ldr and as a Wing Commander and believe me; he speaks his mind and does not suffer fools gladly. I would suggest that this is not the first time that he has voiced his opinion; it is just the first time he has voiced his opinion and it has been made public.

Well done Timo, and if there had been a few more Sqn Ldrs and Wing Cdrs like you in the RAF a few years ago it would be a better place today.

[flipster]

....he speaks his mind and does not suffer fools gladly....

It would be great to know he is still the same now that he is 'an Airship' - Lord knows we need people like that.

[The Magic Rat]

Having read the transcript, I think its well written and had to be said. Whether it ll do any good or not remains to be seen.
One things for sure, if GB hadn't systematically eroded military capability when he was chancellor there would currently be some fat that could potentially be trimmed. As opposed to the f@@k all thats left to be cut even further.

[charliegolf]

I'm a convert, so I get why we need a strong RAF. In the country the perception might be that more death and misery will defo happen from:

NHS cuts, patients die,
SS cuts, children die
Railway cuts, passengers die
and so on...

you get my drift. Everyone will have an agenda. And Dr Fox won't quit!

CG

[Father Jack Hackett]

Given the blatant anti-RAF campaign running in the media this week, we need someone to speak up for Air. IE: "RAF" jets responsible for destroying a house next door to Yeovilton; "RAF" technicians sending a live Apache rocket back to Wattisham. It would appear that the Navy and Army have very good contacts in the major media outlets......

[Whenurhappy]

SRENNAPS,

As someone who worked for him more recently, I can assure you that he has lost none of his tack and diplomacy...or cunningness and guile.

[SRENNAPS]

if GB hadn't systematically eroded military capability when he was chancellor there would currently be some fat that could potentially be trimmed.

Please could you expand on that statement because I remember many occasions (well before GB was chancellor and the Labour party came to power) in the eighties and nineties, where it was stated that there was no more “Fat to Cut” after Sqn after Sqn and Base after Base was closed down.

Ok we were not fighting a war in Afghanistan then, but we still had a considerable commitment across the world and it did not take a Rocket Scientist to work out where the world was slowly but surly heading.

Tanks, Aeroplanes and Ships aside, I believe that the average serving member of the armed forces is far better equipped then it was just 10 years ago in terms of personal equipment, communications and generally being looked after (and don’t get me wrong, they all fully deserve it). However, I must point out that this has all had to be paid for by somebody. If the labour party went into massive debt in some attempt to put many wrong things (arguably highlighted by the press) right because we were fighting two difficult wars, then so be it.

Today’s Government has the potential to ruthlessly cut the armed forces (and other areas) to a dangerous level but they have the luxury of being able to blame the last governments’ so called incompetence for doing it and most people believing that they are right.

I don’t know about the rest of you but I find this situation quite worrying.

Whenurhappy:

Many thanks for that and good to hear it:ok::ok:

[VX275]

I find his airship's comment a little odd considering that the USAF, which is a tad larger than the RAF, failed to stop the 9/11 attack.
The success of the 9/11 attacks was down to poor intelligence not a lack of Air Defence assets.

[NutLoose]

Suprised we haven't subcontracted UK air defence out to the Russians by now, that would save money as they would know exactly what time to launch an interception as they would know the planned times of their incursions. :E

[Jabba_TG12]

"Derr ...So when they don’t speak up they are Ar$es and when they do speak up, “While Still Serving” they are still Ar$es. "

Thats about the long and short of it, SRENNAPS. :E

Whichever way you look at it, there is a paucity of leadership at * level and equivalent and the RAF is no different to the Met and other Police forces, the Army or the Navy or the Civil Service.

What exactly is he speaking up about though? He's not "speaking up", he's toe-ing the single service party line, he's shroud waving. Had he been "speaking up", especially in his capacity as head of MAA, he could/should have been making significantly more noise about why there has been a need for an agency such as his to be created and how it is going to address the issues that it has been charged with. I know theres an "O.P. to Flight Safety/Airworthiness in as few posts as possible" stigma around here, but regardless of whether he's a good egg or not, he has got significantly more important fish to fry at the moment than leading a parade of bleeding stumps at the last minute.

