Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
WEBF - I am well aware of the range of intelligence activities conducted by conventional forces. Fine, lets have more AWACS, R1, diesel electric subs, UAVs etc etc.
Main battle tanks, leading edge fighters and carriers could pay for it all.
6% is 6% and it ain't going to get any higher so work with what you have. That was kind of my point.
Cheers
WWW
Main battle tanks, leading edge fighters and carriers could pay for it all.
6% is 6% and it ain't going to get any higher so work with what you have. That was kind of my point.
Cheers
WWW
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bring you peace for our time....
The cheque's in the mail.....
I did not have sexual relations with that woman....
The Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction.....
The free world likes America and will happily be saved by her....
China is not a threat to world peace and stability....
Protracted nuclear exchange is possible within the laws of physics.....
Nope, I'm living in the 2030's, mate. The Soviet Union was an artificial creation cobbled together out of a whole lot of states, peoples and religions who didn't want a bar of each other, and held together by brutality.
China is an homogenous nation, and unlike the Soviet Union, it has embraced capitalism. Many political commentators have said many things which later turned out to be bollox.
The combined populations of the Axis Powers in WWII was less than 250 million. China alone is in excess of 1.3 billion. Nuclear war being, as it always was, impossible, any future conflict will be primarily conventional.
Set your alarm clock for 2033, my good pr00ne, and I'll tell you "I told you so".
The earth is flat, I tell you! FLAAAAAAT!!!!!!
The cheque's in the mail.....
I did not have sexual relations with that woman....
The Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction.....
The free world likes America and will happily be saved by her....
China is not a threat to world peace and stability....
Protracted nuclear exchange is possible within the laws of physics.....
Nope, I'm living in the 2030's, mate. The Soviet Union was an artificial creation cobbled together out of a whole lot of states, peoples and religions who didn't want a bar of each other, and held together by brutality.
China is an homogenous nation, and unlike the Soviet Union, it has embraced capitalism. Many political commentators have said many things which later turned out to be bollox.
The combined populations of the Axis Powers in WWII was less than 250 million. China alone is in excess of 1.3 billion. Nuclear war being, as it always was, impossible, any future conflict will be primarily conventional.
Set your alarm clock for 2033, my good pr00ne, and I'll tell you "I told you so".
The earth is flat, I tell you! FLAAAAAAT!!!!!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the editorial in the sunday torygraph by Max Hastings is very good
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../ixportal.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../ixportal.html
Thread Starter
The services command greater admiration than any other British institution. I remember Raymond Seitz, when he was US Ambassador in London in the early 1990s, expressing astonishment at the Government's parsimony: "Your Armed Forces really can enable Britain to punch above its weight," he said. "They are by far your most cost-effective means of exercising influence in the world."
Enough said! Note this is relevent to virtually every thread in the military aircrew forum...... uncluding Sea Jet, CVF, MRA4, Eurofighter...
So what can we/you/they do to improve:
a) Public awareness of defence (particularly issues raised in orginal)?
b) Political awareness?
c) The low standing of defence in political priorities?
Also I have just thought, isn't all this talk of network centric stuff a bit dishonest? Haven't we had things similar to that for a long time? Warships have had data links for a long time - since the late '70s I believe. Link 10 (?) was used in the Falklands.
Enough said! Note this is relevent to virtually every thread in the military aircrew forum...... uncluding Sea Jet, CVF, MRA4, Eurofighter...
So what can we/you/they do to improve:
a) Public awareness of defence (particularly issues raised in orginal)?
b) Political awareness?
c) The low standing of defence in political priorities?
Also I have just thought, isn't all this talk of network centric stuff a bit dishonest? Haven't we had things similar to that for a long time? Warships have had data links for a long time - since the late '70s I believe. Link 10 (?) was used in the Falklands.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 21st Dec 2003 at 03:47.
