Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks

[Uncle Ginsters]

On the FI theme, relying on land-based ac would be great - if only they'd built the MPA strip oriented 90 degrees round!

" Hello Mr. Argie, can you only invade when the x-wind is in limits? Thanks, old chap"

At least the carrier won't have that problem.

The point about AAR (or are we still calling it AR now?) is not whether or not you need it, but rather how much more you can achive with it present - that's where the term "Force Multiplier" comes from, methinks. I guess that's just the issue - please Mr. B, all we ask for is a rounded capability - is that too much to ask for? :ugh:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Interesting article from the New Statesman: A matter of security (http://www.newstatesman.com/200701290015)

What happens if, or when, sea levels rise and force millions from their homes in Bangladesh, the Nile Delta and the coastal regions of China? What happens when floods, landslides and storms regularly leave millions unemployed and homeless?

Many in the MoD strongly believe that these are not just environmental or development issues, but vitally important security questions that need to be given far more serious consideration, both within government and by the public. Naturally, failed states and international terrorism are significant current threats to security, but that does not excuse us from focusing on future threats.

[BillHicksRules]

WEBF,

To echo what Tourist said on the Future Carrier thread you might want to restrain your desire to link to articles in every post you make.

The article you linked to was interesting and well composed, however, what was the point you were making beyond bringing it to our attention.

A piece of advice for the future is perhaps rather than linking to someone else's work try writing a piece commenting on an article you have read or an issue that is of interest to you.

Cheers

BHR

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The point was the one I quoted - that the war on terror should not and must not blind us to future threats and vulnerabilities.

There is also the possibility that the effects of climate change will need more peace keeping operations, more disaster relief and other low intensity tasks, at the same time that we are reducing our forces and putting extra reliance on technology to make up for numbers.

To go back to my post that started this thread, who can say what will be needed? Troops on the ground, with supporting logistics etc and helicopters and transport aircraft to support them? Naval forces to enforce an arms blockade, or to protect shipments of aid from an agressor - not necessarily a state, maybe pirates or terrorists? Aircraft to provide defence from hostile MiGs, or to provide CAS? What if the agressor has conventional weapons - aircraft, armour, missile, missile attack craft etc? What if the only way you can operate helicopters is from aboard ship? What if the only way to find out what the situation is is to use aircraft to overfly and do a reece? What if forces and NGOs engaged in disaster relief need protecting from terrorists?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I found a thread from 2000 discussing very similar issues, before 9/11, the abandonment of SDR mandated force levels, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Hoon cuts, more proposed cuts....

State of the Nation - an open letter (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=48031&page=5)

I fear this regime of death by a thousand cuts will continue until it all goes wrong one day and we get thoroughly trashed by some tinpot regime who spent out on a few F16s and a couple of silent electric subs.

We have got too complacent over the last century or more by not losing any wars, our luck cant last, and as long as we continue to get involved in conflicts we had better be ready for the nasty shock which must, inevitably, come. Are our politicians ready for this, and are we, for that matter? It will shake this great nation to its core when it happens, and who knows what will result from the aftershocks.

Agaricus bisporus on page five.

[Sunray Minor]

WEBF,
I think you'll find the gist of that New Statesman issue (and the NS in general) is that we are far better of preventing global warming by investing in alternative energy and emission reduction.
Dreaming up threats resulting from climate change, beefing up the defence forces to protect against them, is not only closing the gate after the horse has bolted but missing the point of defence in that case.

As for the public/media being more amenable to increased defence spending;our illustrious leaders responsible for the commitment of such forces need to prove they can play with their toys sensibly before the public buys more in future. Post 2003 that ability hasn't been displayed particularly effectively.

[BillHicksRules]

WEBF,

Is that again someone else's opinion with no opinion either way from yourself?

As Tourist said all this proves is that you read voraciously.

Any chance of posting your own opinions rather than cutting and pasting others?

Cheers

BHR

[WE Branch Fanatic]

How does it prove that I read it? :}

With reference to the NS article, it says that the MOD and FCO see climate change as a source of future security problems. My opinion is that we must spend more of research into alternative energy sources, and reducing our energy consumption, but that is another topic.

I feel it is a little unfair on the MOD, which does take enviromental considerations seriously as does the defence industry. I bet the carbon footprint of BAE Systems is lower than that of Tescos.

The two paragraphs that I quoted sum up my fears. By configuring our forces for primarily low tech assymetric threats, an aggresor with a limited amount of conventional systems could wreak havoc that we (both as a nation and as part of the West) would have problems dealing with.

I think I have stated my opinion repeatedly. Incidentally it was offering opinions (and not just facts) that Tourist was critical off. Not surprising since the sub topic under discussion (MASC) does not appear to have been properly considered by the MOD or anyone else, my comments were indeed speculation, but largely based on basic physics.........

[Strictly Jungly]

Notwithstanding the constant links to other people's work..............I always treat anyone stating that they are a fanatic of the WE Branch (what do they do onboard anyway?).........very suspect.:uhoh:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I know this will probably count as a bite.........

The name "WE Branch Fanatic" is very much a legacy. When I joined PPRuNe it was the name I selected. The "WE Branch" refers to were I was hoping/expecting to go before things went wrong (and subsequent events highlighted personal issues that relate to this). The "Fanatic" bit was a joke at my own expense regarding my strongly held views. I now part of the naval service in a very different capacity to the one I imagined.

No psychoanalysis please.........not here.

As for the WE departments at sea, in ships where the fighting capabilities are provided by the ship's own sensors and weapons they're responsible for proving this capability. No point in having systems you can't maintain. Aboard a CVS or LPH they may play second fiddle to the air group, aboard a LPD they may be secondary to the landing craft, helicopters and embarked troops, but would you want to fly from a ship without radar, EW, landing aids, communications etc.

I've worked on what might be called WE equipment as a civilian, and one system that come to mind was designed for the Type 23 frigate but also retrofitted to the carriers, Ocean,LPD(R).........

There is a little irony in your comment as the amount of money spend on ships' sensor and weapons and their upkeep has dwindled in recent years, in fact most of it has been spent elsewhere.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

This (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=266179) thread from Jet Blast may interest you. It started with a link to an article from the LA Times...

Going it alone because we have to (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot28feb28,1,5231402.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true)

This is an American perspective of current UK defence issues. This raises an important point, our ability to influence Washington is reduced by the cutbacks in our forces. After the tragedy of 9/11, it was said by some that Tony Blair was able to exert a restraining influence. Today, could the same degree of influence exist? Think of the things we had in 2001 we currently do not have? Sea Harrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152), Canberra, SDR mandated force levels (eg 32 frigates/destroyers, 40 infantry battalions, five air defence RAF squadrons, etc etc).

Not only is our ability to influence events impaired, our ability to react to them is severely comprimised too.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

So four years on from the start of operations in Iraq, how many injured personnel have been visited by the Prime Minister?

[Wader2]

WEBF, you forgot the Jaguar which could and the Typhooon which can't.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

But surely the Typhoon will do ground attack and reece sooner or later?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

With a change of Prime Minister coming up very soon, what do people think the difference will be? tightening belts even more, or a more realistic approach to resources and commitments?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I like to talk to myself.:eek:

The launch (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.9325) last Friday (8 June 07) of HMS Astute, our next generation attack submarine is worthy of note for a number of reasons. The project was delayed - partly by the skill fade at Barrow between the design/build of the last of the Trafalgar and Vanguard boats and the start of Astute work. A lesson for other naval projects, like CVF? Secondly, it is an example of what some may have considered a Cold War asset adapting to life in the new international situation. See SSN roles (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2441).

Finally, there will be less SSNs (or is it SSGN now that they have TLAM?) than before, which may cause trouble for Fleet planners.

On the subject of TLAM - could Tomahawk/TACTOM be used for defence suppresion?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The RN now has Block IV Tomahawk. See here (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.9591).

Linked to satellite communication systems the enhanced weapon will improve the long-range precision punch of the RN. With up to a third greater range than the current missiles they can hit targets over 1000 miles away, can be retargeted in flight and even send back images of the battlefield to boost intelligence gathering.

I recently found this article on the internet: TLAM and British Strategic Thought (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_7/tlam.html)

Adam Ingram has left the MOD but has been asked to conduct a year long review into the military contribution to fighting terrorism. Will he consider things in the global context (some of which has been discussed here) I wonder, or simply current operations in the Middle East?

The fight against terror is intelligence led, which puts operational demands on the RN and RAF. It also demands a broad spectrum of capabilities, many of them not in the public eye.

[pr00ne]

Aint nobody here but us chickens........................................

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Today, HMS Clyde left for the South Atlantic. See MOD news (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/HmsClydeSetsSailForTheSouthAtlanticvideo.htm).

Clyde is one of the few ships ordered by this Government. Indeed, prior to the July decision regarding the new carriers, she was the only ship ordered in the last five years. So much for "the biggest shipbuilding programme since World War Two.....".

However, as this page (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/opvh.htm) shows, opportunities to build a more capable vessel were turned down.

Armament was expected to be a minimal, probably a 30 mm gun. However after the decision in July 2004 to reduce the RN escort (frigate/destroyer) force from 31 to 25, the merit of improving the equipment fit (communications, sensors, and perhaps armament and a basic command system) in order to allow the OPV(H) to undertake a wider variety of roles was briefly considered.

If only she had a 76mm gun, a hangar and an embarked Lynx, she would be far more capable, possibly for not that much additional cost. Now what was that about spoiling the ship for a ha'penny's worth of tar?

[BillHicksRules]

WEBF,

That old drum of yours must be nearly worn out with all the banging you give it.

I admire you perseverance (and I am sure the webmasters for the MOD appreciate your work in keeping up the hit rates on their sites) however you could do with tempering it with a smidgeon of realism.

The Navy you want is never going to happen.

You have the luxury of wishing for this and that, and then lambasting those in power when they do not appear. However, you need to be aware of who we really are as a nation today.

Cheers

BHR

[nigegilb]

....."Recently in the other place a Question was asked about the Government’s definition of overstretch. The Answer given by Mr Adam Ingram was that overstretch would be if the Army was unable to fulfil the tasks asked of them. That is a very limited interpretation of overstretch. The Armed Forces are outstandingly good at taking on and meeting the immediate challenge of the moment—that is one of the challenges that they face. The duty of Government and Parliament is to see not just whether they are able to fulfil the tasks asked of them at this moment but whether they are going to be able to fulfil those tasks in two, three or five years’ time. That is my reason for raising this debate...."

link.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70315-0002.htm

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

WEBF, shippers; that link to the LA Times only works if you subscribe to the thing. Why would one?

If the other side of the Pond life is bleating that nobody else is pulling their weight, perhaps they should look at a certain D Rumsfeld circa March '03; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2838593.stm , US ready to fight 'without UK' The UK general public read that, I believe, as the US could and would. This gives the British public subconscious the view that America is so big and strong that whatever we or any other European country does is insignificant. "We don't need strong defence because it's a shared danger and somebody else will cover it" sort of mindset. The Public is also obsessed with its own needs and ambitions and would probably swop a T42 DD, say, for more IVF clinics and drug rehabilitation centres any day.

Why should a change in PM make any difference? Once Cameron starts worrying about the "carbon footprint" of a Typhoon or a big Naval gas turbine, we're all buggered.

[ISO100]

I hope you will not throw your g-suits out of the cockpit if a Sillyvillian and tax payer chimes in here in self-defence.

I think today’s news about the reappearance Russian Bears patrolling the North Atlantic will serve as a reminder to the public that not all threats are always obvious. In my view we face a real threat from China and Russia as well as from certain Middle Eastern states. It is by no means certain that our new economic interdependence with these countries will keep us safe. Even if the threat is created only for the sake of political posturing, this is still a threat that we must continue to meet if we intend to maintain our economic and political independence.

The present state of our armed forces is a REAL concern to me and is more important than more populist issues. I suspect that the same feeling simmers with a great many people. You can help yourselves by taking every opportunity you can to spread the message. I have attended lectures recently where RAF personnel have made clear to anyone who listened attentively as to the way things really are and at an RAF event last week a very obvious problem was demonstrated without the need for words. Most of us know people who have served at some time or are serving now and I feel there is a rising tide of anger about what the Politicians laughingly call “overstretch”. It is time for the armed forces to speak more openly even if that runs contra to your ethos.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

BHR

Once upon a time, on the Sea Jet thread, you offered the opinion that we no longer needed a Navy. You invited as to compare ourselves to the Germans and Japanese. When I said I thought France, Italy and Spain were better comparisons you replied that you had picked Germany and Japan carefully, although you did not say why. You asked me to say what I knew about the size, capabilities and plans of the Navies of all five countries. I did. You did not reply.

You also said that if we cut most of the RN we could spend the money on "basics for the troops", yet you didn't say what these are.

I wonder why? Could it be that reality doesn't fit your arguments?

ISO100

The politicians deny overstretch. Wibble!

GBZ

But then, surely disaster relief (such as this (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.10067)) must appeal to Cameron? And since newer ships use less fuel.....

[Double Zero]

WE Branch Fanatic,

you are not alone ! I despair when I see patrol vessels, quite decent sized, without even a serious gun or more importantly helicopter facilities.

I suspect we are heading into a dark time, we've had our bit of peace - aged 45 I've never known war thanks to the efforts of my dad ( still with us ) & his compatriots - I'm a civilian though spent 14 years working on military aircraft trials.

With the appearance of the new Russian sub etc, they & China getting uppity, and our forces stretched in the meantime, things don't look so good.

If anyone has brains at all, we need to invest in the Navy and forces in general ( pardon the pun ) - accelerate CVF & get more not less T45 - pronto as well as helo & tanker / airlift boosted.

I'm all for more hospitals etc, not closing down the ones we've got, but no-one can kid me this country can't afford both if funds aren't squandered.

It was interesting to hear that the inheritance tax could be dumped ( I happen to agree with the idea ) as it " only raises the small sum of £4 billion P.A. " - isn't that about what CVF is costing, so presumably that's small beer too ?!

In any future conflict, there will be no quick build programme for ships or aircraft - and the lack of manpower in the forces would right now be quite easily sorted, or at least moderated, by intelligent treatment of people who are not willing to live an early 20th century life.

For instance even 'old' gits like me, and more importantly experienced ex-services people I know, would be happy to join a reserve if the bloody system let us...

[Tocsin]

00,
> For instance even 'old' gits like me, and more importantly experienced ex-services
> people I know, would be happy to join a reserve if the bloody system let us...
The Royal Auxiliary Air Force takes civvies up to 50, provided all the bits are there (55 for ex-service)...

[Double Zero]

Thanks that is very interesting - was told by someone who should be in the know that 42/3 was cut-off point.

[nigegilb]

Amazing, the people running the show are so spineless they cannot prvent a huge drawdown in the size of the armed forces at a time of war.



In full here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=TKOROXMPECO4NQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/08/24/ntroops124.xml

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

The military is in the grip of a personnel "crisis" as figures showed yesterday that a substantial number of troops have left in the past three months.

.........Morale at some bases has been described by some RAF commanders as "fragile" with issues over old equipment and not enough training as well as the constant operations.

All three instructors teaching pilots to fly Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft have resigned at RAF Kinloss. No instructor will be available until the end of the year. Fourteen aircrew from the base died over Afghanistan when their ageing Nimrod MR2 crashed last year.

Hercules pilots, who work one month on, one off, during operations, are suffering. One senior flier said: "My wife told me either get another job or we divorce."

Families have also been affected by repatriation ceremonies for dead Servicemen at RAF Lyneham.

A source at the Wiltshire base said it seriously impacted on morale each time a hearse went past wives at the station's creche.

Casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan have soared this year, with 67 deaths and hundreds of wounded. Rates for front-line units in Afghanistan are now thought to have passed Second World War levels.

Helicopter pilots are also working flat out in Chinooks and Merlins and ground staff are becoming overwhelmed by the workload. "We are now beginning to see engineering mistakes creep in that we have not seen for 30 years," said an RAF source. "People simply don't have time to develop skills that they did before."

The stress is also starting to tell on Harrier pilots, who have been flying difficult missions in Afghanistan since 2004, two years before the main British force deployed.

RAF numbers have plummeted from 50,000 three years ago to 42,000. The Ministry of Defence is aiming for a figure just below this level next year as part of "restructuring".

As with the Army and Navy, the decision has been taken to cut numbers at a time when the military is at its highest operational tempo in 50 years.

[Almost_done]

Helicopter pilots are also working flat out in Chinooks and Merlins and ground staff are becoming overwhelmed by the workload. "We are now beginning to see engineering mistakes creep in that we have not seen for 30 years," said an RAF source. "People simply don't have time to develop skills that they did before."


Could this be a refection of the 'improved' training and engineering restructuring of TG1, alonside the 'high' caliber of personnel recruited?

[Chugalug2]

"We are now beginning to see engineering mistakes creep in that we have not seen for 30 years," said an RAF source.

Speaking as someone who left the RAF 34 years ago I should be interested to know what "engineering mistakes", prevalent in that era and only now re-emerging, the RAF source might be referring to. Certainly my understanding at the time as an AT line pilot was that RAF engineering standards were second to none. Of course I stand to be corrected, but it might be nearer to the truth to simply say that the "engineering mistakes" creeping in now we have not seen since much further back, if ever!

[TalkTorqueTorc]

As an engineer I would say the standards are still high but there is no denying that experience levels have been shot to pieces recently.

The calibre of people coming in that I've seen I would say is no different to what it was ten years ago and generally of a good standard although there will always be those that make you despair.

The training they recieve is also still good. Unfortunatly it's not in depth enough but that argument has been going for a while.

The other big problem is the amount of manpower actually on the squadrons. If the work is to be done properly then you'll not get all the jets you want. If you get all the jets you want chances are not all the work has been done properly. Fact of life at the moment.

And I am talking from experience.

[Tappers Dad]

All three instructors teaching pilots to fly Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft have resigned at RAF Kinloss.


Anyone know why?

[Guzlin Adnams]

Please excuse me if I show my ignorance on some issues as I'm not in the military. I have had various dealings with military personel in my work and count several as good friends. From reading the various threads on this and other websites I do see some similarities with what has happened to various other government agencies in recent years including the county council that I used to work for. I left that job because of political interference, the ignorence of modern management in the public sector, their blind adherance to the political doctrine of the time and their attitude towards anyone who had the temerity to question them or show anything other than total belief in the "new" ways of working. Experience, logic and pure common sence were frowned upon and you were told that "this is old fasioned and not modern thinking at all" etc etc. :yuk:
Was I correct to assume that this was pure political indoctrination, management for managements sake? You're either with us or without us, what an approach that was. I'm not certain who is out there to give the leadership of this country the reality check that it needs without the bloody nose that it's going to get. Something has to happen to help all government agencies achieve more bang for the buck.....I hate using management terms but there you go (it is responsible for one of the best moral boosting games ever invented....bull51t-b1ng0) So much money is being wasted on talk isn't it.
I assume that many of you have been forced to attend seminas on new methods of work. To gather into little individual groups at these seminas, separated from like minded colleagues with people who support the new proposals, usually frorm the companies that have most to gain from the changes so all can appear to be acting as one. It's like having friendship forced upon you. I used to get fed up of being talked down too. At the next semina management assumes that you have rattified the "agreed ideas" from the last one when all you in fact did was to point out the pitfalls of the proposals and tried hard to find anything that would be of any use and not downright stupid. At least the management theory boxs were ticked, ie you were part of the consultation process.:rolleyes:
The result of the charade is that building works on public buildings are still being carried out by the same contractors, good local ones that can be trusted but now there's a big fat middle man in the form of a large term contractor who knows how to exploit the system. Two thirds of the work is being done for 25% more money and the end user has no faith in the authority any more as the administration is pathetic.
I'll stop now....you must be getting bored!:ugh:
All I can say is that we do support you, that logic must prevail, the ignorant, incompetant and those that are nothing but politically motivated should stand aside now to enable the professionals to do their work (that doesn't include bean-counters either!).
More people, better training using "old fasioned principles" as appropriate, new and more modern equipment in the numbers that are required.
A government that expects its' armed forces to be doing what you are doing without giving you the necessary means of doing it should not be a government at all.:=
(Sorry that I've gone on a bit.....my first post.)

[ISO100]

Quote:
All three instructors teaching pilots to fly Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft have resigned at RAF Kinloss.
Anyone know why?



I understand from a qualified and experienced source within the fleet that a mass exodus of qualified staff would come as no surprise given the shortage of adequate resources allocated to the fleet. A shortage which brings into question long term operational efficiency and safety. The existing strategy would appear not only to be driven by the government but also by RAF management which I am given to believe has a pro-fighter mentality.

Please feel free to correct me if I am way off target but I don’t think I am!

[Chugalug2]

GA, welcome to the forum and thank you for your "maiden post". I will venture to reply, as one civilian to another, because the guys and gals that you addressed have been muzzled by an MOD new think initiative that answers to the name of "DIN", who says that they don't have a sense of humour? You write with a strong sense of outrage at the way you and your colleagues have been dragooned into new and unproductive ways, and I can empathise with your feelings of frustration and powerlessness that must engender. Consider therefore a similar process inflicted from above, over the heads of and against the protests of professionals, which results in not just frustration but dangerous life threatening outcomes of insufficient, outdated and un-airworthy aircraft to meet ever increasing operational demands in a worsening scenario, to be operated and maintained by fewer and less experienced people, as those before them vote with their feet. Town Halls may be places of low morale and poor support, but they are infinitely safer than "sandy places" suffering from the same neglect!

[L1A2 discharged]

Chugalug & GA,

You may think that, many of us could not possibly comment :ugh:

[Guzlin Adnams]

I agree with your comments Chugalug. County Hall did make us frustrated by their politics/antics and that's why I walked but my outrage is directed to those who are not prepared to give our forces what they need. It is indeed in a completely different league to any local authority scenario and I hope that nobody reading this believes that I'm trying to compare the two on the same terms.
I can't wait untill the next General Election campaign when "they" all come out of the woodwork to clammer for our votes and the TV camera's are about. I'd love to have a few seconds on air. They can't gag everybody!
I don't think that the name of the party matters much these days.
Maybe the other lot would support the forces more but I don't have any faith. Who knows, PR guru Cameroon must like the idea of having a fighter named after him:8 so he may come up with something....:sad: Anyway, no more politics, I feel a head-ache coming on.
I can merely repeat the last three paragraphs of my maiden post and God speed to all in harms way.