It may well have been a well written speech (almost certainly not written by him and not for him, merely delivered by him), it may well have been the right thing to say, but with the ink drying on the results of SDSR, its a bit late and the stable door is flapping in the breeze with the old nag having trotted away long ago into the sunset.

It still does not change the fact that when faced with decisions before as TLB's & Airships, his predecessors have made some mighty curious decisions which have led us to the point that we are at. And now suddenly holding up UKAD as a potential sacrificial lamb that no-one should dare slaughter is more than a tad lame.

Especially using 9/11 as a lever - does anyone here remember what happened the last time there was a 9/11 type scare in the UK and how tortuous the Chain Of Command was on that day and who eventually would have got left with the decision as to who would authorize any engagement?

Labours problem was the w1lly waving wars of choice that we did not have to get involved in.

You say some of us are never satisfied. Maybe you're right. Maybe some of us old f*rts have watched the service that we were a proud part of slowly being ground down and turned into a pale shadow of its former self (when it could have been if not avoided then at least negated) and are a tad irked about it. :}

[Jackonicko]

Jabba,

I have to say that if anyone is being an @r$e, it isn't Anderson.

Having had the honour of meeting and talking to him on a number of occasions, I've always been impressed by his intestinal fortitude. This is not a 'lion in the cockpit' who became an 'administrative mouse', unlike so many senior RAF officers. Like Baz North, he is an officer who will speak up for the interests of his own single service's interests (something that's routine among higher ranks in the Army and Navy, but which has become rare among the light blue since Mike Graydon's slap-down).

After watching other senior officers fumble opportunities to speak up about the importance of UK AD and the shortage of assets (most notably Sir Steve Dalton when quizzed by Channel 4 News and invited to compare and contrast UK AD 1940 with UK AD today), I'm delighted to see someone of Anderson's self evident integrity and calibre speaking out.

He obviously cares passionately about his country, its defence, and his own service, and needs no lessons in any of those things from the likes of you and I.

[NorthSouth]

Northern Q has been maintained with one steadily dwindling squadron of F3s for some time now. I don't recall anyone suggesting that it's currently inadequate.

As for How many radar sites have we lost? How much coverage?the answer to that is little or none. Hopton, Weybourne and Neatishead, but coverage provided from Trimingham.
NS

[Whenurhappy]

OK Jabba, what should he have said? Timo's committment to the purity and utility of air power and to the preservation of the Royal Air Force as a viable and independent entity is beyond reproach.I also understand that there is a sh!t storm under way on the 5th floor over the leak of this speech...

[Wyler]

In fairness to Jabba, he is stating that the UK AD infrastructure has been salami sliced for years with the full approval of the airships. It is now past being a token effort and is fast becoming a joke. To now start shouting that it is so vital is a little disingenuous.

That said, I salute the man for bringing this out in the open. This is a dirty fight, so time to fight dirty. This shower of politicians is no better than those they replaced. Use the media the same way they do.

My prediction is that in 6 years we will be defending our Island Nation with Landrovers and helicopters. The carriers will be used as floating platforms to take bankers around the world trying to flog dodgy bank accounts to third world farmers.

[Jabba_TG12]

I dont see why there should be a sh1tstorm about the leak. Theres nothing of great substance in it.

I just find it extremely hollow to whimper "wolf" on UK AD when important elements of it particularly ASACS have been repeatedly salami sliced since 1998. Now, it either matters to you or it doesnt. If thats the party line that is going to be taken, fine, on their heads be it. I personally think its a bit late for this kind of bleeding stump parade, but what do I know?

I was not just referring to the loss of the CRC's and not just the south as well. From what I know we do not have the coverage in the north in the Shetlands/Faeroes/Iceland gap that we used to. The UK attitude towards the NATO ACCS programme for instance, has been highly questionable to put it politely. Our reputation on the other side of the channel for the way we have handled this particular aspect is not quite what it could be.

