Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Is this is why the Conservatives have recruited Dannat, rather than him becoming an armchair General to mastermind the Afghan Campaign? The MOD needs tearing apart and rebuilding, with a great deal of it destined for landfill. Mountbatten's monster must be slain and a St George is needed for the job. Perhaps "Dragon slayer" on his CV swung the deal?
Sounds like the impending pain is reserved for the MOD, civilians and supporting elements.
A bit of a pity, as some of these elements do a great job that will not be apparent on a balance sheet.
A further pity if large swathes of the flying prevention branch are left untouched purely because they wear a uniform.
Developments in the military over recent years have mirrored the government. We now have 'large government' in the form of bloated HQ's adding numerous extra layers of bureaucracy.
Many of the personnel working in these HQ's are decent people, they would just be better employed out in the real world, rather than bunkered up in some HQ.
I offer JHC as an example. How many pilots are employed there?
Let's thin out the HQ's a bit, making them flatter and leaner, release more people do actually do the job we trained them to do, whilst removing the suffocating levels of bureaucracy and micromanagement that are currently dragging us down.
It's just more political rhetoric. Half the reason there are so many 'civilians' is that they're doing a lot of the jobs that used to be done by light blue, dark blue and khaki uniforms.
If it were that simple, it would have been done by now. One day the politicians might wake up and realise that we're just a little island off the NW coast of Europe and act accordingly - that'd cut a lot of costs. Falklands, independent nuclear deterrent etc etc
Not holding my breath though. I sympathise for those likely to be affected by yet another round of uncertainty.
I think we need to get real here. You cannot cut 25% of support (civilian) staff without cutting a role or two. Left of arc is that everyone is a soldier - no Navy or Army - clearly ridiculous. However are we going to see a singleCommand HQ - Joint Operational Command - with 4 Groups (I use the term Group as I am more familiar with that structure) Land, Sea, Air and Support. You then ask the serious questions about role and responsibility. Lets keep it simple - If it is an aircraft its RAF (No JHC - big saving) - If it goes by sea its Navy - rest is Army.
Now look at the vulnerable:
Do we need the Royal Marines - after all the last amphibious operation of real significance to us Brits was the Falklands and this was done by the Paras. Big savings here.
Do we need the big Carriers - think not
Do we need big tanks - think not
Do we need JSF - think not.
Do we need Trident - Yes - we need the ultimate big stick. However we could give this role to Aircraft Launched/Submarine Launched Cruise Missiles.
Obviously with all these great ideas (possibly) is the caveat that in turn HMG must recognise that what the military can carry out is significantly reduced and Forign Policy must clearly reflect that.
The serious point here is that 25% WILL mean cuts in role and responsibility changes
Ok I'll bite Tigwas.....what the f**k are you smoking?
Which Falklands war did you watch? The ones where the Royal Marines stayed at home or the one where the Royal Marines and the Para's dominated most of the land battles and without whom the Islands would not have been recaptured. Have a bit of a read about the subject and you will find that a lot of the hard ground work and fighting (except for Goose Green) was undertaken by the Corps.
You may also want to read up on what 3Cdo Bde has been doing in Afganistan......I know poor dears, they have been soooo bored.
IIRC the initial landings were by the Paras, a role usually reserved for the RM. Of course the RM were there but their role was more conventional that Amphibious Warfare.
But seriously folks, is there not a real question that given the way the world is today can we afford to do this role. If the answer is yes so be it. If it is yes what role are you going to chop - I do seriously believe we will need to give up a role. The point of my post is that I believe that if 25% cuts are to be attainable it will mean a radical re-think. The RM issue gets the debate going. Yes, it is provocative but what suggestion will not be.
Without going to off thread, did anyone see the small bit in The Times yesterday about the Tories increasing the tax free op allowance to £4800 for six months away? Seems pretty good if they actually carry it out.....
Tig, you clearly have no idea as to what you are talking about.
If you think that the Royal Marines sit around all day practicing beach landings then I guess that you imagine that the Airborne brigade only practice parachute jumps and nothing else?
If you are going to make boll0x claims to start a discussion then expect to get boll0x back , *.
Taken from various sites:
The British Task Force started to land its troops at San Carlos Bay on May 21st 1982 after receiving the go-ahead from London. Brigadier J H Thompson, Royal Marines, led the troops from 3 Commando Brigade. His second in command was Colonel T Seccombe, Royal Marines. Men from 40, 42 and 45 Commando were landed in San Carlos Bay along with men from 2 Para and 3 Para, Parachute Regiment. The main priorities were to secure the beachhead from attack and land as many men and supplies as was possible. To prevent nearby Argentine forces attacking the beachhead and disrupting it, groups of Special Forces troops were sent out to deal with the known nearest threats.