[Chugalug2]

Never doubted your bona fides for a moment GA, merely used your post to point up the different reality of being "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" etc, and of being "On Active Service". Most of the UK population have never served, have no relatives serving or who have served, or unlike yourself don't even know anyone serving. This does not mean that they don't support our Armed Forces, but they just don't understand the diabolical state of the Services under this government. Appropriately I am watching an excellent piece on Channel Four about the TA, who draw an even shorter straw than the Regulars. Channel Four seems to be our National Broadcaster as far as the Forces are concerned, much better and more critical of the MOD than the Beeb, who seem to have renewed the love affair with Labour now that the People's PM has gone, but that's another rant!
Ah! what might lie behind that cryptic post L1A2? Thanks to DIN I can place any interpretation on it that I wish, so I'll just say cheers and stay safe to you all. :ok:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

This is worth looking at, considering the potential threat to the UK.

JTIC briefing: LNG tanker terrorism (http://www.janes.com/news/transport/jtic/jtic070803_1_n.shtml)

As the global market for liquefied natural gas (LNG) continues to expand rapidly, with ever more carriers ploughing the oceans, there is still concern that terrorists will attack LNG infrastructure. Fears that terrorists will use an LNG carrier to create an explosive vapour cloud over a city are misplaced, according to US studies, but LNG carriers still present tempting targets for publicity-seeking terrorists.

The threat from maritime terrorist attacks was demonstrated on 12 October 2000 when a small boat loaded with explosives rammed the USS Cole in Aden harbour. Two years later, the same tactic was used against the oil tanker Limburg, which was rammed several miles off the Yemeni coast. One crewman was killed and several thousand barrels of oil spilled in an attack that seemed intended to disrupt oil supplies.

Maritime aspects of the "war on terror" are seldom discussed by the media, which is why I have tried to highlight them on this thread.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Following on from the above post, you may be interested in these articles from the Royal Navy website.

Keeping the Sea Lanes Open (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.6526)

Link now working.

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Given that no-one answered you the last time you posted a maritime link on this thread, why would they be interested now? (Even if the link worked)

[Lyneham Lad]

Continuing the maritime theme, but this should be of interest to all concerned with/for the current and future defence of the UK, there is a revealing article regarding the state of the Navy in today's Telegraph on-line edition. It results from a leaked report and the leak itself indicates (IMHO) how desperate the situation is. :{

Link to article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=OCAR1BC1WUKRJQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/12/02/navy102.xml)

[Almost_done]

In todays Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4RDKCO2JXF4UDQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/12/07/do0704.xml)there is a very thoughtful, well written and balanced article.

Some of the comments bear out the thoughts of the populace who are sympathetic to the 'NuLabour' fundamentals including the shameful behaviour of a Labour MP in the House of Commons (for me 'NuLabour' really have made it common). While more are more in keeping with the traditional view that we are a benifit to the country as a whole and we do our jobs but not politics.

If you get a chance read the article and the comments it is worthwhile and uplifting.

[Al R]

A good article.

John Tootal either saw the light or was offered too much to walk away. Shame.

[MightyGem]

Dennis Skinner, a Labour MP, started to jeer at him.
:mad::mad::mad: Somebody wants to take him to Afghanistan on a factfinding tour...and leave him there!:mad::mad::mad:

[NURSE]

at the end of the day the Military has very very little significance to the great british public. They will bask in the glory when they go into rapid high tempo operations but get bored when the military is tied down in ops like Iraq and Afghanistan. Its not helped by succesive governments attitudes to the forces seeing the defence of the nation as a low priority. End of cold war "no" submarine threat therefore cut Nimrod spending and spending on Navy for a peace dividend.
This government will fall when house prices do and the economey falls apart. The next govt will have to slash public spending to sort out the economic mess and so the defence budget will be cut don't hope a change of govenrment will sort out the ills of UKDF just expect more of the same.

Until the armed forces of the UK get a kicking on an operation nothing will change.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

regrettably, you are exactly right; except one significant point.

Until the armed forces of the UK get a kicking on an operation nothing will change

Not until the UK gets a kicking wll anything change. These self centred buggers will remain blind and deaf to everything until it affects them personally.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

On a maritime theme, the RN website has news (http://royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.11294/changeNav/6568) of HMS Somerset's deployment.

HMS Somerset leaves her homeport of Devonport to patrol the Mediterranean including join the standing NATO force conducting Operation Active Endeavour. The force will police shipping and board selected vessels. The ships of the multi-national force also gather intelligence on merchant shipping movements to detect suspicious activity. The force underlines NATO’s commitment to combating illegal use of the sea and conduct joint exercises to improve working and understanding between different navies. The NATO operation in the Mediterranean has been happening since October 2001 and has been bolstered by non-NATO nations such as the Ukraine, Georgia or Albania.

Active Endeavour goes on day in and day out with very little publicity, like many of the vital activities of the RN and RAF.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Another cut by Stealth:

Fish stocks at risk from protection patrol cuts (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/17/eafish117.xml)

At a time when fish stocks are under increasing pressure, and the threat of a maritime terrorist attack in UK home waters is very real, what possible justification is there for this?

[BillHicksRules]

WEBF,

It is sad to see you continue to to swallow the Torygraph line complete with hook and sinker.

As someone who served in the FPS in the early 90s I can tell you that if you are relying on the FPS to prevent a terrorist attack on Blackpool Pleasure Beach or Brighton Pier then you are in real trouble.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

That may be true, but it does raise the question of what demands will be made on the Armed Forces by providing security for the 2012 Olympics?

Carrying on with a maritime theme, the following article (by a serving US Navy Officer) makes interesting reading:

Al Qaeda's Maritime Campaign (http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,83909,00.html)

With only rare dramatic bursts, the maritime environment has remained relatively calm in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) but a sustained, destructive storm churns over the horizon. Despite the inherent challenges, Al Qaeda can attack, has attacked, and will again attack maritime targets. Indications point to an acceleration of the pace of maritime terrorism, heralding a coming campaign. As this campaign unfolds, however, the U.S. Navy is foundering in defining its role within the overall war. Under increasing fire from the Department of Defense for not doing its share compared to the Army and Marine Corps, the Navy has been forced to assume shore support duties typically assigned to other services to free up personnel to prosecute the war -- a clear diminution of the Navy's stature. Yet, as in World Wars I and II, the Navy has definite, significant, and traditional roles, with missions on the front lines, in fighting and defeating a global threat.

This first paragraph is equally applicable to the Royal Navy as the USN, as is the last....

In addition to maintaining a robust and formidable force protection posture to deter and defeat terrorist attacks, the Navy already plays an important and active role in the Global War on Terrorism in the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean Sea, Arabian Sea and other forward waters but not nearly enough of a role as the only service capable of disrupting maritime terrorism overseas and denying terrorists the use of the sea. Claiming its complete and crucial role in the GWOT will allow the Navy to preempt al Qaeda from conducting a concentrated maritime terrorism campaign; otherwise the Navy can look forward to more support tasks ashore for the services conducting combat operations.

And from today's Telegraph:

Pirate attacks around the world rise by 20pc (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021510/Pirate-attacks-around-the-world-rise-by-20pc.html)

Back to the issue of naval operations going unrecognised by the public, the RN has recently led mine clearence operations off of Iraq/Kuwait.

See here (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.12807/changeNav/6568) from the RN site.

The VSW UUV used in this operation is the same type successfully deployed to locate the WW2 bomb in a recent UK disposal operation in challenging diving conditions near Felixstowe off the Suffolk coast. Demonstrating the flexibility of the UUV operating from a light inflatable boat, the team was able to inform Clearance Divers of the exact location of the bomb. After just under seven hours of submerged operations the UUV successfully located the bomb’s position on the seabed in an area of very poor visibility and strong tidal streams which was proving too challenging for divers alone .

Meanwhile, back in the Arabian Gulf, both Iraqi and Kuwait navies provided patrol boats to give extra protection to the MCMVs and divers, while elements of the Iraqi Department for Border Enforcement provided security ashore where some of the Mine Danger areas were within a few hundred yards of the Iraqi coast.

The areas searched during this operation were the remnants of the MDAs created in 1991 and 2003 where Iraq had laid, or was suspected of laying, anti-invasion minefields. Following both campaigns considerable mine clearance efforts were undertaken with over 1300 mines destroyed. However there were large areas of very shallow water which have remained inaccessible for over 17 years due to the limitations of the systems available at the time.. Using the very latest in coalition mine warfare technology, the force was able to search these remaining areas using a number of systems and new techniques. The operation required more than 200 dives and over 100 remotely operated submersible vehicle runs.

Task Group Commander, Commander David Hunkin, Royal Navy said of the operation:

“Our work is directly supporting the future success of both Iraq and Kuwait by improving access to their ports and sea-lanes and we have received many messages of support from both countries. The navies of Kuwait, Iraq, the United States and the United Kingdom have worked hard together over the past few months and we have built very close working relationships. Each nation has brought their own expertise and equipment and we have melded them together into an effective coalition Mine Countermeasures Task Group. It has been great to see some new equipment being used, a clear demonstration of the significant investment that nations have made in Mine Countermeasures technology over recent years. When the Mine Danger Areas are re-designated, every sailor on this mission can be proud that they have made an enduring and positive contribution to the peaceful future of the Middle East.”

Didn't see this in the media, did we? But had it gone wrong, the tabloids would be unable to restrain themselves, and the armchair experts would be out in force. :*

[AllTrimDoubt]

Oh for heaven's sake....this is an AIRCREW forum - if I wanted to read official spin material on maritime topics I'd go buy a copy of Navy News.

Don't you ever give up WEBF?

[Biggus]

WEBF,

If you look here

http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/defencenews/

which all the public can see, the mine clearance story is mentioned. Best you spend even more hours of your life trawling the internet for news nobody else is very bothered about, it took me at least 30 seconds to find, but I am only a two finger typist!

It didn't make the newspapers because it wasn't considered interesting enough!!

As for the increase in piracy, what about it? Are you saying we should increase/maintain the size of the RN because of the piracy threat? If that is so, why not just get NATO to move half the battleships that spend their time cruising around the Atlantic and Med to move to the trouble spots. Or how about get the nations in the piracy hot spot areas to clean up their own back yard?

As for maritime terroism. It might well be possible, or have happened. But part of terroism is about disrupting/effecting as many peoples lives as possible. How many people around the world now spend extra time being searched going through airports - and every time it happens to them they are reminded exactly why!! I would suggest that from a terroist point of view the maritime environment is more a method of transportation than a mainstream method of carrying out headline grabbing attacks.

I suggest that in future you stick to posting non-aviation (don't tell me - there is a helo on the back of every battleship) naval posts on rum ration or to your MP.

[cornish-stormrider]

Biggus, ROTFLMFAO

[WE Branch Fanatic]

As for the increase in piracy, what about it? Are you saying we should increase/maintain the size of the RN because of the piracy threat?

In hindsight, perhaps I should have done. When it was finally decided to commit forces specifically to countering piracy (remember unchecked piracy means high premiums for shipping insurance, which ends up passed on to the consumer) it meant that the Falklands was left without a frigate or destroyer for several months. Perhaps when the then First Sea Lord (Admiral West) told of Commons' Defence Select Commitee (back in late 2004 or 2005) that the RN's own analysis was that the UK needed "about thirty" frigates/destroyers, he was thinking of this sort of extra commitment?

I think there are also Maritime Patrol Aircraft in the Gulf of Aden/Somalia area.

I choose not to reply at the time (I didn't bite:})

As for maritime terrorism, the fact is that it has happened. It would be sensible to maintain defences against it. Likewise, making life difficult for the terrorist demands maintaining forces in places like the Med, Arabian Sea etc. It places new demands on naval aviation assets, both Lynx/Merlin flights embarked aboard frigates/destroyers or sometimes other platforms, and for Merlin and Sea King ASaCs squadrons.

[Biggus]

No doubt the RN was told to dispatch a battleship so we could be seen to doing our bit to help, all about politics. At that point the First Sea Lord needs to tell his polticial masters the effect that will have, lack of coverage in Falklands, risks incurred, and they make the decision yea or nea.

As for MPA, they are probably the French, who traditionally operate in that part of the world. This stikes me as an ideal MPA scenario, certainly in the deeper water, searching large areas of ocean rapidly and calling in naval assets when required.

Why no Nimrods? Simple because there aren't enough to go around. And we will only get 9 MRA4s to replace 20 odd MR2s.

So, if you are going to use priracy as a reason to increase the destroyer/frigate fleet, which the admiralty traded off against the carrier purchase, then please get the RAF another 11 MRA4s while you are at it....

I wish you luck, but would suggest banging your head against a brick wall would be more productive in the long term...

[WE Branch Fanatic]

What was the reason (excuse) given for cutting the MRA4 buy? I'm sure the 1998 SDR said we needed about twenty.

[Biggus]

The same reason the RN were going to get...

12, then 8, now 6 Type 45s

8 (was it 8), now 6 (if you're lucky) Astutes....

MONEY!!!!!!

By the way....and it's not a dig.....

While the RN, according to you, has not got enough warships to maintain coverage in the Falklands, they can find 2 Frigates to send away on Exercise...

TAURUS 09 : News and Events : Royal Navy (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.7202)

All a matter of priorities?!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The period during which there was no frigate or destroyer in the South Atlantic region was only a few months - but in any case I think the Government decides priorities, not the Service Chiefs.

The question I was asking about MRA4 numbers was to see if the Government had announced a reason for needing less. Unfortunately, do more with less seems to be a common theme.

Would increasing spending on defence equipment be an acceptable way of helping manufacturing industry to weather the economic form? As an easy example - the world-wide recession means a reduction in the demand for civil aircraft, with knock on effects for suppliers. But many of these suppliers also make parts for military aircraft, so ordering more MRA4s (say) would help keep them ticking over........ as well as helping maintain sufficient forces.

Likewise, defence PFIs may be effected by the banking crisis. I don't think that is an acceptable state of affairs, did nobody think about what might happen? I also understand from other forums that the FSTA PFI contract is written in a way that stops the MOD from fitting AAR equipment to other aircraft - Hercules or A400M perhaps? How on earth allowed that to be in the contract? No only is an important capability in private hands, but expansion in an emergency is not allowed....

[Bunkerbomb]

See below for a link that takes the last 12 years apart in some detail and attempts to show how we ended up in this mess. It's worth ploughing through this...


http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/13546_85_2cornish_dorman.pdf

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Thanks for that. We do seem to be in a real mess.

Going back to an earlier point, doesn't it seem odd that at a time public spending is being increased and projects brought forward, defence projects are being delayed, despite the fact that important parts of our industrial and technological base are at risk of being lost forever.

On the side of the workers? Don't think so. :mad:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Well, it appears that not everyone is convinced by the current mantra of COIN only.

From War is Boring (http://www.warisboring.com): U.S. Should Think Twice Before Rushing to an All-Counter-Insurgency Force (http://warisboring.com/?p=2200)

But we shouldn’t forget that COIN is not the only kind of potential battle out there. Today the military is mostly worried about building stuff, but it could very well be called upon to break things later. We need to be flexible.

Consider: In Darfur, the Sudanese government has used tanks and helicopters to de-populate villages, and is smuggling arms to rebel groups in neighboring countries. In Myanmar, we’ve seen the Junta use conventional troops to ruthlessly hunt down political opponents and seize aid. In Zimbabwe, an unpopular, corrupt government clings to power through brutality and military might. In North Korea, we see an oppressive regime becoming a nuclear power.

Increasingly, the world’s “bad actors” mix conventional troops with insurgent tactics, in a form of “hybrid war.” (Marine General James Mattis has emphasized this point.) Tackling these challenges might mean an equally hybrid response, with fighter jets and destroyers lobbing high explosives, and COIN ground troops following up, post-combat.

It’s important that we recognize the wide range of threats we face today, and have the right tools and the strategies to deal with each.

Going back to the issue of piracy, HMS Portland has had some success, including this very recent interception. (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/type-23-frigates/hms-portland/news/hms-portland-intercepts-and-disarms-pirates/*/changeNav/6568)

In co-ordination with a Spanish maritime patrol aircraft, HMS Portland's crew identified, pursued and subsequently conducted a boarding of the suspicious vessels. They found articles that indicated the skiffs had been involved in or were about to conduct an act of piracy, and were clearly not those of innocent fishing vessels.

Also mentioned here (http://www.navynews.co.uk/view-story.aspx?articleID=448), and on the MOD website.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From the Telegraph: Ministers accused of 'sea blindness' by Britain's most senior Royal Navy figure (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5517833/Ministers-accused-of--sea-blindness-by-Britains-most-senior-Royal-Navy-figure.html)

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Sir Jonathon Band, First Sea Lord, says there is a pressing need to hold a debate on Britain’s defence priorities. He discloses that he has even had to remind ministers - keen to set more missions for the Royal Navy while simultaneously culling the fleet - a ship can’t be in two places at once. The admiral, stepping down after three and a half years, even warns that Britain is “losing the ability to think strategically”.

“I think government could continue to learn,” says Band, known in senior defence circles as “T1SL”. “Until recently there’s been sea blindness. Is it because people get into politics for domestic rather than international reasons? There are a whole bunch of issues, some of it is background.”

And he warns politicians who see defence as ripe for cuts: “You don’t need to be an economist to realise major countries face a challenging outlook, but just because things are tough, don’t stop insuring your house. We have to have a strategic debate. Looking round the world, I don’t see it calming down; I don’t see any argument for Britain doing less.”

Asked if government would have to either moderate its ambitions or increase budgets, he says: “There is bound to be a limit on ship building, that’s fine. All I’m saying, with the size of fleet, I can’t go any more places. If anyone wants me to go somewhere I say ‘fine, I’m very happy to go there, but where don’t you want me to go?’”

He confirms this was “an actual discussion” he’d had with ministers. “The Gulf is clearly a priority, and will remain so with a bi-lateral agreement with Iraqi,” he says. “In the Mediterranean we put a ship in whenever we can afford to. In the Caribbean and northern Atlantic we have dependent territories and fight the drug trade. We used to patrol that all year, now less than half the year with a full warship. Down south we have a deterrence mission [for the Falklands], and en route try to service our engagement with South American and West African friends.”

Additionally, he has tried to fly the White Ensign in the Far East to reflect the rise of China and India: “Turn the clock forward 20 years and we will be worrying about Asia and the West Pacific. In the last six months we’ve conducted exercises with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, India, Bangladesh, Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei. If you cut the naval cake too far you just say: ‘OK, we won’t go to the Far East.’ Strategically, that would be incredibly stupid.”

He predicts the Royal Navy’s workload will increase whichever party is in power: “There may be a question of what we can afford, but we shouldn’t muddle that with what we would like to do. The primary question is ‘what is the level of business we should be in?’, then ‘can we afford it?’ And if we can’t, what do we then reduce?” Instead, the cost of war in Iraq and Afghanistan has led Britain to slash capabilities, leaving the services fighting among themselves for diminishing resources. Even General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff, has attacked Band’s order of two aircraft carriers as “cold war relics”.

But Band hit backs, saying ships are quickly deployable: “Clearly big chunks of naval equipment are more expensive per unit than army capability, such as a tank. But we don’t have a hundred ships, sadly. You have to be careful what you compare.” He also points out that if “flexibility” is the new military mantra, bigger ships allow you to transport more manpower and add more weaponry. The First Sea Lord has seen his order of 12 Type 45 Destroyers halved. In a clear swipe at ministers, he ridicules the view that says “my god, a Type 45 is very expensive.” He said: “If you want to protect a task group, that’s what you need. And then, its jolly cheap, and you’re jolly glad you have it.”

The last defence review was a decade ago, prompting the question: do we need another one? “Bearing in mind all the calls on public expenditure and the fact the world evolves its right to have frequent reviews. So I don’t think it would be wrong at all to answer many of the questions you’ve asked. What do you want to do? How much money have you to do it? How do you cut the cake? And I think it would be helpful to the services, and to the country. In a classic sense we are as safe from invasion as any period I’ve studied. So people swarming on our beaches of the UK: that’s not a threat. But we cannot ignore insidious threats.”

He contends that Britain’s island status must place the sea at the heart of thinking. Piracy, terrorism, drugs and people trafficking, protecting energy and trade routes; all point to an increased naval role, even leaving aside possible wars.

“Pirates are not respectful of whether we are in Afghanistan,” he says. “People have no idea that by 2012 their lights are staying on because of liquid gas arriving in Milford Haven daily. There is a world out there with a huge maritime element. I mean, we call it earth; we should call it the sea.”

In a candid remark, he says the Ministry of Defence “has been outstandingly bad at predicting the future.” As such we should not assume Britain won’t be dragged into major wars needing heavy equipment. “I remember debates where people said there was no chance of Britain deploying armoured forces abroad,” he recalls. “Within three years we were helping recapture Kuwait.” Before that Britain was fretting about the Soviets while Argentina quietly invaded the Falklands. And now intelligence experts worry about terrorism, giving rise to an assumption that state v state warfare is dead.

“I just say ‘what evidence is there of that?’ I’m not clever enough to predict that if states run out of water or energy they wouldn’t fight other states.” So don’t mothball all the gunboats just yet? He laughs: “All great countries have a navy.” And the rising powers are investing fortunes in fleets. “They are wise,” he says, leaving hanging the question of our own intelligence. It frustrates Band that ships are one of the few things Britain still does better than pretty well anyone – we train half the world’s navies – yet the government is cutting the fleet drastically, leaving it with less than a quarter of the 413 warships it enjoyed in 1964.

But as Britain is a nation of reduced circumstance, he is asked if all this defender of the seven seas ambition is a bit grandiose. “I don’t agree,” he replies. “Wherever we are in social evolution we are still an island. There is a choice how much a government wishes to play in the world and have a defence element to its tool kit. The hard facts are we did have an empire, are part of the Commonwealth, are a member of the security council, are a nuclear state, are a key country in NATO and the EU, and have a strategic alliance with the United States.”

[must keep] The hitherto diplomatic First Sea Lord admits sailors are “frustrated” and “disappointed” that public, media and ministers fail to recognise the Navy’s huge contribution to recent conflicts. Last winter up to 40per cent of our forces in Afghanistan were Navy, but because Royal Marines are described as “troops” and helicopter pilots are assumed to be RAF, the two other services are credited with carrying the burden of Labour’s adventurism. But constant – and unforeseen – war has left the Navy “very stretched”. He also notes that much of the navy’s work is preventative, and goes un-noticed.

He warns that all three services need more support but sends a clear semaphore to Sir Glenn Torpy, his opposite number in the RAF, to keep his hands off the Fleet Air Arm. Above all, investment is needed to maintain even a diminished fleet: “We are no longer the second largest navy, but we are the only navy with that global capability and frankly, the only professional partner of note to the Americans.”

The First Sea Lord declares he will spend his retirement as he spent his career, “messing around with boats”, but in a clear sign that his battles with defence ministers have left him listing, he concludes: “I can assure you one thing I won’t do is go into politics.”

[minigundiplomat]

"We are no longer the second largest navy, but we are the only navy with that global capability and frankly, the only professional partner of note to the Americans.”