Thread Starter
For reasons known only to theselves, the Ministry of Defence decided not to comemerate the twentieth anniversary of the Falklands war. Somehow I cannot help feeling that this was partly to reduce the potential for controversy over the issue of the Sea Harrier. Likewise, the Government benefitted from other news which may have distracted the public. The death of Her Majesty The Queen Mother dominated the newspapers, the articles on the Sea Harrier/Fleet air defence in the Telegraph, including a piece by Admiral Sir John Woodward, were relegated to the middle pages. I may or may not have put a link to it in a SHAR thread - "SHAR Wars" perhaps? Then came the Football world cup.
As has been proven many times the Government likes to bury bad news, embedding the signal of its own policies amongst the noise of other news. News of cutbacks in defence are no exception from this way of doing things.
A final thought - should defence planning be based on (predicted) threats or on vulnerabilities?
As has been proven many times the Government likes to bury bad news, embedding the signal of its own policies amongst the noise of other news. News of cutbacks in defence are no exception from this way of doing things.
A final thought - should defence planning be based on (predicted) threats or on vulnerabilities?
I suspect that the reason was to avoid the slightest risk of irritating the Argentines. After all, if the government is slightly concerned that celebrating Christmas in the UK could upset people...
The controversy over the SHAR wouldn't actually have featured that much, surely? As the title of this thread suggests, Joe Public is likely to believe the line that the fleet doesn't require an AD aircraft but needs more ground attack potential, particularly if someone (like the then-AOC 3 Group) says that the move is a good idea (as he did in at least one publication).
I fear that you assume too much public concern with defence cutbacks as well. Defence was an important issue for the grand total of 2% of the electorate in the 2001 (or was it '97?) election. It's always two or three days of fuss, then the story is overtaken by something more important. Like a footballer forgetting to take a drugs test and getting upset when he's told off
The controversy over the SHAR wouldn't actually have featured that much, surely? As the title of this thread suggests, Joe Public is likely to believe the line that the fleet doesn't require an AD aircraft but needs more ground attack potential, particularly if someone (like the then-AOC 3 Group) says that the move is a good idea (as he did in at least one publication).
I fear that you assume too much public concern with defence cutbacks as well. Defence was an important issue for the grand total of 2% of the electorate in the 2001 (or was it '97?) election. It's always two or three days of fuss, then the story is overtaken by something more important. Like a footballer forgetting to take a drugs test and getting upset when he's told off
Thread Starter
Hence my first post on this thread Archimedes....
What if people find that there's no petrol due to an interuption of the oil supply- they care then.
I only used the Sea Jet as an example, there are numerous others...
What if people find that there's no petrol due to an interuption of the oil supply- they care then.
I only used the Sea Jet as an example, there are numerous others...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also I have just thought, isn't all this talk of network centric stuff a bit dishonest? Haven't we had things similar to that for a long time? Warships have had data links for a long time - since the late '70s I believe. Link 10 (?) was used in the Falklands.
Yes, the British Forces have had data links of a sort for many years. The primary Links used by the RN have been Link 14 and Link 11 until recently. While they still use the latter, it is gradually being superceded by JTIDS.
However, you cannot compare systems such as Link 11 and 14 with modern data links such as JTIDS. It really is like comparing an F-86 to an F-22. When today's data links are then fused in modern C2 systems, their benefit is multiplied beyond all recognition. Even since the days of Bosnia, the data link architecture during TELIC was massively more complex, with sensor data, imagery, remote target cueing (and many others activities) all taking place simultaneously via a wide variety of systems.
So, for once, HMG are not using buzzwords such as network centric as an excuse. That's why there is big investment in the UK ISTAR community (E-3D, Nimrod R1 and Sentinel R1) when other fleets are being cut.
Regards,
M2
Er... oddly enough, I got that this was the point of your first post. I was agreeing with your sentiments (hence the rolling-eyed smiley).
But your example of the Sea Jet is an excellent one for highlighting the problems - the public takes an interest in defence when the forces are sent to war (or whatever the politicians choose to call it), the Sun comes over all jingoistic (or more jingoistic than usual) and talks about 'our brave boys and girls in the [insert theatre of operations]' and spouts utter bolleaux about the capability of kit and the like.
