Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
Royal Navy are pirates, says Argentina's president
Thread Starter
Quite a capability if they can sail one of those boats all the say to Afghanistan.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at risk of divulging secrets it is known the later classes of boats have a low range 2nd and diff lock capacity fitted which enables them to go over land.
do not be suprised if you see one rock up at bastion or the like
do not be suprised if you see one rock up at bastion or the like
Oct 7th was almost a month afterwards. Granted, it was the first shot of the war, but the use of the term 'immediate' is used in the RN sense i.e. at some point in the next lunar cycle.
OLD RED DAMASK
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lancashire born. In Cebu now
Age: 70
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In today's Daily Mail this quote from the labour shadow defence secretary..
This from a member of the previous government who cut and cut our forces to shreds. Now they aren't in the driving seat anymore they can make such inane remarks is contemptible. They are the ones who should be out up against a wall and shot for letting our lads down in the first place.
They have left this blessed country of ours in so much debt cuts are inevitable.
Personally think labour should hang their heads in shame and admit any cuts are their fault.
Jim Murphy, shadow defence secretary, said: ‘There is a growing consensus against Cameron’s cuts to our Armed Forces, and that includes Secretary of State Clinton. The Government should stop and think again.
They have left this blessed country of ours in so much debt cuts are inevitable.
Personally think labour should hang their heads in shame and admit any cuts are their fault.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Murphy should perhaps stay quiet.
That said the main protagonists of military cuts post war I think are the Conservatives. Take a look at 1957. If the Falklands war had not come along one Mrs T had arranged to sell one if not two of our carriers etc..etc
The simple fact is we are a small nation (yes with a very proud history) that is trying to punch above its weight on the world stage and simply cannot afford it.
The whole UK military needs a complete overhall. I for one favour dispanding the three services and having a single arm. Getting rid of as many brass hats as possible and concentration on quality people with quality kit. I suppose that will never happen but think of the possible savings.....
oh and lasernigel..... I also enjoy an excellent view of Pendle. At least we have that in common.
As for the Daily Mail would anyone really own up to reading it let alone believing anything that is written in it ?
That said the main protagonists of military cuts post war I think are the Conservatives. Take a look at 1957. If the Falklands war had not come along one Mrs T had arranged to sell one if not two of our carriers etc..etc
The simple fact is we are a small nation (yes with a very proud history) that is trying to punch above its weight on the world stage and simply cannot afford it.
The whole UK military needs a complete overhall. I for one favour dispanding the three services and having a single arm. Getting rid of as many brass hats as possible and concentration on quality people with quality kit. I suppose that will never happen but think of the possible savings.....
oh and lasernigel..... I also enjoy an excellent view of Pendle. At least we have that in common.
As for the Daily Mail would anyone really own up to reading it let alone believing anything that is written in it ?
Suspicion breeds confidence
I'm sure the Soldiers, sailors and airmen who jobs may be at risk will be delighted to hear that we are squandering £3bn on these things. Whats the betting they will be flogged off sharpish.
MoD pays extra £2.7bn for unwanted Typhoons | UK news | The Guardian
MoD pays extra £2.7bn for unwanted Typhoons | UK news | The Guardian
WACO - a Joint Defence Force - what, like the unpicked Canadian example?Perhs youa re no longer serving and not aware of how 'joint' the forces are - in terms of training and operations.
Thread Starter
I started this thread years ago, under a different Government - when the 1998 SDR was still the plan - minus the Sea Harrier, a Tornado F3 unit, the frigate/destroyer number falling below the 32 figure that was set out in the 1998 paper, and a few other things.
From reading the comments left on the websites of the major newspapers, it seems clear that people have almost no understanding of what HM Forces, particularly the RN and RAF, actually do. It would appear that many seem convinced that future conflicts will be a carbon copy of the current one in Afghanistan - that is against an enemy with no air force or navy, no armour and no big guns. This is the line taken by many in the media too.
Why is this? Is it because it easy to assume that the future will be more of the same? Is it more sensible to concentrate on current threats rather than emerging or future ones? Perhaps we do not know future threats - but we do know future vulnerabilities. Should we think more about these?
As an example - take the comments by Melchett01 here:
Now whilst there isn't much of an air threat in Afghanistan, that is not to say that at some point in the future that threat won't emerge. Either directly against the UK, or against UK forces deployed on operations. Just looking around the globe at many of the states that we would consider to be less than friendly will show that they have air forces made up largely of Russian kit -Fulcrums, Flankers and the like - precisely the sort of Soviet threat that is perceived as being irrelevant. So fast forward 30 years and we have cobbled together some sort of expeditionary capability to go and be a force for good somewhere.