Absolute crap. We had the most powerful navy in the world about 50 years ago. Now we have a couple of ships, some rusting subs and a couple of rowing boat sized carriers built by the cheapest bidder. When is the RN going to let the Nelson days go?

Gone are the days where you loaded a battalion of marines onto a ship and sailed, hoping the natives wouldn't have surrendered in the six weeks it took to get there.

Now, you can send the battalion of marines by C17 and have them there in 24 hours.

And don't give me any of that crap about having a friendly airfield in an unfriendly area. As Veritas drew to a close and Jacana started in early 2002, we (the RAF) had to bust a gut to get from the N Arabian sea to Bagram, with as many of the marines as possible, as no one would let you put them ashore and CHF didnt have the legs. Eventually the RN put them off in Oman and the RAF picked them up from there.

I don't like Torpy one iota, but I do get a bit sick of hearing the RN's turqouise tinted view of the world. Stop playing the victim and get on with life. A lot of the RN are doing a good job in the desert, concentrate on that instead of whinging about ships FFS!

[Widger]

Minigundiplomat (AKA Chinook force crew from Odiham)

What a very unbiased and well thought out strategic perspective you have. Time for a trip to the college of knowledge for you I think or are you not eligible for such dizzy heights?

Absolute crap. We had the most powerful navy in the world about 50 years ago. Now we have a couple of ships, some rusting subs and a couple of rowing boat sized carriers built by the cheapest bidder. When is the RN going to let the Nelson days go?

Well where do we start here. Whilst escort number s are down, the RN has over the last decade, restructured its force around the Marines. The RN now has exceptional lift capacity (Ocean, Albion, Bulwark, Lyme, Mounts, Cardigan and Largs bay). Whilst I recognise the strategic importance of the C17, for fast deployment of a limited force, there is no substitute for the capability that can lift a whole regiment and their vehicles and ammunition. You may well be able to get the marines there in 24 hours, but if you cannot sustain them whilst they are there, then what is the point? Dont forget the most of the supplies, fuel, ammunition etc for both Iraq, GW1 and 2, Saif Sareea, and Afghanistan were/are transported by sea and road, not by C17 or C130. That said, there is clearly a need nor more strat AT, just as there is a need for more Type 45 and T23.

And don't give me any of that crap about having a friendly airfield in an unfriendly area. As Veritas drew to a close and Jacana started in early 2002, we (the RAF) had to bust a gut to get from the N Arabian sea to Bagram, with as many of the marines as possible, as no one would let you put them ashore and CHF didnt have the legs. Eventually the RN put them off in Oman and the RAF picked them up from there.

Once again, the flexibility of strat AT and SH is acknowledged, but they are just one part of the "golf bag" to quote, "we are not playing pitch and putt", a few soldiers equipped with yorkie bars is not going to get the job done. "CHF didnt have the legs", so lets get V22 then, which is also one of the many platforms that can operate from CVF, not just F35/JCA/Dave. You can even maintain your Chinook in the hangar without having to take the blades off, now that is progress!

I don't like Torpy one iota, but I do get a bit sick of hearing the RN's turqouise tinted view of the world. Stop playing the victim and get on with life. A lot of the RN are doing a good job in the desert, concentrate on that instead of whinging about ships FFS!

Most of the whingeing that I hear comes from the light blue, on here and elsewhere, together with a few bricks being thrown over for good measure. The RN has been trying to get on with the job, but the attentions of persons like Torpy have not helped at all. The RN has re-structured and invested wisely. The RM are better equipped now than for many years, the FAA are doing a fantastic job, not just in providing CAS, ISTAR and SH capability but in many other places around the world. Adm Band's message did not thrown the bricks back over the wall, in fact I thought after all the vitriol he has been subjected to over the last 12 months, he was extremely diplomatic. His message is that Politicians, the public, and some in the other services, have been blinded by the present conflict and are forgetting the bigger strategic piece. We will not be in Afghanistan forever and there are other areas of the world in which we must maintain our interest, be it in a combat or defence diplomacy role. Reach, sustainability and the ability to poise are key elements of a maritime force and those capabilities are complimentary to many of the other abilities of which you alude to, one of which is speed.

So ..well done for all the work that JHC and Strat AT is doing at the moment, I do not believe that you get appropriate credit, especially within your own Service, but you must remember, that unless you are flying Typhoon, Harrier or Tornado, you do not have the mental capacity to amount to anything much at all.

Keep Safe:ok::ok::ok:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

mgd

Your comment about "moving a battalion of marines by C17" made me think about what do you do about getting their vehicles etc there. Heavy things like armoured vehicles are moved mostly by sea, then transported overland to Afghanistan.

This report from the NAO is worth reading: Support to High Intensity Operations (www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc0809/hc05/0508/0508.pdf)

It reinforces the value of helicopters and of transport aircraft, but also makes mention of seaborne logistics. Protecting this shipping is a NATO naval role - imagine the consequences of a vessel full of Mastiffs being sunk or captured.

This page (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081117/text/81117w0035.htm) from Hansard from last November is worthy of note as well.

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current tasks set by his Department are for the Royal Navy’s (a) destroyers and frigates and (b) submarines; and how many of each of these classes of warship are required to be on station to fulfil each task. [235627]

Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The current tasks for destroyers, frigates and submarines are as shown.

I have included the number of destroyers and frigates on station but I am withholding detailed information on the numbers of submarines on task as its release would, or would be likely to prejudice national security.

DD/FF current tasks - Number on station

Op TELIC (Nth Arabian Gulf) - One permanently committed

Op CALASH (Indian Ocean —counter terrorism and capacity building coalition) - One permanently committed

NATO Response Force - One nominated and permanently assigned to a standing force

Atlantic Patrol Task (South) - One permanently committed

Support to Strategic Deterrence - One nominated, at extremely high readiness and activated when required

Atlantic Patrol Task (North) - One core hurricane season only (May to November)

Integrity of the UK - Three nominated, one immediate, two extremely high readiness and activated when required

ESDP Counter Piracy - One temporarily assigned pending confirmation of the requirement

Submarines

Strategic Intelligence —

Support to Strategic Deterrence —

Integrity of the UK —

Op TELIC and CALASH —

Falkland Islands Contingency —

The number of units on station does not reflect the generation factors which are the number of hulls essential to produce the required units for each station. These factors vary and are dependent on whether a task is rouled (continuous) or non-rouled. The figures also exclude the units held at very high readiness for contingent operations.

This was before the RN was formally committed to anti piracy opeartions. I would point out that ships assigned to the NATO Response Force participate in Operation Active Endeavour - see this from NATO (http://www.afsouth.nato.int/JFCN_Operations/ActiveEndeavour/Endeavour.htm).

Maritime activities in the Arabian Sea and elsewhere are connected to what happens on land in Afghanistan (and other places), such as interdicting drug smuggling that the Taliban uses to raise funds, and keeping a lid on other nefarious activities like moving people or weapons around.

The above question and answer did not mention the roles and ativities of carriers, amphibious forces, mines counter measures vessels, hydrographic survey ships, patrol vessels, RFAs, or Fleet Air Arm units.

[Mobile Muppet]

Widger/WEBF

Can you tell me, are the RORO ferries that take the supplies down to the falklands (nearly always under utilised) or OP Telic manned by the RN or merchant seaman?

MM

[WE Branch Fanatic]

As I'm sure you know, they are merchant vessels manned by merchant seaman. However, in the case of the Point Class operated on behalf of the MOD under a PFI scheme the crews are Sponsored Reservists. See more info here (http://http://navy-matters.beedall.com/roro.htm).

I don't see what point you're trying to make. My point was that in operational theatres they need naval protection. We should remember terrorists have attacked maritime targets before and will do so again. Hezbollah used Iranian suppiled anti ship missiles. The LTTE Sea Tigers used various suicide craft, light aircraft and even divers and improvised mines and torpedoes - they even had built a suicide midget submarine but it was captured. Al Qaeda has used suicide boat attacks in harbour and at sea, they also used suicide bombers to attack a US boarding party in the Gulf, planned to crash explosive laden aircraft into Western naval vessels in the Gulf, and considered using a mother ship to launch multiple suicide attacks with speedboats.

Given the diverse range of possible threats it would seem like a sensible precaution to escorts ships carry vehicles and other equipment for the Afghan theatre. The terrorists only have to be lucky once - we have to be lucky every time.

As to other maritime aspects of countering terrorism, see this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1465218/Mission-to-board.html) Telegraph article from 2004. I must have missed it before, but it hopefully is a reminder that the war on terror (sic) is not limited to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would also point out that RN aviation assets, not just those carried by frigates/destroyers, but also CVS, LPH and LPD based ones, and ones based aboard RFAs, have played an important part in current operations.

[elderlypart-timer]

The debate about allocation of resources for current COIN ops and future ops involving other threats is very important. However what worries me is that those in all political parties who have always been hostile to the armed forces want us to see this as an either/or question. For instance they want us to think that either we provide the Army with more helicopter lift or we have a deep water navy. That's a false choice. We should reject the view that the Chiefs of Staff should fight over who gets the biggest proportion of the defence budget. Instead the Chiefs should unite about the need for a bigger defence budget and not make any comments about individual programmes until that is agreed by their political masters. Unity is strength.

[ORAC]

I see the Navy has used the Torygraph to deliver a diatribe against the world again - and the RAF in particular. As if the RAF hadn't taken even more cuts than the Navy....

The Navy Strikes Back (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5560746/The-Navy-strikes-back.html)

[Widger]

God...not again! Please STOP!

ORAC if you read the article carefully, it quite clearly points out the reduction in funding for all three Services and the main thrust is that it is very easy to forget the contribution the RN has made to Herrick amongst others, against the very hard and swinging cuts over the last decade "selling off the family silver". It also states that the divisive sniping and fighting has GOT TO STOP or both the RN AND the RAF will suffer. So it is not a diatribe against the RAF.

On the subject of cuts, IMHO, the RAF has spent on Typhoon and everything around it, at the expense of AT and SH, (for good reasons at the time)that is the issue and not anything to do with RN interference. The RN in contrast, has experienced great pain in re-configuring its forces to meet a 21st century threat, the CVF are one element in that re-configuration.

Everyone in every Service is in a whole world of pain, that could be resolved by the treasury stumping up just a fraction of what was spent on the Banks. Save your bile for the government, that is where the battle lies and demonstrating to the public what each and every arm of the MOD brings to the table.

So all you armchair staff officer's out there, stop trying to yank everyones chain because there are some very high quality individuals out there, of all colours of cloth, trying to make things work for the benefit of all parts of the MOD.:=:=:=:=:=:=

P.S anyway..you read the Grauniad not the Torygraph!

[NURSE]

The running down of the RN is just the begining. Will you sit up and take notice when JSFis binned as there are no carriers to operate it of?
Once the harrier retires will that become a "capability holiday"? And of course as MR2 Nimrod becomes less and less servicible the argument that we don't need maritime patrol aircraft and rescue support would be better served with a Hercules of yes and of course SAR provision is now a Coastguard function so why does the RAF & RN have a SAR element at all? And of course in his civilised world we don't need air defence assets GBAD will have already gone so 4-6 Sqns of Typhoons could then disappear. And the Tornado replacement is it needed Typhoon seams to be coping OK. A400M well with the delays we've shown that the existing c130J/C17 fleet can cope so we'll cut that. The article is right the treasury and the current government see the UKDF as a source for budget cuts for money to go to more visible and politically sensitive projects.
One lesson of the Falklands hasn't been learned by the Armed forces. The reason defence planning was changed post 82 was the humiliation of the Govt by picture of British servicmen having their faces rubbed in the dirt. The only thing that will change the govt/treasury attitude to the armed forces is those same armed forces getting a good kicking infront of the worlds media.

[Tom Laxey]

The most scandalous aspect of the defence cutbacks expected over the next 5 years is that defence spending didn't benefit from the splurge of increased spending during the public sector boom years '00-'07, but is expected to play full part in the cutbacks that are the consequences.

All sorts of capabilities and skills are likely to be lost if the some of the predictions come true. A key culprit is the escalation in the costs of military development programs, and the inability of small buyers like the UK to exploit significant economies of scale, such as those enjoyed by US, and Euro projects. We are moving through 'smart procurement', that's now too expensive, to a situation where the only economically viable route is to let industry develop concepts on its own (e.g. Mantis, Talarion ..), and buy Off the shelf. But, what sort of 'cutting-edge' will our troops get if it's left to the defence equipment market?

[Grimweasel]

As long as Iran continues to rattle its 'Sabres' then I reckon we'll be safe - if not? - bring on the redundancies - I'm sick of it all now and just want to retire to the Isle of Mull and have a small holding and stick my V's up to the world!!

Do we jump now or wait for the payoff?? Joining the job market along with 15K Navy and 20K RAF personnel may be a tad testing - may the best man win!!

Grim

[LFFC]

Army faces biggest cuts since Crimea - Times Online 21 Jun 09 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6544223.ece)

General Sir David Richards, the incoming head of the army, offered to sacrifice The Green Howards, the regiment of General Sir Richard Dannatt, the current head of the army.

The plan was discussed at a high-level meeting of the army, the navy and the RAF in Whitehall last Tuesday. The defence ministry said this weekend it could not discuss the proposed cuts because next year’s planning round was “ongoing”.

The RAF proposed the scrapping of Harrier jump jets while the navy proposed axing Type42 destroyers early, and putting back the replacement for its frigates for 20 years.

“This is the opening move in what could be the bloodiest spending round yet,” a senior defence source said. “All three services will get new defence chiefs over the next two months. This is going to hit them like a speeding train.”

[NURSE]

Big guns don't win today's wars - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/5640426/Big-guns-dont-win-todays-wars.html)Big guns don't win today's wars
The nature of modern conflict means our Armed Forces urgently need a major overhaul. Thomas Harding anticipates a battle in which the Army must triumph
Flags will fly high and proud this weekend at some 200 ceremonies across Britain to mark the inaugural Armed Forces Day. The nation will have the chance to demonstrate its gratitude to those who have fought and died in its name; everyone from young men and women who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan to the veterans of conflicts long ago.

But away from this feelgood ceremony there is a campaign that needs to be fought, not against the Taliban, but between the dinosaurs and Young Turks in the military. The outcome will determine whether the Armed Forces are left burnt out in the wadis of Helmand or evolve into a sharpened and highly effective tool to fight the wars of the future.
It is becoming clear that there is simply not enough money available to fulfil the separate aspirations of all three Services. To paraphrase Gen Sir David Richards, who spoke at the Royal United Services Institute on Wednesday, we can do many things inadequately or a few things well, but to try both will end in failure.

Gen Richards, who will become the head of the Army in August, has adroitly opened the debate on the future of our Armed Forces and put forward his view of what that future should be. Be in no doubt, a radical departure is proposed, and at a time when both major political parties appear bankrupt of defence policies.
In his three years as commander in chief of Land Forces based in Salisbury Plain, Gen Richards has gathered around him some of the most dynamic military thinkers (and not just from the Army) to thrash out the immediate future of defence. They know that its experience in Iraq has left the Army shattered in body and mind and that Afghanistan could prove more burdensome still.

What Gen Richards is suggesting is that the military be put on a new footing to fight the wars in front of it and not those of yesterday. Old-fashioned wars between countries are unlikely; the future is about counter-insurgency battles, of the kind being fought in Afghanistan, with the Army taking the lead and the RAF and Royal Navy providing support. It is the "horse and tank moment" of the Thirties: whether to stick with the old or forge ahead with the new (Hitler, unlike Britain, went with the tank and bulldozed through Europe).

The seeds of revolution first appeared in the US earlier this year when, during a Senate recess, Robert Gates, the defence secretary, announced that the modernisation of non-nuclear forces "should be tied to the capabilities of known future adversaries – not by what might be technologically feasible for a potential adversary, given unlimited time and resources". The message to the Pentagon was clear: fight today's war, not one against some imaginary enemy of the future.
In the same breath, he cancelled a large tranche of state-of-the-art F-22 Raptor fighters that have cost $10 billion but may well never encounter an opponent worthy of combat.

Where does this new mindset leave the three Services in Britain? Unfortunately, with a limited pool of cash the laws of survival apply, and the Services have reverted to unhelpful tribalism. The RAF will not give up its attachment to strategic bombing and the Royal Navy ardently clings to its aircraft carriers, advanced destroyers and fighter wing. There are many unglamorous parts of the Air Force that quietly go about achieving a great deal – from air transport to helicopters and surveillance. But those leading the RAF are fighter pilots who are loath to yield to the realities in front of them.

It's a big ask, but the idea of putting fighter pilots in a single engine, turbo-prop aircraft such as the Super Tucano has to be contemplated (it did, after all, feature in the latest James Bond film). Aircraft like the Tucano are cheap, low-tech and highly effective, as many South American drug barons have discovered. They provide surveillance, along with an armament of bombs and machine guns and an ability to loiter overhead for a long time, and they are also easy to maintain.

It will take courage for someone in the RAF hierarchy to advocate using the Tucano (cost £6 million) over the Eurofighter Typhoon (cost £65 million) but it is the type of thinking now required. The problem today is the RAF's attachment to fast jets. Either it goes for the Typhoon or for the US-made Joint Strike Fighter, but the defence budget cannot sustain both.

Fast jets are also a problem for the Navy, as its new aircraft carriers would be redundant without them. Do we need the carriers? Yes, in order to protect amphibious operations and to back up the US worldwide, but not at the size requested and a cost of £20 billion.

Like the RAF, the Navy's budget is taking too big a slice out of the defence cake. Yes, it has the world's most advanced destroyer in the Type 45 – it is able to take out a cricket ball travelling at three times the speed of sound, which might be useful when England next play Pakistan in a Test but it is not much help in winning over the populations of the Swat Valley or Helmand.

Similarly, do we really need submarines as advanced as the Astute class, soon to come into service? Well, yes, if you need to protect a large aircraft carrier that needs to carry heaps of fast jets that can doe_SLps what? Fly low over an Afghan village in a show of force?

There is a growing argument among reformists in the Navy that we need more ships but smaller and more versatile ones, corvettes perhaps, that can still fly the flag but will also carry helicopters, troops and a modicum of firepower.

Also bankrupt is the idea that if we prepare and equip for high intensity warfare we will be able to fight low-intensity conflicts effectively. The Challenger 2 tank is almost an irrelevance today; the Warrior armoured vehicle has been found vulnerable and unwieldy and both send the wrong message in attempting to win over local populations. The Royal Artillery will also have to evolve because lobbing a 155mm shell into populated areas is doesn't endear them to the locals.

What the Army also has to absorb is that it has to take ownership of all three parts of the "clear, hold, build" counter-insurgency strategy, rather than rely on other government agencies to do the latter. A brigade of engineers needs to be formed from both the Territorial Army and regular forces that can go into tough areas and build roads, bridges, schools and hospitals without worrying about the "health and safety" personnel issues.

To that end, a wish-list of 600 pieces of armoured building and digging equipment should be purchased immediately. The cost? Some £210 million, the equivalent of three Typhoons – which gives an indication of how unbalanced the Forces are today.

If the Army wins the argument that it should be backed up by the other two Services then it, too, has some tough choices. The decision will have to be taken on whether we have an Army entirely configured for counter-insurgency (to fight the proxy or bush wars of today) or whether we muddle through, retaining something close to a conventional Army with tanks and artillery.

While many will have welcomed General Sir Richard Dannatt's speaking up for the Army during his period in charge, until very recently his office has been an obstacle to change. For too long, he advocated the need for the 3,500 wheeled armoured vehicles known as Fres (Future Rapid Effect Systems) and insisted that the Army keep the Future Lynx helicopter at a time when bigger battlefield helicopters, able to ferry more troops, were desperately needed on the front line.

In fairness, he was dealt one of the hardest hands of any incoming chief of the general staff. The Iraq insurgency was raging with no end in sight, and the woefully equipped force of paratroopers had already been despatched to Helmand when he took office in 2006. But there has also been a failure on the part of the Ministry of Defence to get a coherent message out to Downing Street and the Treasury about precisely what it wants and why. The money and the will are apparently there, but simply asking for extra cash without giving a coherent business plan smacks of arrogance.

There has been a suggestion from Downing Street that the forces would get the requested extra 2,000 troops for Afghanistan if more integrated operations were carried out with the Americans, such as this week's Operation Panther's Claw, in which 350 troops of the Black Watch were dropped into Babaji, north of Lashkar Gah in Helmand. The Prime Minister will not simply sign off extra troops in order to keep our numbers above those of the Americans in Helmand. But the current military and civil service leadership in the MoD appears incapable or unwilling to sell its ideas.

Reformers in the military will be up against "bed blockers" at the top, who do not seem to recognise the need for change. But once they are removed and once a new government is persuaded that the Ministry of Defence is aiming to fight the wars of today, we are likely to see major changes in the configuration of our Armed Forces.

[NURSE]

Have to say I fundementaly disagree with the above analysis. Configuring an armed forces to fight COIN operations is a receipe for disaster as who says the next operation we get involved in will be COIN and trying to fight a medium intensity war with armed forces who are to lightly equipped would be disasterous.
I find it interesting that the argument is being put forward that we will only ever fight as a side show of the US. I seam to remember a certain John Nott beleivin we would only ever fight under the auspes of NATO before the Falklands were invaded.
I like his assertion about the Royal Artillery and 155mm I note the US and Canadians are deploying a light weight 155mm gun Designed by Vickers with great effect whilst we stick to the same light gun that went to the falklands in 82 and lacks punch and reach.
Now yes the argument about Typhoon vs S tucano is interesting could a super Tucano carry suficient weapons/fuel to have a viable loiter time and capability? didn't think so.
I

[airborne_artist]

The problem is that we need quite a lot of most things, and the training to use them well. Some surprising organisations have had to re-learn what they'd forgotten - like desert ops, which Hereford had forgotten before GW1, hence putting in foot patrols into the Iraqi desert, which was a disaster.

Setting up three or four squadrons just for COIN would take at least six years - maybe more.

But to be training for such a huge range of operational tasks, in all the different terrains takes lots of manpower - you don't turn mountain troops into jungle troops in a long weekend, aside from the variations in kit required.

If HMG wants the Services to be a global police force in addition to protecting our borders, interests and trade routes then they need to be prepared to pay for it, and right now that seems to be the last thing any politician is prepared to have an open discussion about.

[Wader2]

Have to say I fundementaly disagree with the above analysis. Configuring an armed forces to fight COIN operations is a receipe for disaster.

While Thomas is not the light blue's favorite love child, and his dad was a gunner, I would suggest that CGS desig and TH are not wrong. In the same paper, when asked what should be cut for economic recovery, 51% said defence. So much for AFD tomorrow.

Preparing for a future war with a limited budget is wholly unaffordable. The message to the Pentagon was clear: fight today's war, not one against some imaginary enemy of the future.