However, if the public is given info that Admirals and other senior officers (who, in general, they seem to trust) think that getting rid of the SHAR is a good idea or at worst something tolerable in the current climate, they won't fuss about it.
And given the fact that we've had a debate espousing both sides of the SHAR argument (and indeed both sides of the carrier argument) on this site, and are still having it sporadically, the public isn't going to rise up and say 'Ooh, disgraceful.'
If you'd chosen the SA 80 (which the public believes still doesn't work properly, although comments on the 'other means' would suggest it does) or the recent NAO report as examples, you'd have picked ones with which the public has some engagement.
Even commemorating the Falklands last year wouldn't have stirred much public debate about the SHAR, I fear.
But your example of the Sea Jet is an excellent one for highlighting the problems - the public takes an interest in defence when the forces are sent to war (or whatever the politicians choose to call it), the Sun comes over all jingoistic (or more jingoistic than usual) and talks about 'our brave boys and girls in the [insert theatre of operations]' and spouts utter bolleaux about the capability of kit and the like.
However, if the public is given info that Admirals and other senior officers (who, in general, they seem to trust) think that getting rid of the SHAR is a good idea or at worst something tolerable in the current climate, they won't fuss about it.
And given the fact that we've had a debate espousing both sides of the SHAR argument (and indeed both sides of the carrier argument) on this site, and are still having it sporadically, the public isn't going to rise up and say 'Ooh, disgraceful.'
If you'd chosen the SA 80 (which the public believes still doesn't work properly, although comments on the 'other means' would suggest it does) or the recent NAO report as examples, you'd have picked ones with which the public has some engagement.
Even commemorating the Falklands last year wouldn't have stirred much public debate about the SHAR, I fear.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the publics attitude to the armed forces is probably still best summed up by Kipling over a century ago
" Its tommy this and tommy that and tommy go away. Buts it the thin red line of heroes when the bands begin to play......"
" Its tommy this and tommy that and tommy go away. Buts it the thin red line of heroes when the bands begin to play......"
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nurse
I have been out in Civvy Street for over four months now and have met hundreds of fairly typical civilians from all spectrums. 99% do not know what the Armed Forces do, didn't even realise we had such a wide circle of operational theatres in use today.
“We didn’t have any forces involved in Afghanistan did we?” Was typical of the questions I have been asked.
The even sadder thing is that broadly 90% do not approve of our Armed Forces being used abroad especially the Middle East. The bottom line is that all taxes are going up exponentially at home, the NHS is struggling to cope and there are economic migrants everywhere.
When I discuss the forthcoming Defence cuts and use words like concentric networking Joe Public doesn’t give a t*ss. They would much rather we have a cheaper home defence force protecting our shores from migrants, some of whom may turn out to be suicide bombers.
The Armed Forces have huge problems to sort out, they cannot recruit or retain. A lack of cash in the next FY is going to cause huge burdens. You have a Blairite puppet as a CDS because the last one retired early. Funny that CAS has also retired early. These are not good indicators for a stable future.
My own view is this, HMG blames the MOD for the fiasco that led to Gulf war 2, poor intelligence and then criticism of shortages of equipment. This fiasco is still going to claim Hoons scalp and maybe a few others. Blair, whilst sucking up to the USA, never wants the UK to get involved in armour on the ground fighting again. Gordon says he can't any way because it costs too much!! What better way than to go hi-tech and send a few E3’s, ASTORS FAC’s etc, whilst reducing ships, tanks, aircraft and manpower. As we all know, it is the wages bill that makes up the lions share of the annual defence budget
I believe that plans for an RAF of 38,000 will come to fruition sooner than you may think. Joe Public will read about it in the paper as he flicks to the sports pages to delve into Posh and Beck’s lives, and that moment will be gone forever.
Be assured I am doing my bit to put Joe Public right about the Armed Forces and the huge sacrifices you guys all make. It is an uphill battle of disinterest but I am trying!!
To all of you out there who know me, Happy Christmas and I hope 2004 brings, for once, a peaceful year in which you can all spend quality time with your loved ones.