By all means, make the most of the power of networking to allow you to do more with less sites and less people, which is what happened with IUKADGE and UCMP and it has to be relative to the perceived threat, which is not what it was, but neither is it non existant.

Were there not also serious questions in the recent past asked regarding the amount of hours per month and per year available for training for UK AD squadrons? The incident where an F3 and both members of the crew were lost?

But going forward, there has to be a minimum that the system can be trimmed to and still be able to deliver against the requirement and in my very humble professional opinion, it has gone as far as it possibly can.

Now, I realise he may be just one of many senior airships and I dare say that he either has not been party to (or does not get to influence) a number of decisions that have led us to this point. As you say, maybe this is the first real time he has been thrust into the proverbial limelight, delivering a speech that wasn't even written for him.

Jacko, you obviously know him better than I do. And he's a senior airship and I'm just another civvy.

His opinion is obviously going to matter more than mine and I'm not even part of his target audience. Such is life. But, as one with an active personal and professional interest in matters AD going back the best part of 30 years, I have serious misgivings on the way the UK is dealing with this matter and find the statement too little, to the wrong audience, too late.

[Jabba_TG12]

Thank you Wyler, that was exactly what I was getting at. I've just seen your post after I'd put my reply up.

I just have a tendency to ramble on a bit in my old age. :\

[RookiePilot]

Need to be careful harking back to a 9/11 scenario.

Suppose there were 4 aircraft targeted at major centres in UK such as London, Edinburgh, Liverpool and Bradford. Do we have 6 aircraft on QRA so that we could send 2 against each potential threat?

Nice maths, PN. (always find it amusing exchanging banter with PPRuNers as you old salts are probably several ranks above me and I'd never get away with it in real life!)

I think that the public aren't really aware of the necessity for UK AD, as it's not a very tangible asset of the RAF.
After all, them doing their job is to make sure that nothing happens, be it intruding Russians, or hijacked jets, and people rarely notice the absence of something. Add to that some people will question why we need to spend millions of pounds on our jets being ready to intercept Russians when the Cold War is over, and the Russians wouldn't in their wildest dreams bomb us - what would they have to gain?

[baffman]

It would appear that 'Sh!t storm" was no exaggeration, but the annoyance is purportedly about the SDSR context which the speech was given in the original Telegraph report, which CAS has described as "egregious misreporting".

The Telegraph website appears to have revised its original report attributing the speech to CAS - RAF cuts 'could make Britain's air space vulnerable to attack' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8060600/RAF-cuts-could-make-Britains-air-space-vulnerable-to-attack.html) and has also published Air Marshal Anderson's Slessor Lecture in full - RAF cuts: speech in full - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8060071/RAF-cuts-speech-in-full.html).

[Pontius Navigator]

Damian, you were misinformed. I was told by a reliable source, Mike Read, that it was improvements not damage.

[Archimedes]

I made this point over on t'army means last night, so apologies to anyone who's seen this twice - but the Air League Slessor Lecture does not a last minute panicked appeal to MPs make...

Also, I suspect that graduates of ACSC11 will recognise that the lecture is of similar structure to the 'Air Power According to Timo' lecture delivered at the start of that course (and ACSC 12, IIRC) - and it was 'according to Timo', rather than one which was written for him. I note that the story appears to have somehow slipped off the Telegraph's homepage and is actually quite difficult to find now. By the by, as this is an Air League lecture, might the 'leak' not in fact be a transcript put out for wider information??

FWIW, CAS has responded:

I would like to make clear that this was egregious misreporting, factually inaccurate, and spun to make a political argument which was not there. The speech was in fact given by the Director General of the Military Aviation Authority, Air Marshal Timo Anderson. It was a robust articulation of the roles of air power, and what the RAF is doing on operations today. It was cleared by the Defence Media and Communications Director and was not seen as political or an intervention in the Strategic Defence and Security Review [SDSR] debate.

"In the full speech, you will see that the Telegraph has spun the words in the speech for its own purposes to make a story angle that did not exist. It was certainly not an attack on the Prime Minister's comments or intended to be a late public intervention into the SDSR considerations (which continue).