A counter argument to that was the UK in the 20s/30s where defence was neglected and a counter to that was in 1944-45. We fought to win the current war against Germany rather than ease up prepare for the Cold war that was to come.

While we managed to more or less catch up with successes like the Canberra and Hunter the US was able to field the B29/50 against the Lincoln. The F4 against the Sea Vixen and Javelin. The 707 against the Britannia and so on.

We should simply face up to realities. To say we need a Navy because we are an island nation and there is piracy in the Indian Ocean is a nonsense. As far as oil is concerned we are no more reliant on SLOC than any other European state. In this case we need a European Navy equipped with the right ships for SLOC protection and a CVS is not one of them.

As for Typhoon against Tucano:

Now yes the argument about Typhoon vs S tucano is interesting could a super Tucano carry suficient weapons/fuel to have a viable loiter time and capability? I didn't think so.

Tucano (cost £6 million) over the Eurofighter Typhoon (cost £65 million)

And the payload and endurance of one Typhoon compared with 10 Tucano? If One out of two Typhoons goes u/s you have lost 50% of your force. If one Tucano goes u/s you have lost 5%. OK, with 20 you may lose more than one but you would still have comfortably more than 50%.

Also, like the RN, you can only be in one place at one time with one aircraft, but with 10?

BTW, I had this argument with an Air Commodore 45 years ago when I was going for a PC :) and I lost then.

[cazatou]

Sorry - but I can't resist it.

What about a Turbo-Prop version of the DH Hornet?

Made from renewable resources (wood), range 2500 NM's, 4 x 20mm cannon + 2000lbs+ bombs or rockets.

Aaah de Havilland:ok:

[BEagle]

The RAF will not give up its attachment to strategic bombing

Really? I thought that particular 'capability' went on 'holiday' in late 1982.....

As pretty as the DH Hornet (aka 'termite queen') was, I thought that conventional wisdom favoured flat trajectory rockets for 'w*g bashing' (as it used to be termed in far-off non-PC days) rather than 20mm shells or conventional bombs.

Personally I'd like to see a few thermobaric weapons used to smear the inside of caves with a pinkish brown sludge.

[Wader2]

Browsing through Robert jackson's book Avro Vulcan, as one does, I chanced up on one Vulcan that had been used for 27mm cannon trials.

Now THAT would have been interesting.

A Canberra with 4x30 or Hunter even, but what could you put on a Vulcan? A four pack of A-10 cannon?:}

[minigundiplomat]

Some surprising organisations have had to re-learn what they'd forgotten - like desert ops, which Hereford had forgotten before GW1, hence putting in foot patrols into the Iraqi desert, which was a disaster.


Forgotten or ignored?

I was under the impression that B20 went on foot against the advice of the Sqn Cdr and RSM?

Either forgotten or ignored, it was a good example of failure to heed the past resulting in tragedy.

[cazatou]

BEagle

Sorry - 10 Demerits.

Hornets were deployed in FEAF from March 1951 until June 1955 (33 and 45 Sqns) and were used primarily for rocket strikes against terrorists - although they could alternatively carry 2000lbs of bombs. Their fixed weapon armament was 4x20mm cannon. With a range of 3,000 miles that would give them a reasonable loiter time n'est pas?

[Tiger16]

Gotta say - I expected better from Thomas Harding, who usually delivers balanced analysis. The theory that "old-fashioned wars between countries are unlikely" and consequently that counter-insurgency is all we'll ever do in future is based on spurious logic and b*gger-all evidence!

[Postman Plod]

You know, I'm fairly sure the 51% of people who think defence should be cut aren't actually thinking of defence in general terms. I think they're probably thinking in very specific terms, along the lines of "Why are we spending billions on a weapons system that we will NEVER use, when we have weapons systems that we ARE using that are woefully underfunded and under-resourced".... In other words getting rid of Trident in favour of conventional forces. That certainly IS one part of our defence budget that we will not use without the Americans, so why bother?!

[CirrusF]

We won WW2 didn't we, despite being "unprepared". We regained the Falklands also, despite being "unprepared".

The problem with trying to think too far into the future is that when we get it wrong, we end up with massively expensive high-tech "solutions" to a non-existent problem with are impossible to cut - eg Typhoon.

When we have reacted at the last minute to a need, used lots of improvisation and creativity, and have ended up with an excellent cost-effective solution - WW2 was full of examples.

If we had been "prepared" the RAF might have relied on squadrons of Gloster Gladiators - and the Spitfire and Hurricane might never have been developed with the same precipitation. Who would have won B of B?

More recently, there have been examples of reaction to current need which have produced excellent results - eg Sentinel (rapidly adapted from a civilian airframe), the DA42s now in Iraq, the new army vehicles now being deployed in Afghanistan, and I'm sure the RN has some ruggedised iPods on the way.

Might be worth giving some thought to improving response times in quick reaction procurement. There might be an argument that being prepared for quick-reaction procurement is the way to win future conflicts.

[althenick]

A few good points

- Do we really need a regiment of Guards to be present at buck palace?
- Do we really need a sqdn of Hawks dedicated to Air displays?
- Do we really need 2 dedicated Aircraft carriers when 2 more flexible LHD's would do the same job and more?
- Do we really need a major warship patroling the caribbiean for coke smugglers when a smaller and cheaper (PFI?) patrol craft would do?
- Do we require 232 Typhoons?
-Does the RN need JSF when a Harrier 2+ would probably do?

Also

Could Current platforms be cost effectively put to good use eg...

- Converting RN Jetstreams to take over some SAR duties that NImrod currently does?
- Tucano , as previously discussed. and hawk

Do we really need to buy equipment with bells on it when there are cheaper and just as effective products of the shelf?

Just some thoughts

ATN

[Wrathmonk]

althenick

Just to get the flaming going ....

Bullet 1 - Don't thinks it's a regiment! And if it is they still take their turn on the op deployment plot so no money saving to be had. I note you didn't question the need for QCS. Or the Kings Troop.

Bullet 2 - The Reds do more than Airshows - there is the broader UK plc for one (which begs the question, of course, is who pays ....). Again you don't question the need for BBMF or the fact that we still havw HMS Victory on the MOD books (I think but stand ready to be corrected). Again, peanuts when it comes to money saving.

Bullet 3 - Could do with one and take the 'risk' when it's in for it's 5-yearly refit.

Bullet 4 - Yes, because again it does more than just taking down drug runners. And not just the cockers-p circuit either. Think humanitarian relief. And doesn't it also hold a FI reinforcement commitment?

Bullet 5 - No. That's why the UK are no longer buying 232 (and haven't been for some whilse). Think its in the mid 120's (see here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5461255/RAF-chief-predicts-controversial-takeover-of-Royal-Naval-air-power.html)).

Bullet 6 - And lets dust off the Jaguars to replace the Tornado as well.

Bullet 7 - AAR for the long range / long endurance sorties could be sporty.

Bullet 8 - Could use the Tucano for the Reds. Personally, as a COIN platform I think they would not be a good idea. Too smaller weapon load and whilst you could have loads more that means more pilots. And they don't come cheap or (as soon as the outside market picks up) readily available.

What about Trident?

Trouble is in these 'short of cash' times in which we live every Service thinks they are the really important one be it fighting the current war, defending London from tennis balls in 2012, having a capability to defend the Falklands - the list is almost endless and written to justify the individual Chief's personal interests. What we really need is a proper Defence Review rather than just trying to change the covers on the deck chairs. Start with a blank bit of paper, define what is required of the Armed Forces and equip from there. Difficult when we are fighting a war granted.

[NURSE]

Point 1 Guards and Ceremonial. The ceremonial side is tradition for the army stretching back centuries something the RAF doesn't have so why do the RAF need QCS? There are 3 companies who's role is ceremonial from Gren Gds, Scots Gds and Coldm Gds plus the Household Cavalry mounted regiment and Kings troop. All soldiers allocated to thease units are fully trained soldiers who can be used as reinforcements for operational taskings note many of the men in fancy uniforms on Trooping the colour also were weaing campaign medals. It also allows the Guards to have spare troops that can take some of the pressures of consatant deployments allowing troops to recover from wounds/illness but still bing useful. They not only do the ceremonial bit but also alot of keeping the armed forces in the public eye with kings troop appearing at shows up and down the country doing the Musical ride and the musical ride of the Household Cavalry doing the same thing. The Bns rotate into the role and it gives them a break from ops.

Point 2. yes there is a need for the red arrows as has been stated and the BBMF. But the resources put into the individual aircraft display teams and role demonstrations could be much better used. I note the Fleet Air arm historic flight and I think the AAC historic flight pilots aren't fully assigned to those teams.

Point 3. without the carriers there is no reason to have JSF. There is an excellent LPH HMS ocean we could do with a second and some more modern helecopters to fly from it.

Point 4 the Carribean Guard ship does more than just chase drug runners it also provides support in Humanitarian disasters, Acts as guard ship to our dependant territories and is also a good recruiting and retention tool for overstretched sailors. we actually need more frigate and destroyer type ships in the RN as over the recent past the Navy has cut to far to buy favour with the treasury for the carriers (which I strongly suspect will be cancelled after the next election no matter who gets in) yes a corvette type vessel would be useful. But the Navy is currently renting opv's 4(including the FIOPV) that replaced 7 vessels. BTW sometimes the Carribean GS is an RFA

Point 5. Typhoon actually may soon be the only show in town if JSF is cut and Typhoon devlops into the full multirole aircraft its ment to be. If it does work why not get rid of the Tornado GR4.

point 6. JSF is ment to be replacing the whole harrier fleet not just the FAA. I would sugest if the carrier program goes then JSF will go as well. The Navy should have bought Harrier II airframes and built Sea Harrier FA2 round them instead of trying to to modernise the FRS1 but that point has been past.

Point 7 Nimrod provides alot more than SAR support why do you think its been orerating ver Afghanistan and Iraq some of its roles there will never be discussed. We actually could do with expanding the current buy of Nimrod.

Point 8. The Airbus tanker looks like it will be a great platform for AAR/transport how we are getting them is ridiculous we should have bout them outright from the start instead of PFI (Pay for it indefinitly). Ad it will be probably in service for 20-30 years. A400m on the other hand we should never have gone into and bought more C17's and C130J's

Tucano on the frontline Hmmmmm..... think this is a non starter though Hawk might be a better option if we're getting a dedicated COIN platform.

There are alot of programmes that we could have spent better and bought of the shelf Chinook HC3 being 1. I can't believe that the CVRT hasn't been replaced by a variant of The Mowag Piranah like the Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, Irish, Americans I could go on have done. When we buy of the shelf we seam to do OK things like Minimi and the 40mm GL its when we try and devlop kit that it goes wrong Bowman and SA80 being prime examples.

Yes the UK armed forces are short of cash having been starved of it and expected to do al manner of military adventures. We have had to waste huge sums of money on theatre spefic vehicles for thease operations which we will be stuck with and more general purpose items have been put on the Back Burner and will never now see full potential as the money need for them has already been spent on sticking plaster fixes to theatre specific problems.

[Wander00]

Today is asrmed Forces Day, boys and girls - our country does (may?) love us. And, with tongue firmly in cheek, Must (or could) Refurbish C....rras Again!

But yes, in all seriousness, maybe there should be an independat Defence Rview by something like a Royal Commission to establish objectives and match resourcing to them - there's original!

Wander00

[cazatou]

Just a thought after reading the last two posts.

Is the spellchecker not working or have we been celebrating Armed Forces Day "a little Forcefully"? :=

[Wander00]

I just come from the generation which never expected to be doing its own typing, and where I am spell checker works in Fench, which is not a lot of help!

Happy Armed Forces Day to all - when will the greetings card industry latch on to that idea!

Wander00

[NURSE]

Agreed we should be looking at 5th Generation aircraft. But the JSF and the carrier are tied up so closley together the Treasury will see getting rid of one means getting rid of the other. And unless the preformance of JSF is improved it should be reviewed.
Max hastings on question time stated programmes like trident and the carriers would have to be sacrificed to preserve the armed forces for the future and JSF and some other programs may have to go the same way for the same reason.
Agree there needs to be reviews and redundancies from the top heavy officer corps in all 3 services.
And yeap the budget is now to tight and there needs to be a united front to sort the mess out and unfortunatley this is going to mean pain for all 3 services.
However this pain should not be suffered if it means loosing the flexibility of the armed forces by reconfiguring it for only COIN warfare.
The problem is the politicised nature of the heads of the armed forces and the civil servants that run MOD. Coupled with short term planning ie planning to election cycles not for the long term.

[Wrathmonk]

Deliverance

It's raining here so little else to do. You're quote

How does it make sense that there are more Sqn Ldrs and above in the RAF than Flt Lts and below in the officer corps?

just didn't ring true. According to here (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/applications/newWeb/www/apps/publications/pubViewFile.php?content=90.18&date=2009-06-10&type=html&PublishTime=09:30:00) there are 4226 S/L and above and 5550 F/L and below.

Time to open the beers I think.

[Bunker Mentality]

Deliverance,

I think quite a few Ppruners would have some sympathy with your argument that the rank balance of the RAF is out of kilter. But you need to have a little more respect for the facts if you want to be taken seriously.

4226 is no more nearly 5550 than 75 is nearly 100.

And what about the Sqn Ldrs who are specialist aviators - or doctors, or dentists, or chaplains, etc? Many hold the rank more for pay purposes than because they will perform command/staff functions.

[Widger]

Nurse,

You cannot compare the capability of HMS Ocean with CVF. The two are worlds apart. Also CVF is NOT reliant on F35/Dave/JCA/JSF. There are a whole host of other platforms that could operate of HMS QE and POW. The ships have been designed to have a flexible existence over a 50 year, yes 50 YEAR operational life. They will be the first platforms capable of operating Osprey, the first to be able to put Chinook into the hangar with the blades on etc etc and may well be operating UAVs in years to come. They will be a complete step change from CVS and LPH and far more capable than either. If you want a floating barrack block, the Ocean is the platform for you, if you want a strike asset, with the Int, C2 and other support elements in your golf bag, the CVF is the way ahead. Even if Dave gets canned, CVF will happen. It will be a shame if Dave does get canned, as mentioned earlier, it is a 5th generation aircraft These aircraft are notable mostly for employing advanced integrated avionics systems, and feature other new technologies such as stealth technology, supercruise, thrust vectoring, advances in sensors, and VTOL.[1]
The advanced integrated avionics systems reduces the workload for pilots. This combined with advances in sensors allows them to observe the battle space more effectively (increasing situation awareness). Stealth technology reduces aircraft visibility to enemies. From WIKI.


Just wanted to clear up that area of mis-information. All the other issues about prioritisation of effort and money are for the wider debate. One of the most worrying comments is of canning Nuclear submarines. Whilst you can debate the utility of Trident, Nuclear attack submarines however, bring a whole host of benefits, most of which cannot be talked about in fora such as these. This is the difficulty, because you cannot openly debate the asset, it is easy for others to say the capability is worthless. Up until Iraqistan, those people with the most medals generally had dolphins on their chests.
:ok::ok::ok:

[NURSE]

widger
I know the 2 are worlds apart and I'm not trying to compare the 2 however. I would sugest the navy and airforce start planning a post cancelation stratagey as it looks increasingly likley thats what will happen. Not because the need for them has disappeared but the country can't afford them and maintain a realistic armed forces.

[CirrusF]

It will be a shame if Dave does get canned, as mentioned earlier, it is a 5th generation aircraft


This illustrates the weakness of the current mindset.

I happened to read the largely inglorious Typhoon definition on Wikipedia last night - this quote particularly struck me:


In 2005, a trainer Eurofighter T1 was reported to have had a chance encounter the previous year with two U.S. Air Force F-15Es over the Lake District in the north of England. The encounter became a mock dogfight with the Eurofighter allegedly emerging victorious.[103] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-102)[104] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-103)[verification needed (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability)]
In the 2005 Singapore evaluation, the Typhoon won all three combat tests, including one in which a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F-16s, and reliably completed all planned flight tests.[105] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-104)[106] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-105)[verification needed (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability)] Singapore still went on to buy the F-15 due to uncertainty over Typhoon tranche 2 delivery dates.
During the exercise "Typhoon Meet" held in 2008, Eurofighters flew against F/A-18 Hornets, Mirage F1s, Harriers and F-16s in a mock combat exercise. It is claimed that the Eurofighters won all engagements (even outnumbered 8 vs 27) without suffering losses.[107] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-106)[108] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-107)
The aviation magazine "Flug Revue" reports that in 2008 German Typhoon were pitted against French Rafales. The results are said to be "extremely gratifying", the main difference being the "much greater thrust of the EJ200 engine". [109] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-108)


Great, but so ******** what?

[Widger]

Nurse,

I am not sure what your agenda is. None of your other options make any sense, you seem to be advocating a very much reduced and less capable Royal Navy. We are not the Norwegians, we are not the Omanis, we are a maritime nation with global economic interests.

On the subject of CVF, the money is allocated, most of it is spent already, large elements of the ships are already being built and many thousands of ordinary workers jobs across the UK depend on this work. It is peoples lives, mortgages etc that depend on these ships and their support.

Yes the country is bankrupt but, I am an advocate of pulling the country out of recession with large civil engineering projects, which will provide jobs and security. We should be building tunnels, railways, bridges, ships, aircraft, rockets etc etc. Manufacturing and production - not investment banking.

JCA/F35/Dave/Lightning could well be at risk as the money is not yet spent, just like several other areas of procurement but I would contest, that the ship is more important than the aircraft that flies off it, although Dave comes a very, very close second. I am sure I will be flamed for uttering such heresy, but it is in the light of certain persons advocating scrapping the GR7/7A/9, one the most useful aircraft in our current inventory.

[Widger]

Deliverance,

That's not my point. My point is that nothing is sacred, including Dave and there has been limited expenditure on it at this time.

[NURSE]

Widger I think we could be looking at a very much reduced armed forces in terms of both people and equipment and some of the equipment not being as capable as hoped.
The forecasts by the likes of the OECD paint a fairly bleak economic picture for the UK and the current govt is trying to spin its way out of trouble till the election when they will be out on their ear. I suspect the next govt will find the state of the countries finances are worse than they imagined and at that point I suspect the UK armed forces will have to scale back its wish list for a few years to come.
I hope I am wrong as I am accutely aware of how much the navy needs the carriers as the centre of the new Royal navy and both the FAA and RAF need JSF however I am suspecting that both services are going to be disappointed.

[minigundiplomat]

Widger I think we could be looking at a very much reduced armed forces in terms of both people and equipment and some of the equipment not being as capable as hoped.



Equipment- Probably.

People- Can only be cut if commitments are trimmed also.We are as lean as it gets manpower wise.

This recession will not last forever, even the MOD know this and the last thing they want is a mass exodus whilst trying to meet stated commitments.

Equipment and procurement will be mercilessly slashed, but it would not surprise me if manpower was left as is, or even raised in some areas.

However, if our commitment to Afghanistan ends, all bets are off!

[VinRouge]

This recession will not last forever, even the MOD know this and the last thing they want is a mass exodus whilst trying to meet stated commitments.

How long will it last?

I will be surprised to see any form of 'growth' (personally I see this as GDP greater than inflation by at least 1%) for the next decade. That is a LONG time to wait for all those defence projects we need. The only thing I can see changing in the medium term are our overseas commitments. UK defence force here we come...

[minigundiplomat]

The economy should start to grow from early 2011. Forget next year, though contraction will slow down over the course of the year.

2011 will see a small rise in GDP early on, leading to modest growth later in the year as the housing market, retail and manufacturing follow in it's wake.

However, public services are running about 18 months behind the private sector, meaning at the depth of public service 'recession', and in the midst of Tory spending cuts, people will be tempted into the private sector as they begin to recruit again.

(Thus returning some of those employed in the public sector to the role of wealth creator, rather than Zanu Labours efforts to employ the entire UK population in the public sector).

All will be ok, but it's 18 months away as I see it.

[Bunker Mentality]

That says it all really. HMG currently wants us to do more than they are prepared to pay for. Sec Def after Sec Def has shirked the hard decisions required to balance the books, with the result that we are just sinking deeper and deeper into the mire. Planning round follows planning round with no time to draw breath. Because too little was cut last year (and the year before, and the year before that) Defence's financial position just gets worse and worse. The only way to clear the log jam is to have Defence Review.

Will it happen? Not before the next election.

[Beatriz Fontana]

Bunker, I've said it before on this forum - SDR 2010 after the next election. It'll happen without a doubt. Hopefully the authors will be sensible and instead of focusing upon purely Afghanistan-type ops (thereby cutting the Type 45s, carriers and most of the RAF) and being thoughtful on emerging threats.

But being blunt about it, UK PLC hasn't got any money in the bank. We can't afford the Armed Forces we need, but it doesn't help having a single service Chiefs' bunfight every time someone mentions cuts.

[jim2673]

Easy way to save money:

1.CEA...Severe tightening of entitlement rules.. I.E you need to be posted out of any instead of just being eligeable, OR complete stopping

2. Flying Pay...Only paid on days flown. No reserve rate for those driving desks.

3. Complete review of higher/lower pay band and realignment so that only those trades that truely deserve to be in the higher band actually are.

[VinRouge]

2. Flying Pay...Only paid on days flown. No reserve rate for those driving desks.Jim, if they contemplate that, I will take myself and my training abroad. So will many others. Quite simply, they couldnt afford the massive loss of experience. If they were willing to change my employment terms like that, I would be quite happy to see them in court after I give in my 1 months notice.

MGD,

viewing here:

A Second Mortgage Disaster On The Horizon? - 60 Minutes - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/12/60minutes/main4666112.shtml)

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2008/Option-ARM-Reset-Schedule.png


This will be worse than subprime. (these were above sub-prime in their status yet they are already hitting 60% default rate in the USA).

you can dream on about a 2011 recovery. We will still be going through the worst of it then. Further bank write downs, with higher interest rates (otherwise gilt buyers will be going on strike) and increasing taxation (debt servicing is costing Circa over 100% of the defence budget per annum, S&P are estimating government debt is due to quadruple over the next 20 years) is going to kill any rapid recovery. Its going to be long, painful and drawn out.. And defence will not be exactly benefitting from any of this. Even with a Conservative government. The last 10 years were about having a free lunch on the plastic. The next 10 will be about paying our debt hangover.

[Not_a_boffin]

Perhaps another avenue to focus on is the apparent belief that only capital spending should be cut in any forthcoming spending review. Time and again you hear figures along the lines of "£20BN to be saved (or 10% of government spending)".

Last time I looked, government spending was marginally south of £600BN pa - the difference of course being the resource budget. Seems to me that one of the reasons defence is always being held up for cuts (apart from Cyclops & his ilk despising the Forces) is that it is capital intensive. Call me simplistic, but surely you can't ring-fence 2/3 of total spend at the expense of desperately needed equipment that will be around for 20-50 yrs? I realise that huge chunks of the resource budget are salaries etc, but once you've paid HMAF, plus "doctors, nurses & hospital staff, teachers" etc, where's the rest?