TG
I have been out in Civvy Street for over four months now and have met hundreds of fairly typical civilians from all spectrums. 99% do not know what the Armed Forces do, didn't even realise we had such a wide circle of operational theatres in use today.
“We didn’t have any forces involved in Afghanistan did we?” Was typical of the questions I have been asked.
The even sadder thing is that broadly 90% do not approve of our Armed Forces being used abroad especially the Middle East. The bottom line is that all taxes are going up exponentially at home, the NHS is struggling to cope and there are economic migrants everywhere.
When I discuss the forthcoming Defence cuts and use words like concentric networking Joe Public doesn’t give a t*ss. They would much rather we have a cheaper home defence force protecting our shores from migrants, some of whom may turn out to be suicide bombers.
The Armed Forces have huge problems to sort out, they cannot recruit or retain. A lack of cash in the next FY is going to cause huge burdens. You have a Blairite puppet as a CDS because the last one retired early. Funny that CAS has also retired early. These are not good indicators for a stable future.
My own view is this, HMG blames the MOD for the fiasco that led to Gulf war 2, poor intelligence and then criticism of shortages of equipment. This fiasco is still going to claim Hoons scalp and maybe a few others. Blair, whilst sucking up to the USA, never wants the UK to get involved in armour on the ground fighting again. Gordon says he can't any way because it costs too much!! What better way than to go hi-tech and send a few E3’s, ASTORS FAC’s etc, whilst reducing ships, tanks, aircraft and manpower. As we all know, it is the wages bill that makes up the lions share of the annual defence budget
I believe that plans for an RAF of 38,000 will come to fruition sooner than you may think. Joe Public will read about it in the paper as he flicks to the sports pages to delve into Posh and Beck’s lives, and that moment will be gone forever.
Be assured I am doing my bit to put Joe Public right about the Armed Forces and the huge sacrifices you guys all make. It is an uphill battle of disinterest but I am trying!!
To all of you out there who know me, Happy Christmas and I hope 2004 brings, for once, a peaceful year in which you can all spend quality time with your loved ones.
TG
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: greener pastures
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TG
Sadly I think your post is spot on.
After 27 years I have eventually realised that all the reasons that I joined the RAF sadly no longer exist, and its time to move on.
Its all PC, Coshh, H&S, duty of care, poor leadership, core hours, micro management etc etc, infact everything to make it "just another job", and I can do that outside of the RAF at a better rate of pay, the benefits of staying have all but gone, those that are left are already under attack.
I do not want to be the sad g1t sitting in the corner of the mess spouting "in my day..." stories. I just want to leave the RAF with fond memories and not hang around to see it cut to brink of being pointless, cuts that would not be needed if existing resources were spent effectivley.
Reading some of the threads on here it is may be just as well that the public do not understand what we do, witness the J - K and movers - loadies, scribbly- aircrew, threads (some of the younger chaps need to know the difference between "banter" and "slagging off" in a public forum) reading that would make any civvy dubious of our efforts.
Its not all hopeless, there are some very good officers destined for great things that will hopefully get to the top and make changes, but ineffective yes men tend to promote people who have the same qualities they have, the next few years may be a little rough.
Good luck to those that are left, the RAF's only truly great asset are the blue suited people it employs, and if we crabs are honest, that is true of the Army and Navy as well, so be nice to each other, the force may be at a level where everyone is on first name terms soon!
So, with exit date and next job obtained, I would like add my seasons greetings to those of TG's, stay safe and DLTBGYD.
Sadly I think your post is spot on.
After 27 years I have eventually realised that all the reasons that I joined the RAF sadly no longer exist, and its time to move on.
Its all PC, Coshh, H&S, duty of care, poor leadership, core hours, micro management etc etc, infact everything to make it "just another job", and I can do that outside of the RAF at a better rate of pay, the benefits of staying have all but gone, those that are left are already under attack.
I do not want to be the sad g1t sitting in the corner of the mess spouting "in my day..." stories. I just want to leave the RAF with fond memories and not hang around to see it cut to brink of being pointless, cuts that would not be needed if existing resources were spent effectivley.
