Missed the boat-UK Armed Forces unfit for purpose 2020

[Onceapilot]

With the "fourth largest Defence budget in the World", the UK Armed Forces are rapidly being made unfit for purpose. Our Admirals, Generals and Air Marshals have totally failed to match our future defence requirements with the UK budget. Why have they committed us to a few outrageously expensive trophy projects in a world where the real tasks could be met at a much lower cost? The USA will continue to provide the lead in Western world defence technology and mega-buck projects. The UK should now be consolidating a position of broard capability that suits our pockets and, the reality of the changing world. Now is not the time for shrinking core, defence of the UK, capabilities.
The Army should keep its present full-time strength and the TA expansion should continue as UK reserve. Boots on the ground may be needed at home or abroard at any time.
The Royal Navy has been sold down the river. The ability to defend the seas around UK is core. Additionally, a pair of the small Harrier-carriers with suitable defence vessels are best suited to the level of power-projection that the UK needs in the 21st century.
The Royal Air Force has culled some core capabilities whilst gold plating others. Core must be: defence of UK airspace, ablitity to support the Army and Navy in their declared responsibilities and maritime protection. Sound legacy platforms are being discarded at great cost of replacement. The truth is that the USA itself recognises the usefulness of older airframes where they are appropriate. They re-engined the KC135 fleet as an example. Charter should be used for low threat transport tasks.
Overall, we need some breadth. Not just, only one regiment of soldiers that work part-time or, only one big ship with all the sailors in or, only one big gold plated aeroplane.:oh:

OAP

[Secret1]

My dear chap,

If a senior officer desires a promotion, with larger salary, and an enhanced pension, why would they rock the boat by telling or advising their political masters anything those t0$$ers don't want to hear?

[Haraka]

Secret1
Succinct and on the nail.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Is that a personal opinion or an extract from a reputable publication?

[sharpend]

Yes, I agree that it is wise of the USAF to keep some older airframes. A very good example is the B52 which will reach its 100 anniversary! The Jaguar and Harrier should never have been scrapped, just to save short term cuts. The VC10 should have been modernised and would have been a far cheaper option than what little assets replaced it. As for our maritime capability! Etc etc

[airborne_artist]

Remember that the QE carriers order was placed by a politician, not an Admiral, and before the financial crisis and the subsequent spending cuts. Politicians almost always do things for political reasons, and very rarely for any other reason.

[Tankertrashnav]

Dont forget - in spite of the recent increased popularity of the armed forces in the public's eyes, there are NO votes in defence.

Have you ever heard a politician of any colour berating the other side for excessive spending and saying how many soldiers/helicopters/aircraft carriers that money could have bought? The only politically acceptable comparison in these circumstances is teachers/schools/nurses/hospitals.

I think it was Bliar who introduced the mantra - "health - education - health - education" and it has been enthusiastically taken up by the other side. Thus the number of pointless universities and inappropriately educated and unemployable "graduates" we have produced in recent years are the mirror image of the defence assets and service personnal we have lost in the same period!

[longer ron]

Also we quite often end up with the 'Rolls Royce' costing solution when the 'Ford' solution would have been just as good or better !
A couple of sqdns of A10's would have given us great CAS cover for a fraction of the cost of either Harrier or especially Tornado.
The F35B/carrier saga is absolutely unbelievable !

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

A10s are good at long range strike and Recce?

[longer ron]

I did specify CAS ; )

[Willard Whyte]

A10s are good at long range strike and Recce?

Other than being 'a bit' slow I'm sure it could be quite adept at the latter, given that so much gubbins is, or can be, 'podded'. It would certainly need a number of enhancements to be capable of the former. A little late now, but I'd rather my tax pounds had bought A-10s than Harriers. And as intimated, at CAS it's second to none.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Just a minor point but we already owned and had the support chain in place for the Harriers and Tornadoes. I must dig out my Valued CADMID notes, I may have read them wrongly.