[VinRouge]

But why spend on procurement when you know you arent going to be around past the next election and the electorate dont even see results? Why pay for a400M for example when the cash could go on employing a few extra public sector workers or pay for a million hip replacements?

Thats the fickle reality we face. The other reality is government spending across ALL departments will be cut. If those in the NHS think they can be smug, just wait till the next election. IMO, it will be one of the biggest recipients of future government cuts, together with expenditure on Department for Work and Pensions.

[Bunker Mentality]

Beatriz, I think we are in danger of violent agreement. The question is, what are we going to stop doing that we are doing now? The constant salami slicing of uninterrupted planning rounds means that, by the time we get to a Defence Review, decisions on procurement will have been taken that will turn out to be completely at odds with what the Review identifies as the priorities.

[Beatriz Fontana]

Bunker, yep, agreed. The steel has already been cut on the carriers and the last remaining T45s. But as my ancient mariner dad said only a month ago, that doesn't mean a finished ship would never go to sea. It happened in the 1950s when the WW2-mentality procurement was outdated by the Cold War.

And the UK has a good record of expensive mistakes. Nimrod AEW Mk3 for a start.

I love the smell of mothballs in the morning :}

Defence procurement need complete reform. It needs a proper process run by people who know what they're doing - not people who are in Bristol counting the days til they move on - and who can run proper procurement projects that remain on time and on budget.

Any system that allows the armed forces to be handed a ship that isn't actually finished and fully kitted out needs ripping out and starting again.

Rant mode off.

[minigundiplomat]

Vin Rouge,

I stand by my forecast, the darkest hour is always before dawn. I agree there is more to come, but I think the damage will be limited to a few institutions that have over-reached themselves. I do think some will be allowed to fail this time around. (And I'll have long gone from both the RAF and UK by then....)

Jim Lad,

I'm sure you are an excellent civil servant, but if they offered to pay you £50 a month, you would leave. You would leave because you'd feel your skills are worth more than that and are saleable at a higher price.

Imagine cutting Flying Pay on top of reduced manpower and high-tempo ops. Who's going to fly the helicopters, transport and CAS fleet when all the aircrew poke off to the Middle East, Aus, Can or NZ?

Trust me, if the MOD doesn't value it's aircrew appropriately, someone else will! The UK, apart from maybe the US and Germany is deeper in the dwang than anyone else. For those looking in, that means bargains on highly qualified personnel.

Lateral recruitment has reopened for the RAAF, the Canadians are desperate for Chinook experience, and the UAE are always in the market for ex-UK forces.

These are not telesales or admin assistants. These people take years to replace, and the experience takes even longer to build to the current (already diluted) levels.

Not A Boffin,

Part of the reason for the gaps can be found in yesterdays Telegraph. The UK is now paying out more in Welfare payments than it recieves in Income Tax for the first time.

[Widger]

Easy way to save money:

1.CEA...Severe tightening of entitlement rules.. I.E you need to be posted out of any instead of just being eligeable, OR complete stopping

2. Flying Pay...Only paid on days flown. No reserve rate for those driving desks.

3. Complete review of higher/lower pay band and realignment so that only those trades that truely deserve to be in the higher band actually are.
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Are you freaking mad.....don't have a go at the last few retention positive aspects and no, I do not receive any of them! Minigundiplomat has hit the nail on the head.

Part of the reason for the gaps can be found in yesterdays Telegraph. The UK is now paying out more in Welfare payments than it recieves in Income Tax for the first time.

In 2008/09, gross income tax receipts were £152.5 billion. In the same year, social security benefits cost the Exchequer £150.1 billion.

£150.1 billion !!!!!!!!!!! against £36.9 (2010/11) for defence. That is where the real culprit is.

Whilst I have sympathy with the unemployed, there is nothing better than no income to concentrate the mind on getting a job. There is ample evidence of aversion to manual labour in this country (vegetable picking an example).

Legal aid, income support, jobseekers allowance, incapacity benefit for being too fat! etc etc and lets not get onto the NHS. Whilst it is a magnificent concept, it was supposed to be access to medical help for all, not access to the best and most advanced medicines and medical care for all.

This is where the next Government needs to concentrate. Generate industry with large civil engineering projects, including Defence, get the country working and get the slackers off the dole.

Just for the record, I grew up on a council estate, my child benefit was spent on Bingo by my guardian, I washed windows in the snow and worked in pubs for income and have never received a day of unemployment benefit or whatever it is called these days. (you tell today's kids that and...)

My only ring fence would be children and the elderly. They must be fed, clothed, educated and given proper medical and dental care.


Tin hat on!
:ok::ok::ok:

[Jackonicko]

Non means-tested, universal child benefit?

Electorally popular, but justifiable?

Many of the parents at the private school where my wife teaches use it for riding lessons and the like.

[Not_a_boffin]

MGD

My point exactly. Pretty much 4-5 times the annual defence budget on "welfare", or more like 12 times the ESP budget. Got to be more scope for savings there in a rational world, you'd think. Oops, time for the medicine.......

[NURSE]

Those of us in the NHS are facing cuts already never mind in the future! our departmental budget this year has shrunk and our expected patient turnover has increased. Fine not a problem as long as we have the resources and staff to do this. The NHS could save millions if not billions by having a front line first type review and getting rid of the Management consultants and layers of management. In the same way the armed forces have had to go through over the last few years. I do wonder how much could be saved if the "Trusts" systems was abandoned and all the corperate identity stuff which must cost a fortune to design, print, create etc? How much cheaper if we had common uniforms and paperwork instead of the individual trust uniforms?
Realisticly and rationally to sort the Defecit of the country all govt depertments will feel some pain. Unfortunatley the Mod has been under this pressure for to long and the cuts will mean real loss of capability which is crazy.

[andyy]

Found this on a trawl through the web:

Government Spending in Real Terms
2000-01 2007-08
Social security benefits 121,000 (27.9%) 133,882 (24%)
Health 52,000 (12%) 89,673 (16%)
Education 16,786 (3.9%) 57,846 (10.4%)
Local Government 33,000 (7.6%) 22,000 (3.9%)
Defense 32,183 (7.4%) 32,831 (5.9%)
Home Office 10,423 (2.4%) 13,571 (2.4%)
Scotland 15,018 (3.5%) 23,510 (4.2%)
Wales 7,885 (1.8%) 12,481 (2.2%)
International Development 2,819 (0.5%) 4,637 (0.8%)

Total Government Expenditure 433,161 557,400m

Social Security includes:
• Unemployment benefit
• Housing Benefit
• Child support
• Pensions
• Income support
• Sickness benefit

[BEagle]

So defence spending has gone down 20.2% (5.9/7.4) and spending on Jockistan has gone up by 20% (4.2/3.5)......??

:hmm:

No doubt Comrade Pr00ne will be along soon to tell us that nuLabor has actually increased defence spending though.

[minigundiplomat]

Increases for LFA7 & 14?

Ah, that will be for the Welsh Parliament that 25% of them voted for. 3 fold increase in education but the poor blighters seem worse than ever. With Comrade Balls at the helm (if anyone was ever appropriately named- it's him) I can't say I'm suprised. He makes feel a little sick in my mouth.

[pr00ne]

BEagle,

Yawn....................

If you could count Beags then you would be well aware that the £22bn budget of the Tories in 1997 was in fact a tad smaller than the £36bn of Labour in 2009.
If you want to find REAL large cuts in Defence expenditure go look at 1957, 1989, 1992 and 1994. Who was in power then?

Does 'Defence Costs Study' or 'Front Line First' ring any bells? How about "NO more manned combat aircraft" or privatisation, civilianisation and contractorisation?

All gleams in the eye of a Tory Prime Minister and Defence Minister.

[BEagle]

So what happened to your boast that under nuLabor the UK was getting an 'increase in real terms' in defence spending?

Anyway, this bunch of charlatans and champagne socialists' days are surely numbered.......

[jim2673]

Good bye.....if that's the way you feel. Much like the senior officers in "Nero building" who never fought for flying maintainers to be paid on a continuous basis.

Guess what who's now got no Flying maintainers......Turkeys Christmas i think.

As for CEA just how many people do i know that have done the YVL/Abbeywood/DES YVL route and never been "out of area" and continue to pay for their kids to go to Private schools.

Tough times call for tough decisions.....If lfe will be deemed to be unbearable with no F/P then you don't deserve to wear the uniform.:ok:

[Jumping_Jack]

I'm not sure why there is such a fixation on CEA....the amount spent on CEA is absolute peanuts compared with the figures that need to be saved, tinkering in the margins simply won't do it. And no, I don't claim CEA.

[Biggus]

I once heard that in the 50s a NATO nation paid its aircrew flying pay on the basis of how many flying hours they achieved each month. It sounds like a good idea, fair, practical, etc....

What actually happened?

The aircrew stayed airborne as long as possible on each sortie, using diversion fuel, etc, and landing on fumes, all to maximize their flying pay. When the nation in question starting losing aircraft on the basis of engines flaming out they decided to re-examine the cost effectiveness of their policy.

As to adopting policies that may make people leave - there is a fine line to tread. On the one hand you can't be held to ransom, but on the other, to deliberately introduce a policy, or remove a current one, that will result in experienced people (who can cost several million pounds each to replace) leaving needs to questioned. Cost effectiveness is the name of the game. How many people does an unpopular policy have to force out before any savings made are outweighed by the costs of replacing those who leave....

[jim2673]

Funny how the people normally stating that loss of FP will see them leave are SO2/3 ranks. Guess £140 a day 52/7 or £51K a year is not enough for their "oh so" valuable service.:)

[VinRouge]

My solution Jim, would be to sack Civil Servants. Lots and lots of them.

They add very little value to the armed forces and cover roles that are handles by junior officers as a secondary duty. Do we get paid extra for doing this work? Do we heck. We just get on with it.


you also forget we have a massive retention issue regarding SO2/SO3. And I am neither.

Climb back under your bridge.

[pr00ne]

BEagle,

It did, you really CAN'T count can you?

All I ever argued on this board was that defence was not suffering huge CUTS in actual expenditure, as was constantly and inaccurately claimed. The increases, for such they are, may well not be enough and the money very badly spent and managed, but they were increases in actual expenditure.

Why can't we, with the third largest defence budget on the planet, sustain and properly equip a force of 8000 in Afghanistan?

[NURSE]

reducing LOA might be a great idea by bringing the remaining army units back from Germany. Or wil we need them there for the Euro army advocated by the IPPR study being promoted by the BBC?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

As Biggus says, the MOD should be wary of anything that causes valuable personnel to leave.

Here's another Telegraph article: Cutting Britain's defence budget to pay other bills is a false economy (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/benedict-brogan/5713990/Cutting-Britains-defence-budget-to-pay-other-bills-is-a-false-economy.html)

A free people, George Washington said, must be constantly awake against the insidious wiles of foreign influence. At any moment, from any quarter, trouble may pounce to put the sovereignty of the nation under threat. Defending the realm demands eternal vigilance.

Yet in this particular kingdom we are nodding off, distracted by the agonies of a financial crisis and the positioning of leaders vying for power. A time of great uncertainty abroad is met by political indifference at home.

Climate change and resource shortages, to cyber-warfare and disorderly states, to Islamist terrorism and international criminal networks, the dangers are multiplying. And then there are the unknown unknowns, the things we don't know that we don't know that kept Donald Rumsfeld up at night. Thirty years from now, who is to say that Russia will not have reverted to its expansionist ways, or that a nuclear-armed Caliphate of Waziristan will not be parked where Pakistan used to be?

Which is what makes British foreign policy, and our capacity to implement it, such a vital part of what a government does. It remains essential to us that our diplomatic effort be played out in the international premier league.

Only the other day, I was talking to a former US Naval Aviator who said....

No money = No toys and it doesn’t matter how much anybody screams. And I’m sorry if this sounds arrogant but if you aren’t bringing something real to a coalition, then at the military level you aren’t worth listening to. That said, I really think that the British have a viewpoint that the Americans need to hear at times.

I think this underlines the value of CVF. This was in the context of naval aviation issues post Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98152).

On a naval theme, this Proceedings Story (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/story.asp?STORY_ID=1808) from the US Naval Institute asked the heads of various Navies what they see as the main challenges they face. There are responses from the heads of the Navies of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Columbia, Croatia, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and finally, the UK.

Our own First Sea Lord comments: The most significant maritime security threat facing the United Kingdom is the complacency that flows from ignorance about the importance of the sea. Sea blindness is endemic in the UK and across the western world and leads to a lack of appreciation of the full extent of maritime threats to global security, which could be allowed to develop if unchecked. These threats range from the expansionist policies of emerging nation states to the criminal activities of pirates and people traffickers.

If anyone is still reading this, this video (from YouTube) about the Canadian naval part of the war on terror (sic) reflects the activities of all the Western Navies - including the RN.

Operation Apollo: part one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQRaUg7cHcE&feature=related)

[minigundiplomat]

If anyone is still reading this,


No. Going from the value of people to justifying 2 new carriers may be perfectly valid, but it happened in too much of a blur for me.

[Bunker Mentality]

This 'one carrier' proposition is rubbish. We should either do the job properly, or get out of the business altogether. It's a shame the ships have already been named. I don't think there's been an 'HMS Token' in the fleet before.

On the other hand, perhaps we could apply the same logic to the Deterrent? We only need one sub, really. After all, we will always have enough Int and the political will to prepare it and to put it to sea when needed, wont we? :ugh:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Here's a link to another article (well, actually a page with a PDF link) from Chatham House:

National Defence in the Age of Austerity (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/ia/archive/view/-/id/2398/)

Preparations for the next UK defence review are under way; a struggle is imminent and the lines of battle are being drawn. There is a grave danger that in the new 'age of austerity' defence planning-and strategy generally-will be driven by tribal conflicts, either between supporters of one or other of the armed services or between contending viewpoints about the nature of conflict. And there will be others who will argue that the defence review should be driven simply by the need to reduce government expenditure, as quickly as possible.

These arguments not only reduce the defence debate to a struggle between various incompatible and uncompromising tribal beliefs-'war among the fetishes', perhaps-they also miss the point.

This article gauges the extent of the economic challenges which the UK defence establishment will confront over the coming decade. The authors consider how best to approach the problem of undiminished (and even expanding) commitments at a time of decreasing resources. They argue that defence planning should be driven by the notion of value (the ratio of function to cost), which in turn requires both a clear national political vision and a defence establishment which is output- rather than input-oriented. Finally, the authors assert that defence must transform itself to be able to achieve the outputs required in the most efficient and responsive manner.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Several pages ago we covered the topic of piracy. In fact it was mentioned a number of times - and indeed had at least one thread dedicated to it here and one on Jet Blast. The view taken by some was that anti piracy operations are politically motivated - and unlikely to be sucessful. However:

Piracy Decline A Fact (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/01/piracy-decline-a-fact/) - Washington Times

A year after Somali pirates grabbed headlines with a series of high-profile hijackings in East African waters, piracy appears to be waning. In the past three months, there has been just one successful hijacking in the Somali Basin, a swath of ocean stretching from the Gulf of Aden into the Indian Ocean that is criss-crossed by tens of thousands of commercial vessels each month. There were 17 hijackings In the comparable period last year.

"It's a fact," Royal Navy Commodore Steve Chick said of piracy's decline. Commodore Chick heads a force of five NATO warships, including the Donald Cook, a Virginia-based U.S. Navy destroyer that deployed to Africa in July for six months.

In an interview Sept. 24, Commodore Chick cited better ship self-protection, effective military patrols and improved security on land in Somalia as the major reasons driving down hijackings.

He said merchant crews are taking better self-protection measures, including sailing faster and stringing barbed wire on their ships' railings to thwart boarders. Many merchant ships also use fire hoses to blast pirates off their ladders during any attempted hijacking. The U.S. Coast Guard regularly publishes the latest methods for merchant ship self-defense.

Commodore Chick also said military vessels sent by many nations to battle piracy are doing a better job working together. After a year of buildup, about 40 warships from more than a dozen nations are patrolling the Somali Basin. Most of them belong to three large flotillas - one each from NATO, the European Union and the U.S.-led Combined Task Force 151.

There are also Maritime Patrol Aircraft involved, and of course ships' own helicopters. More on anti piracy operations from War Is Boring here (http://warisboring.com/?cat=101).

Talking of ships' helicopters - HMS Iron Duke recently captured a large shipment of Cocaine (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-events/rn-live/all-news/drug-smugglers-hit-by-royal-navy-in-massive-cocaine-seizure/*/changeNav/6568) in the Carribean. Here (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-events/rn-live/all-news/drug-smugglers-hit-by-royal-navy-in-massive-cocaine-seizure/254557/*/changeNav/6568) is a video of her Lynx shooting up the druggie boat with her .50 Cal. I understand she then sank the druggie vessel with a few 4.5 inch shells. Nice.

On the MOD and RN websites (and a few media ones)there is footage of various captured drug boats and pirate skiffs etc being engaged by gunfire - GPMG, Mingun, 20 and 30mm, .50 Cal and now 4.5 inch. This has got to be a deterrent. I remember seeing a programme on BBC2 anout the US investigation into the East Africa bombings, and one FBI (I think) investigator related how a would be suicide bomber was deterred by strong embassy security as (in his mind) an attack against this level of defence would simply be suicide, with little chance of a sucessful attack. The level of close range firepower aboard surface warships now, and RFAs, and the escorting by naval units of high value seaborne logistics, should be a deterrent to potential terrorists.

One of the reasons maritime terrorism hasn't been more of a problem is that Al Qaeda have not had a secure shoreline to use as a base. The drugs barons in Columbia have secret workshops and yards in areas they control that they have used to build drug boats, and even submersibles. The LTTE Sea Tigers in Sri Lanka used rebel areas to build various attack craft, and they were trying to build mini submarines for suicide attacks. Fortunately, Al Qaeda have not had coastal areas under their control.

That might not always be the case. The EU aid chief has warned on the risk of Somalia becoming the next Afghanistan (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/SNAA-7W78C4?OpenDocument&rc=1&cc=som).

2="We are in a very, very difficult situation. But we cannot leave Somalia to the extremists. There is an al Qaeda influence in Somalia ... which is growing, seeking a foothold and we have to stop them somewhere," European Union Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid Karel De Gucht told Reuters after meeting with U.N. diplomats and officials.

"If we let this happen, then the next question is what is the next country. We have to be resilient and to stand firm. It is extremely difficult, risky, but we have no choice."

There is also insurgency in Yemen. A vary large percentage of world shipping passes between the two. There may be trouble ahead.....

[WE Branch Fanatic]

At the start of a new decade, we appear to live in interesting times (which makes me think of the Chinese curse).

The UK economy has been ruined by short termism and obsession with simple statistical measures, as has much else. Has the target culture in the NHS, or the Police, or the education system, really produced better results? For those involved with defence, short termism is everywhere. I cannot resist mentioning how absurd I think it is that the new carriers are being delayed so save a few quid in the immediate future but it will drive the overall build cost up considerably. There are numerous other examples of this type of policy making.

We have had a decade of presentation and no substance, dancing while the city burns. Will this year, or this decade, be any better?

The current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have led many in the media, and the public, and most worryingly politics, to conclude that future conflicts will be both land centric and against opponents without a credible navy or air force. Is this not a case of preparing the fight the last (ie current) war?

After Afghanistan, just about every other nation has a coastline. After Saddam era Iraq, other nations will not have had economics sanctions and arms blockade, and no fly zones for over ten years. We ignore that at our peril. Have a look at Iraq's Eastern neighbour. Over a thousand miles of coast (not including the Caspian), a large air force, and a navy that includes submarines of various sorts. The Revolutionary Guards also have naval and air forces. Large sums have been spent on sophisticated SAMs and modern fighter aircraft. Likewise North Korea is also a nation that is neither land locked nor has it been subjects of sanctions preventing it from obtaining arms.

The public seem to have concluded that there is no need for frigates, submarines, fighter aircraft, AWACS, to name but a few - ignoring the fact that all of these have been busy. I believe/fear that the next few years will show how dangerous these assumptions are.

Even without an enemy with advanced weapons, the assumption that everything will always be land centric may get us into trouble. There has been a lot written lately of insurgency in Somalia, a coastal state. Across the Gulf of Aden, Yemen also has an Islamist insurgency. Both of these would introduce new maritime aspects to the fight against terror. If they happened simultaneously it would cause real problems for shipping - including that carrying supplies for NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Also we forget certain potential terrorist threats at our peril. A terrorist flying an aircraft full of explosives is not a MiG, but personally I'd prefer a fighter to shoot him down, or (at sea) a ship with an appropriate missile system. What if terrorists acquired not only SAMs and anti armour weapons, but anti ship missile, as Hezbollah has already demonstrated. What about a dhow packed with explosives heading towards the Iraqi oil platforms or a ship full of NATO supplies, heading for a Pakistani port? The way to deal with this sort of attack is for an escorting warship to sink it with gunfire (or Sea Skua), or an on call strike aircraft to take it out.

In a few months time we will be having a general election. Does the thought of new Government excite me? Well, no, to be honest. I fear that a short sighted defence review will follow - analogous to Nott's 1981 defence review.

Public support for the Armed Forces is higher than it has been for years. Is public understanding also increasing? I don't think so. Does the public understand that the RN and RAF are fighting services in their own right, and need to be, and not simply support arms for the Army?

Also see this Telegraph article by Sir Malcom Rifkind: Britain must be prepared to defend its place in the world (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6921966/Britain-must-be-prepared-to-defend-its-place-in-the-world.html)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

We have another general election coming up. A new Government?

I recently heard a senior RN Officer comment that the decisions being made will affect the destiny of the UK for decades to come. Not a time for short term cuts, I would suggest.

From Time magazine: Defense of the Realm: Britain's Armed Forces Crisis (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1978680-1,00.htm)

This is sobering.

[BillHicksRules]

Let's hope we get a government with the balls to scrap the RN's SSBN boondoggle fleet.

It is not as if £100Bn+ could not be used to better effect elsewhere in the UKG budget!!!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

More interesting/sobering stuff to consider: Defence Management Journal: Getting the Budget Balance Right (http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=13818)

The official line is that this is not, as is often suggested, a matter of where the balance of investment should lie between the services. Rather this is about ensuring the UK achieves a balance, across all three services and with allies, between its ability to fight a traditional war of air, maritime and ground kinetic manoeuvre while being able to conduct a far more difficult one amongst, with and for the people of Afghanistan. Few would argue that the UK must find the vision and the resources needed to move away from being prepared to take on the USSR in central Europe and towards being prepared for new security challenges in an increasingly uncertain world. This should be the aim of the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review (SDR) in the next parliament, and this rebalancing could result in more ships, armoured vehicles and aircraft not less, even though they might not necessarily be those the MoD currently plans on. But in making cuts and realigning the order books before the SDR, the MoD could be accused of putting the cart before the horse. Britain needs to make some serious decisions about its place in the world, after which it must make hard choices about how it wants to project power overseas and withinwhich cooperative frameworks. There is a default position within Whitehall that Britons will not want to take themselves to the margin of world affairs, but is this true in 2010? Foreign secretaries and senior mandarins might prefer an activist foreign policy and a desire to be engaged in the world, but does that resonate with those who stand respectfully for the hearses moving slowly through Wootton Bassett? And if the UK continues to punch above its weight, how best should it project military power in the future?

