PPRuNe Forums


Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 25th Oct 2017, 22:06   #821 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New York, London, Paris, Munich...
Posts: 3,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic View Post
According to today's Times, the Americans (yes the same one who think that the UK ought to have a carrier capability) have expressed concern over proposed cuts to the Royal Marines and amphibious capabilities.
What's in it for Boeing is my first thought?
glad rag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 16:27   #822 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 70
Posts: 786
British forces no longer fit for purpose, former UK service chiefs warn

Quote:
Armed forces near breaking point with navy underfunded and air force at edge of capacity, Commons committee told
Article in The Guardian today.

Cue the usual MOD spokesperson trotting out the same old reassurances that all is well...
Lyneham Lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 17:35   #823 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 973
Why do we need an army navy and airforce. If defence was outsourced or privatised the first thing management would do is combine it into a defence force .

there is no need any more for specialist high ranking officers and where there is we cannot afford to have so many .

Whats the argument against?

If that doesnt work what is actually wrong with a Pan EU defence force -ok we might leave the Eu but we can't leave Europe. Neither the French nor Germans or even Spanish are going to attack us . Neither is the Warsaw pact since theyare all now on our side except for Russia

Russia isnt a threat to anyone except its immediate neighbours and thats non of our business to tell people who they can or cannot occupy.

So who are our enemies , and whoever they are they are likely to be enemies of France Germany Italy Spain Poland Cz etc etc as well.

We could cover almost all our procurement from neighbours and because we have nukes could claim that we should be at the very top of the command chin, well just below the French as they have an INDEPENDENT nuclear weapons capability whereas ours is under US control but as we have been military and military equipment partners with the French for 120 years and we are neighbours on land and sea ( the channel cannot be classed as sea any more) theres no harm in a top table of two especially as we are on exactly the same page on issues like ISIS and Daesh.

So whats the problem with both suggestions which would save huge amount of money
pax britanica is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 18:33   #824 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 243
Dear Pax, first try reading history. Europe may be EU now, but there's no guarantee at all that it will remain united. The Germans are determined to unite European forces under their command, they have already integrated Romanian, Belgian Dutch and I think Danish units into their own Army. This is of course precisely what Mr Hitler did after he had invaded. During WW II we weren't just fighting Germany, we were fighting a largely integrated European Army. The Germans this time haven't resorted to armed force, they have simply commandeered the EU and now they want a EU army ..... and some of their politicians have specified it will be under their control. Recently the French offered the Germans joint control of French nuclear weapons. I'm sorry, but we need dedicated armed forces for the defence of these islands and our sources of supply. We need to revivify our own defence industry so that we control it and what it builds is ours alone. If Sweden and France can build modern aircraft and ships, we certainly can - if our industry is encouraged to do so. I hope that a clean break with Europe will see certain shipbuilding and aircraft building facilities opened up here.
Royalistflyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 19:12   #825 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Darling - where are we?
Posts: 2,217
Oh goody, here we go again. I thought it had been a while since that was asked.

For the same reason you need Police, Fire and Paramedics. They all do different things, have different specialisations and closing the Paramedics down and giving them shiny yellow hats doesn't mean the requirement hasn't gone away.

I think that just about sums it up whilst removing inter-service parochialism and offering a level of sophistication in the analysis exceeding that in the question.

Last edited by Melchett01; 14th Nov 2017 at 19:38.
Melchett01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Nov 2017, 21:10   #826 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 89
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by pax britanica View Post
the French as they have an INDEPENDENT nuclear weapons capability whereas ours is under US control

Oft quoted but what is meant by this?


It's true that our Trident missiles are selected at random from a common pool that is held in the USA that also 'supplies' the US Navy. But once in our boats they are completely independent; indeed there are fewer safeguards to launching one from a Royal Navy boat than a US Navy one due to our decision to omit a Permissive Action Link. And as stated above, the 'physics package' is ours.
Willard Whyte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2017, 15:49   #827 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Out Of Trim View Post
...core british values...
I believe civilians have different ideas as to what these are and how to uphold them than we do?

Regarding someone's 'read history' comment I suggest that we could learn from some modern history. Recent failed military adventures have lowered the stock of our military to the point where there are "no votes in defence".

I would also say the waste in the military is scandalous (in keeping with many public bodies). You only have to read some recent threads on here regarding pointless red tape, unnecessary regulation and poor procurement. Maybe we should put our own house in order as a first step to countering the shortfall?
Chinny Crewman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Nov 2017, 00:01   #828 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 118
I think we should just maintain our own specialised forces at the moment. Let the eu gradually try to become the fourth reich. Then when it all inevitably goes tits up , sit this one out for a change ., maybe save a generation of young men and women, avoid rationing and perhaps profit from the selling of arms and supplies to whatever side we see fit ..
do a USA. Once we know who is likely to win the pile in and make a triple fortune.. possibly acquire a few bases around the globe and some 80 year gilt edged debt..
Jobs a gooden.
SARF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Nov 2017, 15:51   #829 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 1,742
SARF,,


WHAT?????

In English?
pr00ne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Nov 2017, 19:38   #830 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by pax britanica View Post
Why do we need an army navy and airforce. If defence was outsourced or privatised the first thing management would do is combine it into a defence force .

Don't agree. Successful companies focus on specialising on what they are good at. Combining disperate sectors is a recipe for failure.

there is no need any more for specialist high ranking officers and where there is we cannot afford to have so many .

Whats the argument against?

The simple argument is that successful companies hire the very best and reward them accordingly.