[st nicholas]

What do we have to defend mind. The UK is a small player and the sooner we cut our cloth accordingly the better. I was military for 13 years and it pains me to say that.

[Impiger]

Archimedes, thanks for the quote from CAS' e-mail.

Shoddy, opportunistic journalism from the Telegraph then......

I also note their article on the Apache missile keeps refering to RAF engineers as if we operated the helicopter. Schoolboy error - why is it that journalists from so called 'quality' newspapers make such elementary mistakes? I'd expect it from the Sun or the Mail but really .....

[Geehovah]

It's OK, there will never be a threat to UK

Chamberlain 1936

OK so I paraphrase.

We can never predict what forces we need for the next conflict because they are never the same as the last one. Rule number 1 is Air Superiority over the Battlefield. We've already forgotten that rule during the recent conflict. How many have said its irrelevant? It's only irrelevant when you enjoy it.... and the myth of Typhoon as a "Cold War Fighter" is equally dangerous.

Timo breathes Air Power. His loyalties may lie with his former force but maybe for once, our politicians may listen.

[Chris Kebab]

Good stuff all in all from Timo and not untypical of the man. But it does make you wonder whether such an RAF focussed Air Power centric guy should be operating elsewhere in the RAF and not sitting as head of the MAA?

Let's just hope he is applying the same rigorous level of enthusiasm at addressing the number one priority of his MAA day job which is getting to the bottom of the MOD's failings in airworthiness and safety management on which we have heard very, very, little.

[The Magic Rat]

SRENNAPS,
I don't entirely disagree with your comments but Brown made cuts to our services when times were good and the economy was awash with cash. Had investment been made then and in the right places we wouldn't be so strapped now and some cuts would be more palatable.

Quote:
"Today’s Government has the potential to ruthlessly cut the armed forces (and other areas) to a dangerous level but they have the luxury of being able to blame the last governments’ so called incompetence for doing it and most people believing that they are right."

Correct. We are all too well aware just what the cuts could mean, not only to our strength but to local economies which depend on our forces. Unfortunately there is no way we can avoid them. Its a big sh!t sandwich and we'll all be taking a bite. Blaming the previous administration is something all politicians do.

Timo's statements (IMHO) were bold and factual, hopefully Dave and co will take it on board but I suspect its too late even for the best of governments to sort out in one term.

[Rigga]

If the personality quotes are right I think that "Timo" is exactly the right person to put into a new MAA and give it teeth (or at least a voice) in its formative period.

The last thing the MAA needs is a mouse in charge.

[Archimedes]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01738/1410-MATT-web_1738909a.jpg

Now if the Telegraph left defence matters to Matt, they'd possibly be more accurate...

[Jabba_TG12]

"Good stuff all in all from Timo and not untypical of the man. But it does make you wonder whether such an RAF focussed Air Power centric guy should be operating elsewhere in the RAF and not sitting as head of the MAA?"

"Let's just hope he is applying the same rigorous level of enthusiasm at addressing the number one priority of his MAA day job which is getting to the bottom of the MOD's failings in airworthiness and safety management on which we have heard very, very, little."

Indeed.A lot of you, whose contributions I respect a lot, appear to know him an awful lot better than me and appear to hold him in high regard. Maybe its my cynicism.

We shall have the uncomfortable wait to see how it all pans out.

[Red Line Entry]

We would hope and expect that senior military officers would understand and profess the benefits of their particular Service.

However, as Bernard Gray made clear in his report, it has been single-Service parochialism that has led Defence to having a £36Billion hole in its 10 year budget in equipment alone, irrespective of any effect from the financial downturn. If senior officers of the past had shown more purple credentials in solving the problems (that were apparent to all ranks), we wouldn't be facing anything like the challenge we have now.

Catch 22 really - we want our chiefs to fight our corner, but we literally cannot afford them to.

[dc1968]

I much prefer this version of the original story!

Cuts could leave UK open to giant gorilla attack, warns RAF | newsarse.com (http://newsarse.com/2010/10/13/cuts-could-leave-uk-open-to-giant-gorilla-attack-warns-raf/)

:ok:

[Uncle Ginsters]

So, a week to go to SDSR's grand unveiling and the AM speaks out.