The forthcoming SDR must assess how the UK should adjust its force structure so that it can properly sustain whatever operations it conducts in the field. Then Whitehall must work much harder to extract better value from its international alliances. The UK wants to be Washington's main military ally in the world, but the initial Chinook HC3 fiasco showed that MoD is not very savvy in deriving value for money from its close relationship with the mighty American military machine.

There are also questions about Britain and its European allies. If the French and British agree on a procurement issue, the rest of Europe tends to fall in line. The UK and France must work much harder to avoid duplication in defence procurement. When it comes to operational matters, does the UK need two new aircraft carriers alongside France's one? Do both need wholly separate, independently procured nuclear deterrents?

Ainsworth's latest refocused shopping list amounted to a mini-review in favour of the army, which expects to be fighting the Taliban for several more years, at the expense of the navy and the air force. The British Army is winning the latest battle for the budget but such eriodic rebalancing must not disguise the fact that the UK needs to pay for its defence more efficiently. Since the last SDR in 1998, the MoD has consistently failed to adhere to its planning assumptions. In addition, just as consistently, the MoD bust its budget on equipment, leaving a financial black hole that invariably had to be filled by piecemeal cuts or delays in programmes, which, just as invariably, incurred long-term costs.

The next SDR is unlikely to be completed until well into 2011, but there must be far more coherence to British defence strategy and discipline throughout the MoD budgetary process in the second decade of the 21st Century than there was in the first.

I like the comment that there is nothing more expensive than the Treasury saving money. As for a new Government, I wonder if having a system where one party is in power for three or four terms is such a good thing as it means an incoming Government has no experience.

Going back to my earlier comment that assymetric may involve opponents with access to advanced weaponry - perhaps we should now add Scud type missiles to things some Governments will supply to their proxies - see here (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/04/syria-damascus-denies-spurious-missile-allegations.html).

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Watching the debate between the leaders of the three main political parties last night I noticed that Gordon Brown did talk about future terrorist threats from Yemen and Somalia. Nick Clegg proposed axing/limiting the future nuclear deterrent to help pay for today's conflicts, whilst another Lib Dem was proposing a nuclear free world, at least until some dictator gets hold of them and there is nothing to deter him. Not sure what David Cameron said.

In the Telegraph there is an comment type article by Con Coughlin:

Britain needs the Navy to provide firepower – not a ferry service (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/7622424/Britain-needs-the-Navy-to-provide-firepower-not-a-ferry-service.html)

But even if it appears that the Navy has seen better days, it still has a crucial role to play – a factor that will need to be given serious consideration when the next government begins the long-overdue defence review. Just because most of our military effort today is focused on fighting a war in a landlocked country does not mean that the wars of the future will be fought in similar circumstances. Prior to the September 11 attacks, one of our most successful overseas interventions was in Sierra Leone. The aircraft carrier Illustrious made a crucial contribution: with its Harrier jets providing vital air cover for the Paras fighting on the ground. The carrier's presence also allowed helicopters to fly troops and supplies to and from the combat zone.

Sierra Leone could provide the model for future operations, where the three Services pool whatever resources are needed. Certainly, the need for greater flexibility is likely to increase after the general election, as none of the three main parties appears to have an appetite for committing to the type of open-ended intervention we have seen in Afghanistan. After more than a decade of fighting Blair's wars, the last thing Labour wants is another overseas adventure. The Tories seem keen to revert to Douglas Hurd's policy of keeping out of any conflict that does not directly impinge upon Britain's national interests, while the pacifism of the Liberal Democrats makes them constitutionally unsuited for the prosecution of modern warfare.

That means that the next government will be more inclined to use the Sierra Leone model than the Afghan one if it became necessary to launch military action against Islamist terrorists in Yemen or Somalia. And to guarantee success, we will need all the naval firepower we can muster.

Some of the comments by readers are, well, interesting. Hey, why let small things like facts spoil your arguments?

[minigundiplomat]

WE Branch,

you seem to be the only person posting on this thread. Are you now arguing with yourself?

[Trim Stab]

Good bye.....if that's the way you feel. Much like the senior officers in "Nero building" who never fought for flying maintainers to be paid on a continuous basis.

Guess what who's now got no Flying maintainers......Turkeys Christmas i think.

Isn't the answer then to redistribute flying pay to those trades and grades that do need to be retained?

Given there really are no jobs for pilots at the moment (unless you are rated and experienced on a wide-body, and want to live in China), it seems illogical to pay retention pay to military pilots.

[jim2673]

Oct last year FM pay on a continuous basis was re-introduced. One would imangine that the "leadership" 3 years after making their original "savings" decision finally understod the loss of "experience and goodwill" in a "availability context"

[WE Branch Fanatic]

RUSI (www.rusi.org) have filmed a number of interviews with Rear Admiral Chris Parry, General Sir Mike Jackson, and Air Chief Marshal Sir Brian Burridge. These are very relevent to the debate that needs to happen before the post election defence review - an review that will be influenced by public perception and the media.

What will Britain's role be in future conflict? (http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4BCF8D139590C/)

Can Britain continue to stay Afghanistan? (http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:N4BCF8F0080586/)

Is there a public appetite for defence? (http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:N4BCF901A6F78C/)

What should our spending priorities be on defence? (http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:N4BCF91A664FB0/)

Are the Armed Forces used as a political football? (http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:N4BCF92D9CE74E/)

What is your advice for an incoming government? (http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:N4BCF945167B75/)

Interesting.

Two additional things - both related to the election.

1. HMS Roebuck, being paid off as part of the cuts in December has been decommisioned without fanfare (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Budget-cut-victim-sails-into.6266117.jp). Presumably the reason for the lack of publicity has been the pre election restrictions. However, a MOD spokesman had something to say:

Announcing the decommissioning of HMS Roebuck, and the Mine Warfare Vessel HMS Walney, an MoD spokesman in Plymouth said: 'Because of the need to concentrate finite resources on our current operations, we believe it is sensible to seek economies in capabilities that might be less directly involved in these operations over the next few years.

'For this reason we have chosen to bring forward the out of service dates.'

The spokesman added: 'Our mine warfare and survey capabilities will be reduced, but this is so we can increase investment in those capabilities that are presently needed for current operations.'

And the reason we keep a quarter of our Mine Contermeasures Vessels East of Suez is?

2. Nick Clegg has pledged to cut down (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Clegg-pledge-to-halve-number.6268149.jp) on the numbers of Admirals.

We have to ask why there are around 800 civil servants doing communications for the MoD and why there are two admirals for every ship in the navy. We don't need more than one per ship.....

Well, Mr Clegg, your comments provoked some dabate here (http://www.navy-net.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=27099.html).

It looks as though the leader of the Lib Dems remains sadly ill-informed. According to the March 2010 Bridge Card, the Naval Service still has nearly 80 surface warships of all sizes plus 14 nuclear submarines and 16 fleet auxiliaries. Then there are the three RM Commandos, 17 Naval Air Squadrons, Naval Strike Wing and all their supporting assets and infrastructure.

A recent letter (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/7615011/Iceland-volcano-The-miserable-flight-ban-debacle-was-the-direct-responsibility-of-the-Government.html) in Telegraph also disputed Clegg's assertions:

Clegg’s Navy ignorance

SIR – The buzz is that Nick Clegg did well in the last television debate. However, on defence, he made a glib claim that there are two admirals for every ship in the Royal Navy, hinting strongly at there being an opportunity for savings. He is way off track with his figures – there are not 150 or so admirals as he suggests.

There are 36 flag and general officers in the Navy, of whom 30 are admirals and six are Royal Marines major-generals. Of this number, 20 admirals and two generals are in dedicated naval or marine posts, and only two hold the four-star rank of a full admiral. Ten admirals and generals are in tri-service defence posts, most of which are open to Army generals and air marshals by competition, and another four are in Nato posts.

Of the eight vice-admirals on the active list, half are in Nato or tri-service appointments, such as Surgeon Vice-Admiral Philip Raffaelli who succeeded an Army officer as Surgeon-General in December. These appointments say a lot about the high calibre of these officers.

Nick Clegg should take more care and more interest in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines.

Lt-Cdr Lester May RN (retd)
London NW1

Perhaps you should try researching the facts next time, eh, Mr Clegg?

[Squirrel 41]

Ok, WEBF, what's your solution?

What is the UK's place and role in the world?

What capabilities do we need and which ones are optional?

How much will it cost?

How are you going to pay for it?

Which political party is going to adopt your ideas as policy before Thursday's election?

When you've established the force structure and sorted out the budget, pls post it on here, and copy it to the SDR Team at Main Building; they will doubtless be grateful.

Until then, this is just bleating and irrelevant drivel. Sorry to sound harsh, but to be the effective advocate for the RN you aspire to be, you need to be able to answer these questions.

S41

[WE Branch Fanatic]

S41

Don't ask me, I'm not a senior officer or politician. I just posted the story about Nick Clegg as it shows that the politicians can be ignorant of basic facts - yes all the parties are guilty of this.

[Squirrel 41]

WEBF,

Fair enough, my tone was borne out of frustration with the whole lack of debate. Now that the votes have been cast, it's probably time for people to come forward and look at the books. Based on the public data, the news is likely to be pretty grim:

- MoD is not a department which any of the parties have elected to ring-fence the budget for beyond 2010-11

- This means, according the Institute for Fiscal Studies, (the keeper of the flame for public spending, and arguably the conscience of the Treasury) that MoD is one of the Departments where the axe will fall (see The Institute For Fiscal Studies - Filling the hole: how do the three main UK parties plan to repair the public finances? (http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4848);))

- Of the unprotected Departments, MoD is largest, with the expectation that this would be in the realm of 12 - 20%; something like £7bn pa on a baseline of £36bn (ish, before UORs and Afghanistan)

- It's very unlikely that the other "unprotected" Departments (e.g. transport, culture, media and sport) would be able to take this cut for the MoD, as their budgets are (a) smaller and (b) under pressure too - and most importantly, (c) more popular than the MoD

- In any event, MoD was £36bn overcommitted if the budget was flat-cash (ie, same number of pounds each year) over the next decade according to the NAO - so cuts were coming anyway.

- Thus, if you add these cuts (£7bn pa) to the existing £36bn hole, then roughly £100bn needs to be cut from the MoD's forward plan over the next decade.

Bottom line: if this is accurate, then the current force structure is completely unaffordable and will need to be recast at a much lower level of ambition, as the cash is simply not available.

Sorry for the length, hope this helps.

S41

[LFFC]

It looks like the new government are now beginning to discover just how bad a situation they have inherited.

Labour hid ‘scorched earth’ debts worth billions - TimesOnline 16 May 10 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7127819.ece)


The “black holes” that ministers have already unearthed include:
- A series of defence contracts signed shortly before the election, including a £13 billion tanker aircraft programme whose cost has “astonished and baffled” ministers.

Actually, it was signed off quite a while ago IIRC, but I can understand their bewilderment.


Gerald Howarth, the new Tory minister for defence procurement, disclosed that the financial pressures on the Ministry of Defence (MoD) were even graver than he had been expecting. “The appetite for new programmes exceeded the capacity of the MoD’s stomach, particularly in the run-up to the election,” he said. “In the past few months there was a rush of new orders. What we are going to have to do is ensure the equipment programme matches the military need.”

Defence sources say the military has been using the urgent operational requirement (UOR) to borrow money from the Treasury to fund equipment for Afghanistan that the MoD could not afford to buy. “They’ve been using the UOR system like a credit card,” one source said, “and they’ve been maxing out on the card to the point where they’re around £700m over the limit. It’s all got to be paid back.”

Standby for a very interesting Defence Review!

[Squirrel 41]

LFFC noted

The “black holes” that ministers have already unearthed include:
- A series of defence contracts signed shortly before the election, including a £13 billion tanker aircraft programme whose cost has “astonished and baffled” ministers.
Actually, it was signed off quite a while ago IIRC, but I can understand their bewilderment.

Not sure I can - the NAO's had time to produce and clear a report on FSTA since the contract was signed IIRC in 2008. However, their conclusion that the Department couldn't show it was value for money in the procurement phase is clear - and the news that the previous KC-45A cost (for a rather more capable and flexible tanker transport than we're getting under the PFI) was $179m fly away a copy - makes the MoD PFI look even more egregious.

But yes, the spray paint is now on the walls and the letters are 10ft high!

T

[BillHicksRules]

Squirrel,

It is amazing that the figure you calculate needs cutting from the MOD budget is exactly what many people say a Trident replacement system will cost.

;);)

Cheers

BHR

[NURSE]

so were do the savings come from to bring the MoD back in budget?

I know the answers that everyone else should take the pain not just with in govt budgets or within the defence budget so the arguments of cut Army, Navy to fund the Air Force and the other services will be making the same calls, Cut the budgets of health, welfare etc and put the savings into defence well the public wouldn't tolerate that now would they.

At the end of the day some cuts will need to happen across a 3 services and all government departments.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Fox: defence review is under way (http://http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=12946)

"We desperately need a defence review which is why it will begin immediately, it will begin today (12 May)," he said. "We now need to look at the threats that this country faces and to look at the threats of the future and try to shape our armed forces and our budgets to protect Britain not only today but from what might come out of the blue at us."

The Defence Secretary said that as well as conducting the review, his priority was to ensure troops in Afghanistan were well equipped.

"We're all concerned about the political excitement here but we have to remember that in Afghanistan our armed forces are involved in a very brutal and bloody war and we have to ensure that they have everything they need to do the job that we have asked them to do in our name," he said. "So the number one priority has to be to look after our armed forces," he said.

"There will be a number of challenges because the time I spent working as a doctor with the armed forces taught me that it's not just about our frontline forces themselves, it's also about the families. And we have to pay more attention to service families and their needs as we also have to do with service veterans. I think that in this country we need to treat our veterans in the way that the best of other countries treat their veterans."

You might also find this piece on Open Source Warfare (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/05/open-source-warfare-navy-style.html) (so called) to be interesting. Remember too the threat from aircraft in terrorist hands, potentially against our aircraft. A light aircraft flown into a helicopter full of troops is going to be a big win for the bad guys.

[Squirrel 41]

BHR,

Squirrel,

It is amazing that the figure you calculate needs cutting from the MOD budget is exactly what many people say a Trident replacement system will cost.



Well, perhaps - but I'm not one of them, as the £100bn Trident figure is a 30 year through life cost and the £70 - £100bn that I'm predicting in cuts (as the sensible upper bound) would need to be delivered in the next decade.

It's going to be an interesting few months.

S41

[BillHicksRules]

Squirrel,

I think that serious consideration is going to have to be made into cancelling a Trident replacement AND cancelling the CVFs.

These are two big budget items that are beyond the needs of a country of our size (actual as opposed to perceived!!).

Looking across at the RAF I think if at all possible there needs to be a major scaling back on the purchases of Typhoons (but I am aware that there are cancellation costs there too). Also the buy of JSFs needs scaling back but the cancellation of the CVFs will help there (no carriers therefore no planes needed for them!).

The Army is a tougher one. I do not see many "big ticket" purchases that could or should be cut.

[Radar Command T/O]

I think that serious consideration is going to have to be made into cancelling a Trident replacement AND cancelling the CVFs.

These are two big budget items that are beyond the needs of a country of our size (actual as opposed to perceived!!).

OK, I'll bite.

That's Strategic Deterrence, and with it our permanent seat on the UNSC, Maritime Manoeuvre, Theatre Entry, Maritime Power Projection, Shaping Operations, Sea Basing among others all cut for a nation that relies on the sea for 80% of its trade.

Also the buy of JSFs needs scaling back but the cancellation of the CVFs will help there (no carriers therefore no planes needed for them!)

It could be argued why not just cut the RAF aspect of JSF and just give it to the Navy. Better still, if we want to reduce costs, bin JSF completely and go with F-18 or Rafale. That's where most of the CVF/JCA money is being spent.

Alternatively, the Air Force could shave 10% off it's T&S budget and enable the other services actually increase our spending. :E

Okay, that was a little flippant, but I have seen numerous posts bitching about having to travel 2nd class on trains, economy class on aircraft as opposed to 1st class. If it means we get to keep more of our toys I'm all for it.

[Squirrel 41]

Radar

...but I have seen numerous posts bitching about having to travel 2nd class on trains, economy class on aircraft as opposed to 1st class. If it means we get to keep more of our toys I'm all for it.

Quite right - focus on the outputs. The question is, would you take the same view of binning boarding school allowance amongst other things if that's the cost of keeping more of the toys?

BHR,

I think that they'll look at Trident and CVF, but think under Liam Fox, Trident is almost certainly safe; a mistake in my view as I've consistently said. Though Radar thinks

That's Strategic Deterrence, and with it our permanent seat on the UNSC

he is quite wrong. There is no link between Trident and the Permanent Seat on the Council - if we want to give up our Permanent, Veto-wielding seat on the Council, then we would need to vote in favour of a resolution amending the UN Charter in this way. We won't, so the P5 seat is safe.

As for Radar's observation that binning CVF would end

Maritime Manoeuvre, Theatre Entry, Maritime Power Projection, Shaping Operations, Sea Basing among others all cut for a nation that relies on the sea for 80% of its trade.

I fear that he is missing the point. Binning CVF would indeed mean the end of UK ONLY, Symmetrically Opposed Theatre Entry capability, but please explain to me where we're going to need this alone other than the Falkland Islands? And if the threat is the loss of the Falklands, then defend them and don't lose them in the first place!

If the SDR were to conclude that we were going to operate in alliances with the US, NATO and EU allies (as well as Australia, NZ, Japan, possibly India) more frequently (which is after all what the Green Paper said earlier this year), then the need for CVF is pretty well gone, because the USN will provide that capability. Can anyone come up with a credible set of circumstances where the go/no-go is a British CVF?

For my money, as painful as this is for the RN in general and the surface warfaires in particular, the RN would be much more useful to such a coalition if it could provide specific niche capabilities. Remind me:

- How many Dave-Bs CVF is going to carry at surge rates?
- Where is the AWACS?
- Where's the organic ISTAR?
- How many missions / 24 hours sustained for a week?

It's not that I'm anti-CVF per se - I'm not; it's a lovely idea and I'd like to see 2 x QE class with 8 x T45 and 6 x FSC (Type 26?) each operating 40 odd Dave-C with E-2D AWACS, pinging Merlins etc etc. But it is not a serious financial proposition, and so better to spend the precious resources on something more useful - like Type 26 to get the RN escort fleet up to something relevant from the current appalling level. Are you really going to use CVF to chase Somali pirates? By itself?

S41

[AdanaKebab]

Cuts are coming whether we like it or not. It seems most of us agree that everything we already have is not enough. So how about some reorganisation for savings.

Starters for 10 ..
Nuclear deterrent back to the Air Force (...and yes I do appreciate the drawbacks that means - huge savings though .. and kudos!).
UK QRA reduced to southern Q only (go on bite!)

Beggars can't be choosers.:( It's going to hurt whatever we have to do ...

[Bismark]

Squirrel,

Based on your argument against CVF etc you could hand over the RAF role in toto to the US and France ie it is a fatuous argument. If as you claim the UK does not need its own expeditionary capability then you can remove 50% of the Army, 70% of the RAF and reduce the RN to a "protection of the sea lanes" role. And I still don't understand what Typhoon does for the UK - apart from publicity intercepts of non-threatening Russian aircraft.

In your world Squirrel, we must question the need for a separate RAF.

[dolphinops]

From Bismark - "I still don't understand what Typhoon does for the UK"

and you are here making comments with what justification??
I think you need to get that bullet hole in your foot sorted out.

:E

[Squirrel 41]

Bismark,

Based on your argument against CVF etc you could hand over the RAF role in toto to the US and France ie it is a fatuous argument. If as you claim the UK does not need its own expeditionary capability then you can remove 50% of the Army, 70% of the RAF and reduce the RN to a "protection of the sea lanes" role.

In a word, no.

In more than one word, you're extrapolating and missing the point when it comes to paying for.

I repeat again, I would be delighted to see a pair of CVFs with 40+ Dave-C with E-2Ds, C-2s, and Merlin Mk 2s, with 4 T45s supported by a screen of T23s, a pair of Astutes in direct support, and a bevy of new RFA MARS auxiliaries. :ok: It'd be a great "ooh look we can sail in straight lines" PhotEx which navies worldwide seem disproportionately pleased with.... :hmm: (But the view would be great from the port beam pie-eating station on a MRA4....! :cool:)

However, the cost of this sort of force is immense, and in the current climate no political party in Parliament is advocating the c £60bn p.a. defence budget to fund it whilst funding all of the other capabilities.

My fear for the RN - and yes, I am Light Blue - is that the RN will get the CVFs, and in the process distort the entire RN budget and with it, force structure out beyond 2025 when the money could be better spent on more FSC-C1s/T26s which are going to be future backbone of the Fleet.

Am I clear?

S41

PS, and as for your Typhoon misunderstanding, I think dolphinops has just about covered it.....

[althenick]

RE CVF

Gentlemen, Pontificate all you want but CVF, MRA4, Typhoon, Wildcat, are all coming, the contracts have been signed, work is in progress and that is that. So rather than arguing the why's and what not why dont we take a look at the equiment inventory (Present and Future) and see where some savings can be made. here is a couple I can think of...

CVF - A big vessel with a large fight deck and a lot of space below. In 2005 the project to provide the Navy with a Joint Casualty Treatment Ship (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jcts.htm) was abandoned through cost. The requirement has been partly taken up by RFA Argus who will soldier on for another 10 years. Surely with a little modification and ingenuity the CVF could be modified to fulfill this requirement. Using portable container units and fitting them out with medical facilities that can be placed in the hangers couldn't be that dificult a Modification.

The Nuclear deterent - Giving it back to the Airforce - It has it merits, Nuc tipped Cruise missiles launched from Nimrods or Submarines?

[MaroonMan4]

My word,

What a lot of inter service bickering - very territorial and single Service focused indeed. None of the points actually satisfy the requirement, in that we in the military do not know what role our political masters wish us to play in the world?