We don't have much of an AD capability, because 30 years earlier argued it was irrelevant and we really needed Reapers and armoured vehicles, so that's where the money went. So as the helos land on the beach or the ramp comes down on the landing craft, all we will be able to do is watch as you are harassed on the beaches and HLZs by the Frogfoots or have your Chinooks shot down by a long range shot from a Flanker variant operating BVR ops. Later on you receive intelligence to suggest an HVT is going to be at a certain location at a certain time, but you can't do anything about it as you are essentially a slow moving ground based force with limited long range strike options. Equally, your troops become involved in a TiC; now most of your AH has been lost in the opening salvos, leaving you with a few armed Reapers and a couple of lightly armed Tucanos. Not a problem, other than they are operating at the otherside of the AO today, and by the time they get to your TiC it is all over. Wouldn't something fast and pointy with a long range strike option or the ability to provide rapid support multiple target sets thanks to a heavy swing role payload be a useful thing to have? Certainly not something you will get with a Super Tucano. Of course, it will probably be the RAF's fault that we couldn't secure the airspace to provide an umbrella for ground and ISTAR operations, and that ground forces are being picked off bit by bit by an enemy that over the years has understood the benefit of a decent air capability.
All very hypothetical I admit, but do you want to take the risk? Fifteen years ago, we were just coming out of the Cold War and talking about a revolution in military affairs where asymmetric, cyber warfare was the future. That theory must have lasted all of a few years before we went back to a primitive but effective enemy that wouldn't be out place in the Flintstones. The moral of the story, is for the Army to look over the parapet of its ivory towers and realise that they are not the only show in town, and without the broad spectrum of capabilities provided by its sister Services, it really won't take much for the foundations of that ivory tower to become rather unstable.
From reading the comments left on the websites of the major newspapers, it seems clear that people have almost no understanding of what HM Forces, particularly the RN and RAF, actually do. It would appear that many seem convinced that future conflicts will be a carbon copy of the current one in Afghanistan - that is against an enemy with no air force or navy, no armour and no big guns. This is the line taken by many in the media too.
Why is this? Is it because it easy to assume that the future will be more of the same? Is it more sensible to concentrate on current threats rather than emerging or future ones? Perhaps we do not know future threats - but we do know future vulnerabilities. Should we think more about these?
As an example - take the comments by Melchett01 here:
Now whilst there isn't much of an air threat in Afghanistan, that is not to say that at some point in the future that threat won't emerge. Either directly against the UK, or against UK forces deployed on operations. Just looking around the globe at many of the states that we would consider to be less than friendly will show that they have air forces made up largely of Russian kit -Fulcrums, Flankers and the like - precisely the sort of Soviet threat that is perceived as being irrelevant. So fast forward 30 years and we have cobbled together some sort of expeditionary capability to go and be a force for good somewhere.
We don't have much of an AD capability, because 30 years earlier argued it was irrelevant and we really needed Reapers and armoured vehicles, so that's where the money went. So as the helos land on the beach or the ramp comes down on the landing craft, all we will be able to do is watch as you are harassed on the beaches and HLZs by the Frogfoots or have your Chinooks shot down by a long range shot from a Flanker variant operating BVR ops. Later on you receive intelligence to suggest an HVT is going to be at a certain location at a certain time, but you can't do anything about it as you are essentially a slow moving ground based force with limited long range strike options. Equally, your troops become involved in a TiC; now most of your AH has been lost in the opening salvos, leaving you with a few armed Reapers and a couple of lightly armed Tucanos. Not a problem, other than they are operating at the otherside of the AO today, and by the time they get to your TiC it is all over. Wouldn't something fast and pointy with a long range strike option or the ability to provide rapid support multiple target sets thanks to a heavy swing role payload be a useful thing to have? Certainly not something you will get with a Super Tucano. Of course, it will probably be the RAF's fault that we couldn't secure the airspace to provide an umbrella for ground and ISTAR operations, and that ground forces are being picked off bit by bit by an enemy that over the years has understood the benefit of a decent air capability.
