Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
One suspects the problem may lie here.
Corps & Regiments - British Army Website
Guzz has always been riskier than many think. Hard to get into (by sea and at the gate!) and heavily dependent on nuclear refitting, without which the cost of it's rather dispersed infrastructure becomes a bit much.
Corps & Regiments - British Army Website
Guzz has always been riskier than many think. Hard to get into (by sea and at the gate!) and heavily dependent on nuclear refitting, without which the cost of it's rather dispersed infrastructure becomes a bit much.
That's as may be, but there are major strategic implications here, and not just militarily. The UK's image has the potential to unravel rapidly if we are not careful. We want to portray ourselves as key players and reliable partners and yet all we are able to offer up are small numbers and 1s & 2s here and there. Frankly in a world going to hell in a handcart requiring more and more intervention to preserve national equities, then this isn't going to cut it and we will be found wanting. If we want to be more than a bit part player, yes we need senior leaders to be fiscally responsible, but equally our national leadership must also realise they can't simply pass the buck down the chain and totally absolve themselves for the outcomes of the decisions based on their framework within which we operate.
We were told by Mr Cameron that overcoming DAESH was the struggle of our lifetime and I have no reason to disagree. On that basis, what part will the new carriers place in that.
To my mind it is clear that we should be putting more resources into the 'GO TO' equipment we have been utilising for years, that being ISTAR jets.
Had it not been due to Tornado withdrawal Typhoon would not have been given the current upgrade programme of ground attack. That would have left us totally reliant on the new F35.
The real issue then would be - how will F35 cope with being a true workhorse (flying the ass off it) despite the maintenance requires.
All that glitters isn't gold.
All that glisters isn't gold.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you consider that the whole of The Times's article was based on a Newsnight report you begin to realise the tenuous nature of what is being reported as "fact". Lots of kites being flown to try and trigger a reaction.
If RN Wildcat is withdrawn I think that will leave the T45 without a helicopter as I don't believe Merlin has a clearance for T45 without the ship shutting all transmitters off.
If RN Wildcat is withdrawn I think that will leave the T45 without a helicopter as I don't believe Merlin has a clearance for T45 without the ship shutting all transmitters off.
I would be happy to see Trident (and successor) funding as a national asset or, tri-service cost. However, what seems to have happened, with the war canoes, is an RN push for an unstoppable (defence) budget-grab!
Whereas, what really matters is the identification of the real need for certain capabilities versus their cost to the nation and, their relative merit compared to other necessary defence of the nation capabilities.I am disappointed that the efforts of our now VSO contemporaries seem to be somewhat blinkered.
CheersOAP
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trouble is who decides whatthose interests are and how are they going to be met......
If we spent 20% of GDP on defence we'd still have fights over what we buy and use with each Service and Defence Industry company fighting to maximise their share and do the rest down.
What is clear is that we can't do meet anything like the current roles required at 2% - I suspect even 3% wouldn't be enough
So which politician is willing to go and slaughter a few sacred cows elsewhere - say bus passes, Doctors salaries, the tax break on pension contributions, higher petrol prices, a tax on builders land banks, civl service pensions etc etc.......................
I'm not holding my breath...................
If we spent 20% of GDP on defence we'd still have fights over what we buy and use with each Service and Defence Industry company fighting to maximise their share and do the rest down.
What is clear is that we can't do meet anything like the current roles required at 2% - I suspect even 3% wouldn't be enough
So which politician is willing to go and slaughter a few sacred cows elsewhere - say bus passes, Doctors salaries, the tax break on pension contributions, higher petrol prices, a tax on builders land banks, civl service pensions etc etc.......................
I'm not holding my breath...................
Thread Starter
However, what seems to have happened, with the war canoes, is an RN push for an unstoppable (defence) budget-grab! Whereas, what really matters is the identification of the real need for certain capabilities versus their cost to the nation and, their relative merit compared to other necessary defence of the nation capabilities.
Whereas, what really matters is the identification of the real need for certain capabilities versus their cost to the nation and, their relative merit compared to other necessary defence of the nation capabilities.The Royal Marines no longer needed?
In 2015 the naval staff provided demonstrated that a manpower uplift of 1500 was needed, but the them PM intervened and refused. This is the Royal Navy's major issue at the moment.
HH,
As I am sure you are aware, huge effort goes into the assessment of threats to the UK and our assets. Obviously, the government make the decisions on spending plans and those political decisions form part of the type of policy that the population vote on. In the past, when the UK was less wealthy, poor Military spending plans have seriously damaged the fortunes of political parties and I think similar circumstances might prevail again.
It might be realistic to say that the service chiefs would argue, however big the Defence budget was made, but if spending is tight it becomes even more important that the spending is targeted on the most important capabilities. My opinion is that the QE class project is an extremely poorly targeted capability for the UK.
OAP
As I am sure you are aware, huge effort goes into the assessment of threats to the UK and our assets. Obviously, the government make the decisions on spending plans and those political decisions form part of the type of policy that the population vote on. In the past, when the UK was less wealthy, poor Military spending plans have seriously damaged the fortunes of political parties and I think similar circumstances might prevail again.
It might be realistic to say that the service chiefs would argue, however big the Defence budget was made, but if spending is tight it becomes even more important that the spending is targeted on the most important capabilities. My opinion is that the QE class project is an extremely poorly targeted capability for the UK.
OAP
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OAP
I agree with you onthe QE's but whatever our views are I think everyone on here is agreed that we have stretched the Forces - all of them - far too thin.
We can
a) continue as is and hope and pray we don't finish up losing men, assets and reputation when the chickens come home to roost
b) cut the roles to fit the cash
c) significantly increase spending
Tories will go for a) & Corbyn for b) is my guess.........................
I agree with you onthe QE's but whatever our views are I think everyone on here is agreed that we have stretched the Forces - all of them - far too thin.
We can
a) continue as is and hope and pray we don't finish up losing men, assets and reputation when the chickens come home to roost
b) cut the roles to fit the cash
c) significantly increase spending
Tories will go for a) & Corbyn for b) is my guess.........................
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Huntingdon
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget political Rule One, Line One. There are no votes in defence - until its needed (my addition). Also the RM are often on scene first on humanitarian ops - vide the recent hurricane relief in Bahamas
Thread Starter
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
British forces no longer fit for purpose, former UK service chiefs warn
Armed forces near breaking point with navy underfunded and air force at edge of capacity, Commons committee told
Cue the usual MOD spokesperson trotting out the same old reassurances that all is well...
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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 18:38.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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,,
WHAT?????
In English?
WHAT?????
In English?