Once we actually know what is required of us, then we can slice up the defence funding pie. If the politicians do not ever want us to conduct theatre entry, or gain control of any element of battle space (however small in size), or to hold/seize terrain, or conduct global power projection (including NEOs/Disaster Relief), then it becomes very simple. If the politicians sign up to all future military operations being as part of a Coalition, with no requirement to command or own battlespace, then the equation is further simplified.

Focus on Homeland Security and protecting UK, and develop capabilities that our Coalition partners, leaders and battle space owners actually require. Lets ask the US what they require and how we can add value to their future missions and what do they need from us limeys.

If this is really what the politicians want from defence, and they really want to make £35 bn defence savings, then lets go for contract severance (which will pay off long term through the life of the capability) and cancel CVF, Typhoon, reduce the head count in the Army and focus our resources on what our Coalition partners actually need (medical?engineering?logistical?).

But if this is the case, do not suddenly expect UK defence to suddenly appear from a fire like a phoenix when there is a public out cry for military intervention/support. Just as the politicians reduce the defence budget and task requirements, they must also re-align the public's expectations from its military. History has shown us that it takes a significant amount of time to regenerate a full military capability, so do not expect a 6 month lead in time for any future wars/military requirement as it will take many years to get anywhere near a true military force that can actually do anything (theatre entry and then control its own battlespace).

Tax payer choice - as long as they know that they cannot have it all, lets start finding out what is essential, highly desirable and nice to have and then deliver the tax payer (and politicians) what they ask for.

[andyy]

althenick

"The Nuclear deterent - Giving it back to the Airforce - It has it merits, Nuc tipped Cruise missiles launched from Nimrods or Submarines?"

Hmmm, & how much do you think its going to cost to develop a completely new weapon & small N warhead?

[althenick]

Andy it will be a lot less than designing a new weapon and submarine to replace the existing system. Also the infradtructure footprint would be reduced ie Coulport would reduce in size etc.

[Not_a_boffin]

Dispersal anyone?

[Biggus]

andyy

Avoiding development costs is easy, just buy a small nuclear delivery system off the Iranians;)

[Online ACM]

Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs - I strongly recommend reading this book. It will make you angry and you may not agree with all the conclutions but the facts are there.

[andyy]

Althenick

I am going to have to disagree. The Uk is curently committed to designing a new warhead to sit on top of a Trident missile body. The missile body costs have already been absorbed by the US & UK. Developing a new Cruise Missile and a warhead, and a targetting system would be very costly.

Designing a new Submarine will not be cheap, I'll grant you, but a lot of the work will be common to the Astute and to the civil nuclear programme so, again, is money that will already have to be spent.

Coulport already exists and has been paid for. Magazines and maintenance facilities for a new Cruise missile would have to be built from scratch, to meet a new nuclear weapon safety case. Cheap....I don't think so.

Sorry, but IF the UK is to stay in the nuclear club (and its a big IF) then developing our own cruise system & attendent infrastructure will also be very expensive. Lets not delude ourselves.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs - I strongly recommend reading this book. It will make you angry and you may not agree with all the conclutions but the facts are there.

Hmm. One of the reasons I started this thread many moons ago was because of the fact that when defence is discussed in the media, most of what we hear/read is less than reliable. Anything written by that author should be treated with a huge pinch of salt....

Would getting rid of Trident/Sucessor save loads of cash? Well, perhaps not in the same way that some think. See this from the Guardian:

Savings from scrapping Trident would be negligible (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/apr/30/savings-scrapping-trident-negligible-snp)

[Just This Once...]

but the facts are there

No they are not, not in that book & not by that author.:ugh:

[Squirrel 41]

JTO - indeed, I couldn't have said it better.

WEBF: The Guardian piece is certainly accurate in one respect - there is very little clarity in the public domain over what the costs will be for:

(i) decommissioning the existing Trident infrastructure;

(ii) what the Trident-specific infrastructure is (eg, would we need to retain Vulcan and RR nuclear expertise for SSNs?);

(iii) how much the fully absorbed running costs for Trident are (ie, the V-boats, the Trident specific infrastructure, Trident's share of the shared infrastructure - eg Faslane, the AWE costs);

(iv) what the planned spending profile for the successor programme is;

(v) close down costs at Barrow if successor is cancelled.

It's a bit glib to say that "it's unlikely to save any cash immediately" as (i) and (v) will come due at some point - just not now. And the £100bn or so through-life cost of Trident has not been disputed by MoD, they simply prefer to talk about the £15 - £20bn capital cost of successor, which is like comparing the cost of growing grapes with the cost of buying champange.

So (given that this a rumour network) I Don't Know what the actual savings would be in the near term from (a) abandoning successor & Trident replacement and (b) from scrapping the V-Boats now and going down a different nuclear - or indeed, non-nuclear - road.

However, it is clear that over the next 30 years, binning Trident would save approximately £100bn.

S41

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Treasury asks MoD to pay for Trident (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=13517) - from Defence News from DefenceManagement.com (http://www.defencemanagement.com).

:eek:

[TheSmiter]

The following letter in Mrs S's Daily Mail this week:


Reading about the possible withdrawal of the guard at Balmoral due to savage defence cuts, are things really that bad? What it costs to provide the guard for a few months of the year must be a drop in the ocean compared to the billions wasted on bad procurement, contracts and poor financial management throughout the Mod.

Is it only the guard at Balmoral who are in the firing line, or have they included the guards at Holyroodhouse, Edinburgh Castle, Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle? Push come to shove, they could also save money by not participating in the likes of the Tattoo, trooping the colours or any other royal tournaments.

Wimbledon has come and gone -- what do the number of Navy, army and RAFpersonnel you see standing around there really do? Is the Mod paying them as well?


It's about time that Joe Public smelt the coffee and realised that, yes, things really are that bad!

Incidentally, on the subject of Wimbledon, I thought it was volunteers on leave. Is that right? If not, then yes bin that commitment too.

[Bob on the Ground]

Yes, it is volunteers on leave

[LFFC]

Sadly, even though they are on leave when at Wimbledon, they're in uniform, and it's public perception that matters.

[Non Emmett]

LFFC today raised the subject of public perception which set me thinking.

I have no idea whether the defence budget should or should not pay for Trident, in fact I don't know whether we should retain the system. I suppose if we need it for defence of the realm we must find a way to pay for it but if we need it merely to pay for politicians to sit at the top table I'm not so sure.

Public perception of our armed forces has surely rarely been as far removed as it is these days. I know very few in the policeforce, they tend to keep themselves to themselves, ditto the armed forces. I read the prune pages most days and am sufficiently interested in defence matters to seek to retain some semblance of knowledge of what transpires and above all where we might be headed.

There has been much interesting and no doubt well informed opinion here on the vexed subject of senior officers. This civvie completely fails to appreciate whey we need so many of Air rank, indeed why we need more than say 40% of the Wing Commanders and Group Captains we have. Squadron Leaders ? All I can get my head round is that £50K in the private sector is a hell of a good salary and whilst the slings and arrows of Service life should ensure personnel are well paid, seems to this ole civvie it's unsustainable on anything approaching the present ratio.

To return to the subject of public perception ,most these days rarely come across a Serviceman which I feel is unfortunate. I have had the pleasure of knowing such stalwarts as Chris Ashworth and Dave Rostron amongst many others. My view over decades has been that amongst the very best and most competent and can do people I have met have been in the military whilst many others have been fully deserving of their rank......... but I have felt over the years that a small proportion have been a major disappointment and would probably not have survived in any plc I have worked in over the decades.

Contributors here denigrate the Red Arrows and perhaps to a lesser extent BBMF. Don't ever forget they are the public face of the RAF and we are proud of them just as we are truly proud of OUR Royal Air Force. It would be nice to read a trifle less about boarding school allowances and pension allowances, figures quoted make my eyes water to be perfectly honest.

Good luck and best wishes to all serving personnel, hopefully the coming months will prove to be somewhat less harsh and damaging than anticipated.

Final point - on a comparative basis with other air arms, how do we compare, I'd like to think relatively well .

[BillHicksRules]

It staggers me that anyone can compare the costs of Trident with that of the Red Arrows/BBMF!!

Current annual costs for Trident = over £2billion pounds for 2007/08
Current annual costs for Red Arrows = approx £15million of which about £7million is recouped from appearance fees. There is also sponsorship which eats into the £15million.

IMHO Trident is not needed and totally unjustifiable even in a period of prosperity.

In a period of stringent cuts such as we are now then to consider replacing it is downright criminal.

We have not, do not and never will ever need a nuclear capability for the purposes of "Defence of the Realm".

[Pontius Navigator]

There has been much interesting and no doubt well informed opinion here on the vexed subject of senior officers. This civvie completely fails to appreciate whey we need so many of Air rank,

It was pointed out today that there are actually few senior officers on pay around £100k, less than 500, against 40,000 doctors on higher than that.

indeed why we need more than say 40% of the Wing Commanders and Group Captains we have. Squadron Leaders?

They are all in established posts although a case could be made for getting rid of some of these posts.

All I can get my head round is that £50K in the private sector is a hell of a good salary But less than an airline pilot and half that of a doctor and less than a police constable when overtime is added.

To return to the subject of public perception as well you might. Service pay is in the public domain and you can usually see what you neighbour is earning. Private sector pay has an average of about £23k with many man people on £10k-£12k but you might be surprised what many people in the private sector earn. Our local DIY shop owner sends both children to a fee paying school.

My view over decades has been that amongst the very best and most competent and can do people I have met have been in the military whilst many others have been fully deserving of their rank......... but I have felt over the years that a small proportion have been a major disappointment and would probably not have survived in any plc I have worked in over the decades. How have you gained that perception?

PS At a guess, one doctor is responsible for about the same number of patients as one senior officer is of men in the Services.

[cazatou]

PN

One should never expect facts to interfere with a biased opinion. It would kill conversation in every Public House in the Country.

[minigundiplomat]

PS At a guess, one doctor is responsible for about the same number of patients as one senior officer is of men in the Services.


I would roughly agree with your maths. However, of those 500 earning over 100k, how many lead men, and how many sit and navel gaze whilst pondering policy?

I suggest we have probably 50-100 worth far more than 100K, and 400 - 450 not worth their bus fare home.

[Sven Sixtoo]

If it gets rid of 450 placeholders I'll pay their bus fares home myself.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

On this forum, and elsewhere, there has been much discussion relating to the upcoming SDSR. This thread was intended to be about the ignorance of the public and the media. To what extent will the SDSR be influenced by public opinion, and by the media? How much does the public listen to the ignorance and prejudices of such individuals as Max Hastings and Lewis Page?

A question I asked many moons ago was whether defence and security policy should based on known threats or known vulnerabilities?

I cannot resist posting two links which illustrate that it isn't all about boots on the ground.

1. The story in the Sun that an Argentine warship harassed a trawler from the Falklands (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3172492/Argie-fishticuffs-Warship-confronts-Falklands-trawler-in-island-row.html). They've also been making unfriendly noises about the UK forces down South (http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE6982CO20101009). This is discussed over on ARRSE (http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/150359-argentine-warship-confronts-falklands-trawler.html#post3449894).

2. This article from the Mail offers an insight into current submarine activities: Five days aboard one of Britain's silent warriors, the submarine HMS Talent (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1318268/HMS-Talent-Five-days-aboard-Britains-silent-warriors.html?ITO=1490)

It’s easy to think of these boats, built in the Eighties, as expensive and outdated Cold War toys, but they are still perfectly designed for stealthy surveillance and potential attack.

‘She carries some of the most advanced weapons, and is also one of the quietest submarines in the world,’ says Simon Asquith, the commanding officer on Talent.

Just as a ‘bomber’ submarine carrying our Trident nuclear deterrent is at sea every day of the year, and has been since 1968, so too the Royal Navy now always has a hunter-killer submarine such as HMS Talent ‘east of Suez’. They are reticent about exactly where they go, but look on a map and you’ll see Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Iran and Afghanistan.

‘It’s great PR for surface ships if they have a success while doing counter piracy, or if they board a boat and carry out a big drugs bust,’ says Cdr Asquith. ‘But lots of these operations have a submarine input and that’s never discussed, and rightly so.

‘They call us the silent service, but the danger of that is that we become the forgotten service, as very little of what we do can be reported. Even my wife has no idea what we’re doing 90 per cent of the time.’

And...

But they can’t afford to lose too many at a time when submarines are a growing threat. The number commissioned and being built worldwide is rising rapidly. Their lethal potential was shown in March when a torpedo from an unseen North Korean sub sank a South Korean navy gunboat. North Korea denies it, but 46 sailors were killed and it could have escalated into war.

‘Submarines are a surprise growth area,’ says David Ewing of Jane’s Underwater Warfare Systems. ‘India is working on a nuclear sub, which could have a destabilising effect, and currently has one on loan; Brazil is going like mad to build one and the Russians are starting to churn out the things. Iran is also trying to get as many mini-subs as it can, while North Korea has 88 subs.

‘Rogue states are likely to go for smaller subs,’ he adds, pointing to a new danger from smaller conventional submarines using AIP, or Air Independent Propulsion: ‘They have to go slowly but they’re very quiet, can stay down for a long time, about 12 or 14 days, and are perfect for use just outside a harbour when you can pop off anything coming out one by one – get one of those in the Straits of Hormuz and you’re looking at trouble.’

[Pontius Navigator]

a new danger from smaller conventional submarines using AIP, or Air Independent Propulsion: They have to go slowly but they’re very quiet, can stay down for a long time, about 12 or 14 days, and are perfect for use just outside a harbour . . .

Or if they get in the grain of a force waiting for an HVA to wander into range.

[StopStart]

Or if they get in the grain of a force waiting for an HVA to wanter into range.

.....a job for the Babel Fish that one..... :confused:

[Biggus]

For babel fish read google...

Analysis of the Advantage of Speed and Changes of Course in Avoiding Attack by Submarine - ONI Pub. No. 30 (http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/onipubno30.htm)


Bet you wish you hadn't asked...

[Pontius Navigator]

Biggus, nice one.

Just goes to show that even within one part of a Force there is jargon that is not understood by another, let alone by a different Service.

Not a lot changed in the theory of TDZ then.

[StopStart]

Was happy with HVA but the grain bit lost me. I mean we all know that one "grain-force" is equal to 635.46023075 micronewtons or perhaps 6.3546023075×10-4 kilogram meters / second squared but not following the link to submarines......

Biggus, what a ripping yarn that was!

[Almost_done]

Just read this article in the Torygraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8053835/Royal-Navy-are-pirates-says-Argentinas-president.html), helps in my mind not to make the Three Services tha sacrifical lambs during the austerity cuts.

I know we all have our own thoughts on the types that are/were in the Navy but she is sooo 18th Century.

[Pontius Navigator]

SS, it is like a grain in wood, it runs in one direction. Line up with the grain and wait for the target to arrive.

[Lima Juliet]

Kajaki Lake? ;-)

[Aeronut]

Royal Navy are pirates, says Argentina's president

There may be something in that since all the Fish Heads I know all refer to Aaaaaaaargentina every time we discuss the Falklands.

[Climebear]

Aeronut

You have made my day. Bravo sir.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Quite a capability if they can sail one of those boats all the say to Afghanistan.

Ever heard of Tomahawk? The article mentions contributions to interdication operations - submarines also contribute to protecting Afghanistan bound logistics.

[cornish-stormrider]

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

[andyy]

BGG, you may not know but the first weapon fired into Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was a Tomahawk fired from an RN SSN.

[minigundiplomat]

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.

[lasernigel]

In today's Daily Mail this quote from the labour shadow defence secretary..

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.

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.:ugh::ugh:

[waco]

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 ?

[Navaleye]

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 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/15/typhoons-cost-raf-dear?o)

[Whenurhappy]

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.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

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 (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/428135-dannatt-page-2.html):

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.

[Exnomad]

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.

[BillHicksRules]

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.

:mad::mad::mad:

BHR

[The B Word]

BHR

Err, he "gets away with it" because his post has a big undercurrent of truth behind it?

The B Word

[BillHicksRules]

The B Word,

No it does not but hey ho do not let reality get in the way of a good bit of rabblerousing/scaremongering.

Cheers

BHR

[Lima Juliet]

Sadly, Bill Hicks doesn't Rule on this matter as I agree with the B Word and WEBF!

[jindabyne]

BHR,

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

What is so nonsensical about these comments. But hey, hang on, you support Kilmarnock! :sad:

[Jollygreengiant64]

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?

[BillHicksRules]

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!!!

[Stratofreighter]

Anyone know at what date and/or time the official outcome of the SDSR will become public ? :uhoh:

[Mad_Mark]

Parliament UK: Parliamentary Calendar (http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/#/calendar/Commons/MainChamber/2010/10/18/week.html)

[Grimweasel]

I think Stn Cdr's etc are being told Mon afternoon then the masses on Tues at 1330 I think I saw - I wouldn't expect much other than broad brush sweeping statements. The real work will be done by the 'cuts' team from Oct to Sept next year. I guess we will be told the RAF is to lose 8K personnel and that will be it until the cuts team decides where next year. Hurry up and wait.

[seniortrooper]

The Defence budget is being cut by 8% now and not the suicidal 25% everyone was talking about last month. Brings it down to 2.3% GDP which still makes the Uk the 4th BIGGEST MILITARY outfit in the world after USA/China/France.
What's the problem? What arms race are we trying to win?
What's NATO all about? Does anyone out there genuinely believe the UK can take ANYONE on in a conventional war currently, never mind after the SDSR?
We were defeated in Basra for gawd's sake:uhoh:

[Ivan Rogov]

The 'problem' is getting value for money.
With the 4th largest defense budget we should be able to operate on our own :{

[BillHicksRules]

IR,

You have hit the nail on the head.

Cheers

BHR

[Lima Juliet]

BHR

I'm with you on that comment.

:-)

LJ

[jindabyne]

BHR



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.

That is not what I asked of you.

Clearly you and some others here have a sound strategic, knowledgeable, and experienced handle on defence issues. So, like others of less intellect, I'll leave the argument to you and will maintain a watching brief.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

BHR

Where did I mention UK only operations in my last post? I was pointing out that because certain things are not needed today does not mean they will not needed in the future. Yes, that will include during coalition operations.

I, unlike you, do not pretend to be able to predict the future. You say we cannot forsee x or y happening, therefore we don't need to have the means to deal with them. I say we cannot say that they will not happen, so better safe than sorry. Next you'll be saying that we should get rid of the Police as we cannot predict who tommorow's criminals are - except that we can, it'll be today's criminals as Ken Clarke has closed the prisons.

Typhoon is quite a good example. Some may argue that it was designed for the Cold War, to counter 80s/90s MiGs. Yet 80s/90s MiGs have been widely exported, including to many countries hostile to the West. Therefore it is increasingly probable that such aircraft will be encountered in the future. Even a handful of MiGs would be a game changer if we had no fighters. I guess that would be assymetry - but the other way round. Likewise other supposed Cold War threats - such as tanks or submarines.

I wonder to what extent the SDSR will have been influenced by public opinion? In turn, how much influence does the shockingly low standard of defence reporting in the media influence things?

[NutLoose]

http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/Aviation/future.jpg


One hopes this is not the near future :(

[BillHicksRules]

WEBF,

Sadly, what you fail to be able to do is understand we cannot afford to do all the things you wish, properly.

We can have a Trident replacement but the SSN fleet will be 7 boats and you cannot get any MP aircraft.

We can have new carriers in 2020 but we have to lose those we have now and all the aircraft that could fly off them. Top that off with turning the RN into a laughing stock with ship levels below that of the Canadians or Australians, if rumours are to be believed.

You are correct that no one can guess the future threat however; we are creating a military that can deal with none of the ones we project as likely!

Cheers

BHR

[Mick Smith]

If any of the headlines are correct this morning - and they are clearly being briefed out from Downing St, and include a number of downright lies on what could and could not be done - it isnt just the public and the media that doesnt understand defence, it's the defence chiefs and the current government. The people who made the complete looney tunes decision to keep going with aircraft carriers but to scrap the only aircraft we have that can fly off them should not be allowed anywhere near any major decision. Ferrets fighting in a sack and trying to do each other down at the expense of the overall package. This isn't lions led by donkeys, it's lions led by headless chickens.

[xenolith]

WHAT! I dont beleeeeve it! The government AND the defence chiefs did all this without checking with Mick Smith first!...............What a bunch of LOOSERS! :hmm:

[Pontius Navigator]

The people who made the complete looney tunes decision to keep going with aircraft carriers but to scrap the only aircraft we have that can fly off them should not be allowed anywhere near any major decision.

With respect, I think you have missed a point here.

Cancellation was the sensible preferred option but not economically sensible thanks to the contract terms agreed under the previous administration. Completing the QE will be akin the Varyag which was abandoned.

At least the decisions now can be changed later unlike the TSR2 which was cancelled and the jigs destroyed.

[Bismark]

There again, yesterday, most of the so called Defence Correspondents were saying that we were about to pay off the Sea Harrier....only 10 years late reporting that one!

Apart from the CV/Harrier fiasco (a truly monumental error by both the RAF and RN), I find it amazing that the Army has got away with it.....how can one possibly look another nation in the eye and say we paid off military capability to keep horses and gun carriages (all to be celebrated at The Tattoo later this year) - absolute madness.

[NURSE]

And of course the RAF can justify a full time squadron flying air displays, another one flying a Lancaster, Dakota, spitfires and Hurricanes and Parachute display team deploying to America to select members whilst cutting operational units parachute training?
The army could rationalise its display teams. RAF got to keep RIAT and Waddington and other Airshows, Navy got to keep its Navy days so where is the Army equivilent? Edinburgh doesn't exactly give a great shopfront for the army capibility

[WE Branch Fanatic]

In the post SDSR gloom, I've had little to add to this thread. I also was shocked to agree with BHR.

I understand the Army argued that it needs to retain lots of MBTs etc to prevent skill fade, but what about skill fade regarding carrier operations? Presumably not considered an issue, as they have no experience of it. The First Sea Lord was ignored.

News that the Nimrods are being broken up is just sickening. Even if they were mothballed there would be great savings, and a possibility of regenerating them in x years time. We just don't need a MPA it seems, and trying to make up for the shortfall in ASW capabilities with our dwindling frigate numbers will not cause problems with how ships are used and deployed. The First Sea Lord was ignored again.

Why were future threats to energy supplies left out of the strategy paper? When terrorist plots that started in Yemen came to the fore, why did the Chief of Defence Staff say we must concentrate on Afghanistan to stop it from becoming another Yemen? Surely, we might need to intervene to prevent it falling into the hands of a Taliban like regime - after all, Bin Laden and his ilk and repeatedly expresed a desire to hit the oil supply, most of which passes through the Gulf of Aden.

Did the SDSR consider the needs of the 2012 Olympics? The Express did (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/220582/Olympics-terror-plan), although perhaps its reporters should have tried harder at School.