Sh!t, where's my horse gone, better bolt that stable door! :ugh:

This has been turned into an inter-Service battle of wits. It's really not about pompous Service-based rhetoric.

Who cares what form the future of UK defence takes - we are small enough to be a single Defence Force now. Cut 2 out of 3 hierarchies (and their final salary pensions) and i dare say the budget would go a lot further! We are simply practitioners of air power, operating in the service of the nation.

What we must be doing, with calm sensibility, is arguing the case for air power and its roles. I'm sure the Army won't be laughing as they're screaming for 'fast air' over the airwaves and none is forthcoming.

Hey-ho...come Tuesday i guess we'll know for sure! :confused:

[Jabba_TG12]

Deal will help RAF to 'police the sky' - Portsmouth Today (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/biz/Deal-will-help-RAF-to.6581602.jp)

Dont tell me we fired/let go all of our JAFAD's as well... whats going on here??? :( :sad:

What kind of Air Power is this??? :ugh:

Perfectly happy to stand corrected if anyone knows any different.... :E

Update:

Not the right time to step on the outrage bus (well not exactly anyway)... the way the publication has described it compared to what it is actually doing is somewhat differerent....

"BMT Reliability Consultants Ltd, a subsidiary of BMT Group Ltd, the leading international maritime design, engineering and risk management consultancy, has been awarded a four-year contract to provide support to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) Air Defence & Air Traffic Systems (ADATS) Delivery Team. The contract will help the MoD to assess the in-service performance of its T101 and T102 radars and ensure that they are managed effectively while delivering to the required operational availability."

"BMT Reliability Consultants is a specialist in availability, reliability and maintainability and has been providing these services to government and industry for over 25 years. This latest contract recognises the extensive knowledge that the company has in this field and, in particular, the excellence of its work in supporting the ADATS Delivery Team over the past 16 years. The new contract means that the relationship will continue until 2014."

"Ensuring that the equipment meets its key performance indicators (KPIs), such as in-service availability, is of major importance to the ADATS Delivery Team. From the Falklands to the Outer Hebrides and in many other, often remote locations, the ADATS Delivery Team is responsible for the through-life management of current air defence and air traffic systems. This includes providing surveillance capability to support military operations and enabling a safe, cost effective capability for air traffic control."

More DE&S outsourcing then... Isn't this a function the Delivery Team should be doing themselves? :rolleyes:

[Biggus]

Uncle G,

I wouldn't be so sure - that we will find out on Tuesday that is...

I thought that lots of hints had been dropped, both through the more informed newspapers and the MODs internal briefing sheets, that the document(s?) published on Mon/Tue is/are likely to be paper thin. Lots of high level talk about our place in the future world, strategic direction, etc....

As for most of the fine detail, we will almost certainly have to wait for that. Partly because of the wrangling to the very last minute, partly because there was never enough time to conduct a proper review in the first place.

It has already been stated, although not trumpeted, that a body has been set up (the Defence Reform Unit?), which will, apart from trying to re-organize the internal machinations of the MOD, come out with much of the fine detail - and it has until next Sep I think to complete its work. Dare I say that it will oversee a properly timetabled review? Although information is supposed to be released on a drip feed basis, as it becomes available, rather than everything being announced next Sep with nothing before (shades of death by a thousand cuts?).


So, as possible examples I have made up myself, it might be announced next week that the Tornado fleet will be reduced, but you will have to wait for several months to find out how many Sqns go and which bases are effected/closed. It might be announced next week that the RN surface fleet will be reduced, but with no specifics of which ships and when, etc....

Anyway, we don't have much longer to wait for whatever crumbs of information are forecoming from the government - just don't expect all the answers next Mon/Tue...


All the above is readily available information, and my own interpretation of it - and I don't work in any HQ or Main Building.

Standing by to be corrected by someone who knows better!! :)

[Pontius Navigator]

More DE&S outsourcing then... Isn't this a function the Delivery Team should be doing themselves? :rolleyes:

What about RAFSEE?