All very hypothetical I admit, but do you want to take the risk? Fifteen years ago, we were just coming out of the Cold War and talking about a revolution in military affairs where asymmetric, cyber warfare was the future. That theory must have lasted all of a few years before we went back to a primitive but effective enemy that wouldn't be out place in the Flintstones. The moral of the story, is for the Army to look over the parapet of its ivory towers and realise that they are not the only show in town, and without the broad spectrum of capabilities provided by its sister Services, it really won't take much for the foundations of that ivory tower to become rather unstable.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 16th Oct 2010 at 22:02.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancing, Sussex
Age: 92
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence spending
We seem to be going to spend around 2.3% of GDP on defence.
This proportion is probably within the error band of most ministerial budgets.
It would be interesting to know if the big spenders, health and welfare, ever achieve spending within 2.3% of their budgets without cooking the books.
This proportion is probably within the error band of most ministerial budgets.
It would be interesting to know if the big spenders, health and welfare, ever achieve spending within 2.3% of their budgets without cooking the books.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
It continues to stagger me how you get such an easy ride in here.
If anyone else came out with the repeated nonsense you post they would be quickly shown the door and advised not to return.
BHR
It continues to stagger me how you get such an easy ride in here.
If anyone else came out with the repeated nonsense you post they would be quickly shown the door and advised not to return.
BHR
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
BHR,
What is so nonsensical about these comments. But hey, hang on, you support Kilmarnock! 
many seem convinced that future conflicts will be a carbon copy of the current one in Afghanistan
Is it more sensible to concentrate on current threats rather than emerging or future ones? Perhaps we do not know future threats - but we do know future vulnerabilities. Should we think more about these
Is it more sensible to concentrate on current threats rather than emerging or future ones? Perhaps we do not know future threats - but we do know future vulnerabilities. Should we think more about these
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: England
Age: 32
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It wouldn't be so bad if the procurement process didn't take so long. As it is now, there is no air threat and the defence 'review' *cough, cull, cough* reflects this, but come a time when there is one and we wont be able to field new weapons fast enough. Let alone the crews to man them.
I don't see why we let politicians into government without actually serving the country proper, in uniform.
Another thing though... Why do we need a bunch of submarine launched nuclear missiles and their subs, when, as the government so boldly puts it, the cold war is over. And in any case, surely an air to air war is more likely than anything nuclear. Why dont we ditch the ssbn fleet and see if the americans want to jointly develop the B1r? Would it not be more cost effective even if that cost was bigger, in the sense that it can do other tasks other than nuclear missions? The navy is already getting its carriers, giving it the subs too is surely like giving the older kid 2 presents for christmas and pulling out the younger brother's teeth?
I don't see why we let politicians into government without actually serving the country proper, in uniform.
Another thing though... Why do we need a bunch of submarine launched nuclear missiles and their subs, when, as the government so boldly puts it, the cold war is over. And in any case, surely an air to air war is more likely than anything nuclear. Why dont we ditch the ssbn fleet and see if the americans want to jointly develop the B1r? Would it not be more cost effective even if that cost was bigger, in the sense that it can do other tasks other than nuclear missions? The navy is already getting its carriers, giving it the subs too is surely like giving the older kid 2 presents for christmas and pulling out the younger brother's teeth?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leon,
Yes because the validity of an opinion is gauged by its popularity!!
Jindabyne,
Explain to me what future vulnerabilities to the defence of the UK will be countered by a Royal Navy consisting of 2 CVBGs and 4 SSBNs?
The justification for the CVs was organic AD for operations without HNS. With no ability to conduct opposed landings once the phibs are gone how are the troops going to get their? Are we planning on invading France via the Chunnel or are we only going to invade places served by Easyjet or Ryanair?
Carriers are a great idea as part of a balanced force structure. Sadly, we are not getting that because we cannot afford it.
Cheers
BHR
p.s. what was the last UK only operation that had no access to HNS for AD? Talk about preparing to fight the last war!! More like fighting one 4 or 5 back!!!
Yes because the validity of an opinion is gauged by its popularity!!
Jindabyne,
Explain to me what future vulnerabilities to the defence of the UK will be countered by a Royal Navy consisting of 2 CVBGs and 4 SSBNs?
The justification for the CVs was organic AD for operations without HNS. With no ability to conduct opposed landings once the phibs are gone how are the troops going to get their? Are we planning on invading France via the Chunnel or are we only going to invade places served by Easyjet or Ryanair?
Carriers are a great idea as part of a balanced force structure. Sadly, we are not getting that because we cannot afford it.
Cheers
BHR
p.s. what was the last UK only operation that had no access to HNS for AD? Talk about preparing to fight the last war!! More like fighting one 4 or 5 back!!!