If that doesnt work what is actually wrong with a Pan EU defence force -ok we might leave the Eu but we can't leave Europe. Neither the French nor Germans or even Spanish are going to attack us . Neither is the Warsaw pact since theyare all now on our side except for Russia

Russia isnt a threat to anyone except its immediate neighbours and thats non of our business to tell people who they can or cannot occupy.

Who says that Russia isnt a threat. If you have even the slightest understanding of Putin you will know that he is intent on recreating the Soviet union.

So who are our enemies , and whoever they are they are likely to be enemies of France Germany Italy Spain Poland Cz etc etc as well.

I suggest that you read your history books.

We could cover almost all our procurement from neighbours and because we have nukes could claim that we should be at the very top of the command chin, well just below the French as they have an INDEPENDENT nuclear weapons capability whereas ours is under US control but as we have been military and military equipment partners with the French for 120 years and we are neighbours on land and sea ( the channel cannot be classed as sea any more) theres no harm in a top table of two especially as we are on exactly the same page on issues like ISIS and Daesh.

So whats the problem with both suggestions which would save huge amount of money
The problem is that this is a typical example of someone who has no understanding of our nation or why its defence is so important and why we choose to invest 2% of our GDP on it.
Buster15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th Nov 2017, 07:14   #831 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,579
May I suggest the above quote is edited to show what Pax said?

Before setting out such an argument, I think it would wise to ask why
Quote:
we cannot afford
(whatever). We've been told this so often that it has become widely accepted. I simply ask one question. Why do MoD senior staff and politicians flatly refuse to avoid the astronomical waste that has, effectively, become policy? (Policy, because funding is committed to both protecting those who practice it, and vilifying those who rail against it).

If I were in the Treasury, I would tell MoD (the NHS, and others) to bu**er off and only come back when they can demonstrate they're following compulsory regulations for scrutinising expenditure. The Services (and patients) shouldn't suffer, because it would take 10 minutes for the respective Secys of State to issue an edict that the next person who refuses to carry out this legal obligation will be sacked on the spot.
tucumseh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th Nov 2017, 08:14   #832 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 5,484
Tuc - you're sailing close to the point where everything is blamed on "waste" and "inefificiencies caused by XXX" where XXX is not us but someone else - as we're YYY - substitute Military, Politicians, Civil Service, BAe, the EU, .... (either XXX or YYY but not both)

I believe "inefficiencies" are part and parcel of a democratic, dispersed decision taking system be it the NHS or the "Successor" progaramme - it's something that we just have to live with. Dictatorships have even worse long-term wastage etc.

When people say "we cannot afford" what they mean is that the public has no appetite for more spending on defence - they honestly can't see the point of much of the expenditure when they feel there are more pressing issues closer to home - their home, work and familly.

They don't believe the politicians and their constant desire for foreign adventures, they don't beleive Industry with it's lamenatable record on delivery and costings, they don't believe the armed forces are very effective against terrorism, they are scepical about statements from retired offcers saying that the sky will fall if we disband HMS Ocean/the marines/the band of the RAF

They see spending the money on the NHS, teachers, fixing potholes and getting houses for young people as a better use of the money...............

Those of us who disagree have to make the case - not on here but out there - and TBH I don't think we're winning
Heathrow Harry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th Nov 2017, 09:27   #833 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,579
Harry

I was simply applying the Avoid the avoidable, manage the unavoidable rule. It causes no harm. But I agree with your sentiments.
tucumseh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Nov 2017, 17:30   #834 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,298
Perhaps things like this need to be publicised more: RN Divers destroy wartime bomb near North Sea gas pipe

Petty Officer (Diver) Lee Sullivan, from the Royal Navy’s Portsmouth-based Southern Diving Unit 2, said: “The proximity of the bomb to the gas pipeline clearly presented a significant risk but we were able to deal with the situation quickly.

“We safely removed the bomb from the pipeline area, and then carried out a controlled demolition. Fortunately the bomb turned out to be inert, meaning it wouldn’t have posed a danger but there was no way of knowing this until we destroyed it.”

HMS Cattistock arrived on scene within 24 hours of the call and swiftly located the bomb using the ship’s remotely operated vehicle. The embarked bomb disposal divers went down to assess the device on Wednesday and confirmed it was an air-dropped 500lb bomb, likely to have been dropped by Germans in the Second World War.


Or today - RN frigate shadows Russian warship

Royal Navy frigate HMS Somerset shadowed a Russian naval destroyer through the Moray Firth this weekend.

Somerset, a Plymouth-based Type 23 frigate, detected and monitored the movements of the Russian warship Vice Admiral Kulakov and her supporting tanker.

HMS Somerset had been engaged in trials of her cutting-edge sonar equipment when she received the call to locate and shadow the Russian units.

She arrived in the Moray Firth on Saturday (18 November) and escorted the ships through UK waters and north along the coast of Norway before returning to her original task.

Commander Timothy Berry, HMS Somerset's Commanding Officer, said: "As with all Royal Navy ships operating in UK waters, HMS Somerset was at a high state of alert to deal with any maritime security task such as this.


"Monitoring transits of non-NATO warships through UK territorial waters is part of what the Royal Navy does all year round to keep Britain safe.

"We now continue with our original tasking having seen the Russian ships safely through the UK's area of interest."


Or the Army helping deal with poachers killing endangered animals in Africa?

Or the RAF assets on QRA?

Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 21st Nov 2017 at 01:16.
WE Branch Fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 17:37.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1