[manccowboy]

News that the Nimrods are being broken up is just sickening. Even if they were mothballed there would be great savings, and a possibility of regenerating them in x years time.

Letting the MRA4 project run its course is not only sensible (why put 600+ on the dole which will cost many millions when its already paid for?) but its the moral thing todo too.
Hangering them until better time's is a no brainer.
This whole so called review is nothing more than a hastily contrived knee jerk cost cutting exercise and bull****ting the electorate into believing the government knows what its doing is downright dangerous. There really does need to be a public enquiry right now before irreplaceable things are lost forever.

[minigundiplomat]

The army could rationalise its display teams. RAF got to keep RIAT and Waddington and other Airshows, Navy got to keep its Navy days so where is the Army equivilent? Edinburgh doesn't exactly give a great shopfront for the army capibility


They get the front of Buckingham Palace, Horse Guards and Windsor Castle. These locations get more footfall than any organised PR events put together.

They also have a number of displays/stalls at RIAT/Families days etc. The Army doesnt do badly mate.

[oldgrubber]

Nurse,

Don't forget that Navy Days are effectively an "open day" that utilises existing assets to showcase the Navy. The Reds etc are "display" teams who's sole reason for being is to give a nice show to the public. Having been involved in open days at Plymouth in the past, I can tell you that the next day after the public had gone and we had skirmished the jetty, we were off doing fishery protection for a month.
Attractions like the RN parachute team are all volunteers who give up their free time to attend events promoting the Navy.

Cheers

[minigundiplomat]

Old Grubber,

likewise the RAF displays/statics (even the BBMF who have day jobs). The only exception is the Reds; and I would like to see the costs for them borne by the British defence industry given the current climate. After all, apart from the public, they derive the most benefit from them.

[Non Emmett]

I have followed with great interest the views on this thread, the heading at least in part is "Public Ignorance" of which there is plenty. Sadly few of us civvies out there know anyone serving in the military these days. As a teenager I recall travelling on a bus on a Sunday evening when almost the entire vehicle was occupied by military personnel heading for the mainline station to travel back to their base overnight. At school in Cornwall I encountered RAF personnel at every turn from St. Mawgan and St. Eval. Those days are long gone, I know several recently retired military personnel but no one currently serving.

You really ought not to ignore the sad lack of awareness many out there have so far as today's military are concerned. The BBMF with crews performing other daytime tasks seems to be the way forward I'd like to think. The Reds do perhaps have a reputation for a fairly expensive lifestyle - but they are the public face of the RAF. We seem to be able to gain some awareness of thge Fleet Air Arm as they continue to provide air shows at Yeovilton and Culdrose. If The Reds disband, Joe public in the main will know next to nothing about today's military. What's the answer? I wish I knew.

Regards to everyone serving. Come home safely.

[LFFC]

Invisible tanks could be on battlefield within five years (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8247967/Invisible-tanks-could-be-on-battlefield-within-five-years.html)

The Army will probably be pushing for it soon. This is where most of the MOD budget goes, but is it really worth it? More money for kit and defence contractors means less for the troops and their welfare. I have to wonder how much more defence against mines will invisible tanks provide?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From the Guardian: UK's top admiral faces world of new demands with an austerity fleet (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/10/royal-navy-trevor-soar-interview)

The daily juggling act sees him pitting his wits against Somali pirates, who can now hijack boats across a million square miles of ocean; evacuating Britons from Libya (and providing support for the Special Boat Service, which is operating there); and preparing for the deployment of 3,500 Royal Marines and other navy personnel who are on their way to Afghanistan.

That country remains the Ministry of Defence's strategic priority, and Libya is the current preoccupation. But neither of these are the issues that keep the 53-year-old admiral awake at night. The Gulf is his special worry, particularly the strait of Hormuz, that narrow, potentially vulnerable channel between the south of Iran and the peninsula of north Oman, through which gas and oil supertankers travel all year round. Between 16m and 17m barrels of oil pass through the strait every day, 40% of the world's supply. At its narrowest point, the passage is only 1.5 miles wide."

The secretary of state made it very clear when he took over that he regarded the Gulf region as the second most important after Afghanistan," Soar says. "I would agree. It's very important. We have been there over 30 years, we have seen the tanker wars [when Iran and Iraq attacked each other's ships in the 1980s] and various other things over that time."

Now there are new threats. If the sea lanes closed, even for a short period, the UK would be hit hard, and quickly.

"It would have such an impact with a 'just enough, just in time UK'," he says. "If we didn't have gas coming into this country we would run out in two weeks, so the lights start going out, or the shelves become empty."

The navy has four mine warfare vessels in the area, and they are prized, especially by the Americans, who have privately made it clear they will not tolerate their decommissioning as part of the MoD's ongoing spending crisis. Though some of them are old – HMS Middleton has been in service for almost 30 years – the ships and their support vessels have special protected status.

"They are the jewels in the crown. We are, as the UK, very dependent on energy trade and energy flow. If the straits of Hormuz were closed, as they could quite easily be, by even one mine, then we provide a capability to be able to remove the risk.

"There are over 200,000 UK nationals in that region so … it's not just about oil and gas. It's about the number of people we have [there] and providing a real capability to protect those energy supply routes." The admiral is tiptoeing through what he knows is a diplomatic snakepit as he weighs up how he describes the risks and dangers, and who poses them.

The region, he says, is unpredictable, and the potential for trade paralysis real, even if caused by accident. The navy has six ships in the area at the moment, involved in different operations and under a variety of commands, and seven more in the Indian Ocean. The submarine HMS Tireless is also east of Suez, having passed through the canal.

The heavy commitment reflects the anxiety he has, and he chooses his words carefully. "We have got Iran … my worry is, really, 'events' that may happen in that region. We are all concerned by [this]. We can provide reassurance to the Gulf states because there is a nervousness. What we don't want to see is an over-reaction because of a single event. The MCMVs [mine countermeasure vessels] have a unique capability, which I am happy to say is the best in the world. The US will tell you that."

The threat posed by Somali pirates has made the task of keeping the peace in the region even more complex. The pirates are spreading further afield for their attacks, getting closer and closer to the strait of Hormuz, encouraged by enormous ransom payments and their classification in law as criminals, rather than terrorists. This means the navy cannot blow them out of the water indiscriminately, and many pirates are released even if they are caught on their way to a likely attack.

The navy has growing suspicions that Somali pirates are linking with al-Qaida terrorists in Yemen, which, if true, would completely change the way the problem is approached. Until then, the pirates are unlikely to be deterred. At the moment they have 29 vessels and 653 hostages; there has been a big escalation in attacks this year, including an audacious attempt to seize a 300,000-tonne supertanker.

Soar says: "This is about legitimate use of trade across all oceans, and with piracy we will start to see costs increase, and that will be reflected eventually on the shelf in how much we pay for our goods. We know [shipping] insurance premiums have gone up. We know that [companies] are having to use more fuel because of the way they are diverting round there. Potentially, if they wanted to avoid that region and go all the way around South Africa, then that is going to increase cost and time significantly. So this is about UK interests worldwide, and I think my message here is that we do have global interests and we are a nation that depends upon trade."

Part of the job of keeping the area secure will shortly fall to the Iraqi navy, which has been trained by British forces over the past three years. Out of the spotlight, the Royal Navy has had people in the port of Umm Qasar, and Iraqi naval officers have been trained in the UK at Dartmouth. The handover will take place within weeks.

"The only forces left in Iraq are navy," says Soar. "We have been doing the Iraq maritime training mission … helping [it] to provide protection of two oil platforms. Well over 65% of their GDP flows through them. That mission comes to an end this spring, when we effectively hand over security to the Iraqis. They have been given or sold various patrol boats and we have trained them to use them. This is about Iraq standing on its own two feet."

The navy will not withdraw from the northern gulf – it is too sensitive and volatile an area to leave to a fledgling force – but Soar has not yet decided what will come next. Before then, he has Afghanistan on his mind.

It obviously irritates him that the navy's role in the country has not been recognised, and that the army has taken most of the credit for the decade-long operation there.

He says he blames the media, partly. "Because you tend to talk about soldiers and troops. Royal Marines suddenly becomes army so, yes, there is a level of frustration. We are clearly not getting the message over how much the Royal Navy is involved with defence's main effort.

"For instance, we are now deploying 3 commando brigade to Afghanistan. They are deploying as we speak, so that will mean in the summer of this year we will have 3,500 naval service people in Afghanistan – 40% of UK forces will be navy. It's not just about the brigade; we are also running the joint force support headquarters and the joint medical HQ, as well as helicopter pilots, medics, truck drivers, etc."

This is the nub of the navy's problem. Soar does not say it directly, but it hangs in the air around every sentence he speaks – the feeling that the navy has been taken for granted.

Reeling from cuts in last year's strategic defence and security review (SDSR), he is trying to keep the show on the road, keep morale high, and remind people that the navy is not an optional requirement for the UK. For him, it's a must.

Soar's task, he says, is to ensure "in a very uncertain world – that has been proved quite clearly over the last few months – the navy has the ability to deliver. That means that the navy has to operate globally and it has to have the capability to meet that very uncertain world.

"The navy's relevance in today's world is not always obvious to the public; we call it sea blindness. I firmly believe that we are relevant, we have a part to play."

He acknowledges the SDSR has made his life more difficult, and there is now "no spare capacity" in his fleet. HMS Cumberland, which has been off the coast of Libya for the past fortnight and has won praise from ministers for its work, is due to be scrapped next month. Another vessel, the Royal Fleet Auxillary Largs Bay, is this week the subject of conversation between the defence secretary, Liam Fox, and the Australian government, which wants to buy it.

[NURSE]

I sugest next time a politician knocks on your door asking for your vote test his/her knowledge on the size of the armed forces and its current deployments.

The situation in North Africa could make the process a whole lot more complicated if Libya could become another Lebanon with piracy into the med, Yemen is disintegrating. We'll need to deploy more assets in this region.

[Finningley Boy]

I notice that every time the Guardian carrys a story about military people, they can't help themselves from lacing their words with contempt and scepticism. What was it the reported said of the Admiral; "British Interests, as he calls them" as if the reporter regards this as a meaningless expression. Which, being a Guardian reporter, it no doubt is!:ok:

FB:)

[T-21]

The lack of public perception started in the seventies when the wearing of uniform in public was restricted due to N Ireland threat. I take an active interest in the services particularly as my father was an RAF pilot and I grew up on RAF stations. I do miss the lack of flying these days it was more prolific in the sixties/seventies.
Half of the British population seem to have a problem with a basic understanding of Geography. Ask them where Kinloss is and look at the empty stares. The use of maps and atlas need to be taught in schools not relying on sat navs....
The use of the services Yearbooks would be good in schools either paper or online version to spread the word.

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Ask them where Kinloss is and look at the empty stares


I fear the problem is rather worse than not knowing the whereabouts of a dying Scottish airbase. Remember Jade Goody and her belief that Cambridge was in London...?

But then some Canadian cousins of mine were camping in Wyoming a few years back and got chatting to some Americans who asked where they were from.

Cousins: "We're from Canada"
Yanks: "Oh, where's that?"

[baffman]

I notice that every time the Guardian carrys a story about military people, they can't help themselves from lacing their words with contempt and scepticism. What was it the reported said of the Admiral; "British Interests, as he calls them" as if the reporter regards this as a meaningless expression. Which, being a Guardian reporter, it no doubt is!:ok:
So you bothered to read as far as the third paragraph, but apparently not the whole article? :ok:

[Finningley Boy]

Quote:
I notice that every time the Guardian carrys a story about military people, they can't help themselves from lacing their words with contempt and scepticism. What was it the reported said of the Admiral; "British Interests, as he calls them" as if the reporter regards this as a meaningless expression. Which, being a Guardian reporter, it no doubt is!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
So you bothered to read as far as the third paragraph, but apparently not the whole article? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


My eye lids were starting to get get rather heavy after the third paragraph! But I'm sure as you are alluding, my observation was put in a clearer perspective.:ok:

FB:)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Just a quick thought: will their be lessons learnt and ammendments to SDSR after the operations in Libya?

NURSE

It does look like Libya is heading for fragmentation, will Al Qaeda taking advantage. Likewise Yemen is going downhill fast. Can anyone see the very real dangers in the coming months/years?

Not sure what additional assets we could deploy.

Going back to CINCFLEET's comments, it would appear that practical concerns have been ignored by the professional politicians. The idea of having no fixed wing carrier flying for a decade and then suddenly picking up the baton is perhaps the best example of a decision being made by people who are not very practical.

See the Harrier axed - bonkers (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html) thread.

Or perhaps this explains it: Rethinking defence cuts: the more things change, the more they stay the same… (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100083011/rethinking-defence-cuts-the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

So any reversal on cuts would have to be balanced with savings elsewhere. In other words, new cuts. And where would those cuts fall? Well, as analysts including Andrew Dorman point out, the Army would have to be prime candidate. Largely shielded from cuts in the SDSR, surely the Army could lose a few more thousand posts to free up some cash for the RAF and Navy? For much of the SDSR process, that was the MoD’s plan, but the Army cuts were scaled back by the PM.

That last-minute decision skewed the rest of the review and its outcomes, with negative consequences for the other services that are still becoming clear. Awareness of that problem is spreading across Whitehall.

Indeed, the annoyingly well-informed Alex Barker of the FT reports today that even the generals now accept that argument. But Mr Cameron, wary of more bad headlines about sacking Our Boys while they fight in Afghanistan, has said No.

And from Andrew Dorman: Lessons from Libya (http://www.parliamentarybrief.com/2011/04/lessons-from-libya#all)

The assumption of conflict avoidance for the next decade allowed the government to announce unprecedented cutbacks to the defence budget which have been exacerbated by earlier mismanagement within the MoD and the previous government’s failure to budget for the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent in the defence budget.

It was therefore to be expected that when the current situation in Libya emerged the government would follow the assumptions of the NSS and keep a low profile (like Germany), evacuating entitled personnel when it could and leaving the rest of the international community to take a lead in confronting the Gaddafi regime.

The government seems to have forgotten its own working assumptions with David Cameron leading calls for a no-fly zone and subsequently committing British forces to support the no-fly zone and engage in attacks on Libyan ground forces.

Therefore the SDSR is out of date. Yes?

Firstly, it needs to reflect on what costs it should now rescind as a result of this experience. The cuts to the FCO are obvious examples. In terms of defence, retaining the four Type-22s and the RAF’s Sentinel force would be beneficial. Whether the Harriers can be returned and at what price is another matter.

Secondly, and perhaps most obviously, bring forward the reductions to the proposed 2020 Force Structure. For example, the planned future army will consist of six brigades of 6,500 personnel each, i.e. 39,000 personnel in total. This is enough to continue the planned Afghanistan rotation of forces until 2015.

Under current planning the army is supposed to be reduced to 95,000 by 2015 which raises the question of what the other 56,000 personnel do.

With a generous allowance for training establishment, headquarters and MoD posts etc, a ratio of one-for-one would suggest we only need an army of 78,000 and that assumes that there are no territorial or reserve forces in these brigades.

Interestingly, a Policy Exchange paper by Lieutenant-General Graeme Lamb and Lieutenant-Colonel Richards Williams produced for the SDSR advocated a smaller army of 75,000 with a much larger and more integrated reserve component. The added benefit would be that this would make free bases for forces returning from Germany and thus reduce the infrastructure costs associated with the withdrawal of the army from Germany.

[typerated]

Warn us first if you have a slow thought!

[Exnomad]

With a rational government (how do we get one) "defence of the realm" would come first, after deciding what is necessary, vote the required funding.
All other expenditure comes out of what is left.
Wouldn't that be marvellous.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Last weekend Telegraph reported another unpredicted development that presumably was unexpected by the politicians...

Libya: Nato intercepts boats laying mines outside Misurata (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8483805/Libya-Nato-intercepts-boats-laying-mines-outside-Misurata.html)

Misurata has been under siege by forces loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi for several weeks and though rebels have managed to expel regime forces from the city itself, the enclave is isolated and remains dependent for much of its food and supplies on the sea link with the rebel capital Benghazi.

It appeared to be the first time sea mines have been used in the Libyan conflict.

“We have just seen Gaddafi forces floating anti-ship mines outside Misurata harbour today,” said British Brig. Rob Weighill, director of Nato operations in Libya.

“It again shows his complete disregard for international law and his willingness to attack humanitarian delivery efforts.

He added that Nato crews were disposing of the mines.

Yes Mr Cameron, we DO need a Navy!

Update (4/5/11): The News from Pompey is reporting (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/warship_called_in_to_stop_mines_in_libya_1_2645777) Royal Navy involvement in dealing with these mines.

Plus there's talk of bombarding Libyan Government forces from the sea....

SDSR said nothing about this....:ugh:

Update: 14/5/11.

SDSR also never predicated that NGS would be needed (http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/1180-liverpools-gun-silences-gaddafi-rocket-battery.aspx).....

The words ‘Four-five, engage’ were issued after a salvo of rockets was launched at Liverpool as she and Allied warships tried to stop Colonel Gaddafi’s forces mining the waters off the port.

The destroyer’s main 4.5in gun responded with a series of withering blows which silenced the pro-government battery.

It’s the first time the main guns of the Royal Navy have been fired in anger since they plastered Saddam Hussein’s defences in the opening moments of the 2003 Iraq campaign.

After a break in Crete, Liverpool returned to waters off Libya for her second patrol to continue enforcing UN Security Council resolutions – preventing arms and munitions reaching Col Gaddafi and ensuring aid reaches the free peoples of Libya.

Pro-government forces have made sustained attempts to block the approaches to Misrata port with mines, including one thwarted by HMS Brocklesby a fortnight ago when the Portsmouth-based minehunter blew up a mine laid a mile or so off the harbour.

Last night Liverpool and other NATO warships were sent in to intercept inflatable boats seen approaching Misrata; the small fast craft are used to lay and anchor the mines to the seabed.

As the force moved in, one of the regime’s coastal batteries fired a salvo at Liverpool – which missed – and the destroyer immediately sent a response of steel and fire in the direction of the rocket launchers which promptly ceased firing.

The sweep by the Allied warships also caused the pro-Gaddafi boats to abandon their mining operation before laying their deadly ‘eggs’.

This action was also mentioned here (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/hms_liverpool_s_captain_speaks_of_gun_battle_with_gaddafi_fo rces_1_2676163).

HMS Liverpool’s tangle with Libyan forces was the Royal Navy’s most-significant war action since the First Gulf War, a leading historian said.

Top naval historian Professor Andrew Lambert, of King’s College London, said: ‘In 1991, a silkworm missile was fired at a US warship and HMS Gloucester intercepted it with a Sea Dart missile. That was the last big thing until now.’

Prof Lambert argues yesterday’s attack demonstrates the increasing desperation of the Libyan regime.

He said: ‘It’s a highly unusual thing to happen. I sense Gaddafi is feeling the pressure and lashed out.

‘The role navies are playing is destroying Gaddafi’s Libya. Libya exports oil and the blockade has meant he has lost his ability to make money from the sea. This would not have been a random attack. These ships are squeezing the life out of Gaddafi’s regime and he’s fighting back.’

Nor did it predict the use of SSNs for both TLAM firing and other activities (Sun article here (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3580159/Sun-man-stays-on-1bn-nuclear-sub.html)) in the Med...

[WE Branch Fanatic]

It now appears that the Libyan regime has resorted to using other asymmetric methods of trying to fight both the rebels and NATO - as reported by Eaglespeak (http://www.eaglespeak.us/2011/05/libya-mine-warfare-and-vessel-borne.html)...

A tonne of explosives in a boat borne IED suggests an attempt to sink a ship.

About 18 months ago, I prepared a short presentation on asymmetric maritime threats, from terrorists, pirates, and the link, and possible methods of attack. This was very much from a maritime force protection viewpoint, and in addition to discussing terrorist attacks (successful or otherwise) against maritime targets, I tried to make the following points:

1. Terrorists will use any weapon they can. This has included light aircraft (Tamil Tigers), stealthy suicide craft (Tamil Tigers), improvised mines, suicide torpedoes and mini submarines (various groups), and the use of all sorts of vehicles or vessels as weapon platforms or for suicide attacks.

2. Countering these threats demands technology and people. The attack methods may be fairly low tech, but out countermeasures cannot.

3. Asymmetric activities may be done by the armed forces (eg Iranian small boats attacking tankers with machine guns and rockets during the tanker war) or intelligence services or hostile nations, or on their behalf (eg the Argentine plot to attack UK vessels in Gibraltar during the Falklands War (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/24/gibraltar.falklands)).

Thus far, the Libyan regime has used converted light aircraft to mount an air raid, used small boats for minelaying, and now attempted to use a large boat IED.

We should pay attention.

Meanwhile, operations in Iraq are over: From the MOD:

Operations in Iraq finish with completion of Royal Navy training mission (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/OperationsInIraqFinishWithCompletionOfRoyalNavyTrainingMissi on.htm)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

When I started this thread, I had doubts about whether the Prime Minister would be capable of taking advice from the Service Chiefs. Under a different Government I have the same doubts. Was the public criticism of the First Sea Lord this week acceptable?

We know for a fact that the First Sea Lord's advice was ignored before the SDSR, with respect to the Harrier and the issue of preparing for CVF in the future, and over Nimrod. Of course, some might argue that a career politician who has never worked outside of the Conservative party (he was unable to actually win the election though) is better placed to make judgements about these issues than an experienced naval officer with a background in Submarines who later commanded a carrier during periods of intense operational flying....:ugh:

There are suggestions the professional advice was ignored when making an open commitment to Libya. Is Call Me Dave really well placed to make judgements - his experience of the real world is rather limited.

Why is the decision making process so flawed?

To really put the cat amongst the pigeons have a look at this ARRSE thread:

UK Armed Forces: Plummeting International Reputation Deserved? Does it Matter? (http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/153802-uk-armed-forces-plummeting-international-reputation-deserved-does-matter.html)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Whilst we're on the subject of flawed decision making, I've the following article about current operations in Libya:

Opinion: Libya Stalemate Looms for NATO as Gaddafi Holds His Ground (http://www.defenceiq.com/air-forces-and-military-aircraft/articles/opinion-libya-stalemate-draws-nigh-for-nato-as-gad/)

[Heathrow Harry]

"Why is the decision making process so flawed?"

because since the war the politicians have shoveled money into a bottomless pit which has no effective controls on budgeting, expenditure or planning

there comes a time when you just ignore what the military say as you've given up believing them

[Widger]

Heathrow Harry

No ....totally wrong....because not ENOUGH money has been spent on political ambition and because several NATO nations are not pulling their weight.

[Biggus]

I had assumed, when he was talking about bottomless pits with no effective controls, that Heathrow Harry had been referring to the NHS and Social Security... :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[cazatou]

Biggus

You forgot MP's Allowances Claims!!!