Reading some of the threads on here it is may be just as well that the public do not understand what we do, witness the J - K and movers - loadies, scribbly- aircrew, threads (some of the younger chaps need to know the difference between "banter" and "slagging off" in a public forum) reading that would make any civvy dubious of our efforts.
Its not all hopeless, there are some very good officers destined for great things that will hopefully get to the top and make changes, but ineffective yes men tend to promote people who have the same qualities they have, the next few years may be a little rough.
Good luck to those that are left, the RAF's only truly great asset are the blue suited people it employs, and if we crabs are honest, that is true of the Army and Navy as well, so be nice to each other, the force may be at a level where everyone is on first name terms soon!
So, with exit date and next job obtained, I would like add my seasons greetings to those of TG's, stay safe and DLTBGYD.
Will they replace Trident do you think when it passes its out of service date?
If they intend to then perhaps money needs to be saved over the next few years...
Cheers
WWW
If they intend to then perhaps money needs to be saved over the next few years...
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say this is a pretty good public endorsement of our efforts.
The Queen's Christmas Message
Filming the broadcast at the home of the Household Cavalry, rather than in the comfort of a royal residence, was a strong statement of support for the Armed Forces, the Palace said.
The Queen’s broadcast will explore the theme of teamwork and will pay tribute to the professionalism and dedication of servicemen and women during a difficult year.
The Queen's Christmas Message
Filming the broadcast at the home of the Household Cavalry, rather than in the comfort of a royal residence, was a strong statement of support for the Armed Forces, the Palace said.
The Queen’s broadcast will explore the theme of teamwork and will pay tribute to the professionalism and dedication of servicemen and women during a difficult year.
Thread Starter
But how many people will watch/listen to The Queen's speech?
Whilst looking at old threads I came across the following link:
Why I left
The question is how to get the support of the public......
Whilst looking at old threads I came across the following link:
Why I left
The question is how to get the support of the public......
An awful lot of people listen to HMQ's speech, WEBF - still part of the Christmas tradition and all that.
The question there is how many are a) sober enough to understand it b) remember the theme of it.
In general, survey after survey suggests that the public are very supportive of the armed forces, feel a great deal of pride in the services and regard the members of said body far more highly than they regard most other professions (especially those with the letters 'MP' after their name).
I'd respectfully suggest that the question is actually not one of how to go about getting support for the forces from the public, but how one goes about translating that general good will into moving defence to being one of the top priorities of the government through public pressure.
Problem is that with the NHS, Transport and education in such a mess, an immigration policy that makes the NHS, Transport and Education policies look effective, law and order policies that all-too-often place touchy-feely policing and protecting the rights of the criminal ahead of solving crimes and implementing effective punishment, etc, etc causing the public far more concern than the state of the forces (who always do what's asked of them, unlike many other departments of state) how do we get to that stage?
You've posed the question several times now - what's your answer? Not a dig - genuine enquiry to take the debate on.
[NB Restarting the Cold War and persuading the Russians to retarget all their ICBMs onto this country does not win any Christmas prizes]
The question there is how many are a) sober enough to understand it b) remember the theme of it.
In general, survey after survey suggests that the public are very supportive of the armed forces, feel a great deal of pride in the services and regard the members of said body far more highly than they regard most other professions (especially those with the letters 'MP' after their name).
I'd respectfully suggest that the question is actually not one of how to go about getting support for the forces from the public, but how one goes about translating that general good will into moving defence to being one of the top priorities of the government through public pressure.
Problem is that with the NHS, Transport and education in such a mess, an immigration policy that makes the NHS, Transport and Education policies look effective, law and order policies that all-too-often place touchy-feely policing and protecting the rights of the criminal ahead of solving crimes and implementing effective punishment, etc, etc causing the public far more concern than the state of the forces (who always do what's asked of them, unlike many other departments of state) how do we get to that stage?
You've posed the question several times now - what's your answer? Not a dig - genuine enquiry to take the debate on.
[NB Restarting the Cold War and persuading the Russians to retarget all their ICBMs onto this country does not win any Christmas prizes]