They came and inspected our aerials every year without fail. OTOH when Decca came to service the radar they came withone man who did not have a certified climber qualifaction, safety-man or a safe system or work.

You get what you pay for and deserve everything you get.

[Jabba_TG12]

PN,

dunno if RAFSEE exists any more... or if they had their proverbial wings clipped. Not sure about the future of Henlow either. Pity. :sad:

[Pontius Navigator]

Jabba, quite. They existed last year as they removed the kit from my unit.

[engineer(retard)]

PN

I suspect that they are going to be data crunching rather than any hands on. If this is the case they will be looking at fault logs and categorising them into systemic or random failures, attributable or non-attributable in terms of who picks up repair costs, trend analysis etc. This used be done by the EA and CSDE and various successor acronyms.

regards

retard

[Pontius Navigator]

retard, ensure that they are managed effectively while delivering to the required operational availability.

Got ya. Making sure that they are only serviced if they are likely to get broke if they are not serviced and avoiding the need for annual preventive maintenance.

[Rigga]

When I knew them some nine or ten years ago, BMT were indeed a data crunching organisation. Albeit a very professional organisation and many of their ex-employees are now consultants in their own right working world-wide.

I've never heard of any complaints about BMT or their services from civil operators - but I'm sure its possible that someone could counter that.

From my experience no-one ever really accomplished what CSDE used to do!

The closure of Swanton Mortuary was indeed the end of an era and a sign of things to come.

[Wingtip12345]

We are an Island !

The two most likely ways we are to be attacked are either by Sea or Air. (Not counting the Channel Tunnel)

We still need defence but I would argue that the RAF and Navy are the last to be cut (if our defece should be cut at all).

And incidentally it should be noted that the RAF actually operate Air Sea Rescue !

And who "box-search" the North Sea or English Channel, when ships and people go missing? Yes, the RAF, Royal Navy; and perhaps the most forgotten: Royal National Lifeboat Institute.

So stop cutting our defence forces, or is this another Government move towards the USSE (United Soviet State of Europe); which sadly I feel that we have been allowed to become, as a result Labour have got what they wanted.

Only to find like that having applauded the collapse of the Russian Oppression Communists Bloc; only to find that EU
have just become a replacement for the one the thing we criticised them for.

[Whenurhappy]

Wingtip1234...Where does this frankly 'Bonkers' idea of a European Army come from? There is absolutely no, repeat no, appetite for this across Europe (and I should know, I have spent the last 8 years more or less engaged in this matter in NATO, EU and UK appointments). Europeans are largely constitutionally pacifists (especially the Germans - qv the Kunduz incident Sep 09). The French maintain their distance although now a key member of the NATO military structure and resent - as did de Gaul - any interference in their internal affairs, especially any hint of 'foreign' control of their forces. I recently had a Swiss officer correct me on an operational planning matter during an exercise in Rome. It transpired that his only overseas deployment was to...Dublin, for a 2 week CIMIC course. No, there may be harmonising of legal instruments to aid commerce and societal integration (devised in the 50s to stop the century repeating itself in such graphic horror), but a European Army? Nope, you are simply wrong. Let's get back to saving the RAF and the fundamental principles of air power and forget about, for the moment, our European colleagues. With the exception of the Norwegians, they are all in a similar amount of financial poo as us!

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I see what you mean; http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/2010%20Headline%20Goal.pdf




A. The 2010 Headline Goal
1. The European Union is a global actor, ready to share in the responsibility for global security. With the adoption by the European Council in December 2003 of the European Security Strategy, it affirmed the role it wants to play in the world, supporting an international order based on effective multilateralism within the UN. In this context of new dangers but also new opportunities, Member States' strong commitment to give the enlarged European Union the tools to make a major contribution to security and stability in a ring of well governed countries around Europe and in the world is stronger than ever. The EU has the civilian and military framework needed to face the multifaceted nature of these new threats. The availability of effective instruments including military assets will often play a crucial role at the beginning of a crisis, during its development and/or in the post conflict phase.


I must learn to read between lines.