Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The greatest threat to security is the misconception that no such threat exists.

These were the opening words of a security lecture that I attended a few months ago. Just as the most important thing in (information) is being aware of the threat, lack of public awareness of defence issues is a major threat to the Armed Forces, because it makes them vulnerable of cutbacks, often by back door means. Even worse, common misconceptions mean that the defence community receives neither the support nor the recognition that they deserve from the public. Hence the above statement applies to national and international security.

The reasons for this are not simple. Apathy, bad PR by the Services, poor journalism and the "Me me me" culture are all, in my opinion, partly to blame. But problems with support from the public are reflected at a political level, just look at how few MPs attend debates on defence issues. Yet defence affects us all - both directly and indirectly.

People commonly believe that there is no threat to the UK. It may well be true that, apart from terrorism, there is no direct threat at the present, but there are many threats to UK interests. We are very dependant on imported oil, the sources of which may need to be defended. Electricity generation relies greatly on imported natural gas. Most UK imports/exports are by sea. Remember the chaos caused by the 2000 fuel protests? Imagine if that disruption to the oil supply was caused by an act of aggression by a hostile nation, and we could not respond as we did not have the troops/ships/aircraft?

Imagine if a major ally/trading partner was attacked and we could not respond? What if a regional conflict elsewhere was escalating rapidly? In the inter-dependant world of the 21st century, such events could have grave implications, political, economic, humanitarian and security, for all of us. There is trouble and strife all over the world, some of it will involve us. Who can say where British forces may be needed? Or what for?

Many do not realise that many potential aggressors have sophisticated capabilities - modern armoured vehicles, missiles of various types, aircraft of various types, missile armed ships, submarines - the list is a long one. Because they don't realise the threats that potentially exist, they are unaware of the need to have suitable defences.

On a more basic level, a large part of the public simply does not understand why we spend so much on defence. Apart from not understanding the threats that exist, people lack an understanding of how defence accounts for only a small part of public expenditure and represents an even smaller percentage of GNP. Defence is always the budget looked at when the Treasury wants to make savings. Maybe it is due to the fact that it is politically easier to cut defence spending than other areas of expenditure. Despite the fact that the Armed Forces have an involvement in other areas of Government activity, Education, Health, Law and Order to name a few.

On the Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152) thread I have made reference to a recent public survey carried out for the Royal Navy. It sought to determine how much the general public know about the RN. The results were staggering - or at least I thought so. Whilst virtually everyone knows the Navy is there to "defend the nation" it would seem that few people knew what that meant day to day. Very few people listed counter drugs operations as a naval activity. The majority did not seem to know that the Royal Marines are not part of the Army, and did not know what the Fleet Air Arm is. Maybe this is why it has been so vulnerable to penny pinching. Whilst the Navy may have more of an image problem than the other two services, I would guess that the Army and RAF are similarly misunderstood.

Many people lack basic knowledge. They seen unaware of the different Armed Forces, what the different services do, what types of unit and equipment there are, and the different Reserve forces. More importantly they seem to be unaware of all the deployments and commitments we have (despite the fact most of the are mentioned in the papers, on TV etc). This is in spite of these issues being discussed on news and current affairs type TV programmes, in the papers, in documentaries, and sometimes in articles in (mainstream, non defence) magazines. They also seem unaware of the massive cutbacks of the last thirteen or so years. Compare the number of front line units today with those in 1990. Compare the number of operations too (see below). Incidentally, were did the so called peace dividend go? Did it actually save the taxpayer any money?

Overstretch is something of which many people are unaware, despite things like TA personnel being deployed to Afghanistan (and other delightful places), the then Chief of Defence Staff warning that we would not be able to conduct another major operation within a year or so, large numbers of infantry being needed for peace keeping/support and reconstruction in Iraq, the First Sea Lord stating that the Navy lacks enough ships for all the extra tasks that were unforeseen several years ago, etc etc etc. Because the public are unaware of the deployments and operations, they are unaware of overstretch. Or they do not understand it - perhaps not understanding that you cannot commit 100% of your forces to operations 100% of the time.

On a slightly different note - but one still highly relevant, the public often have a distorted view of personnel issues. People often seem to think people only join up because they are thick, or that they must be thick "cos you couldn't get a job and had to join....". I have seen idiots come out with this line more times than I can count. Yet they seem to ignore that a significant number of people fail the psychometric tests in the careers office and are considered to be too.....ahem....not suitable to join. And that is before interviews, medicals, basic training and so on. None of which are easy in any way. And yes, I am talking as someone who got kicked out.

And of course training never really stops. Each new promotion, new role, new unit/ship/aircraft type involves more training. As does new equipment, deployments to new areas, refresher courses, all sorts of things. Compare this with civilian life where employers are frequently reluctant to invest in training.

There is the issue of service personnel being considered louts, drunks, thugs and generally an unruly lot. This seems like a hypocritical attitude considering the appalling standards of behaviour seen in the UK these days. Go to any major town or city after closing time and you will see truly disgusting things. If members of the Forces act in a similar manner, is it not a reflection of society as a whole?

During the recent Fire-fighters' strike, there was a great deal of nonsense said in the media, on the internet and so on. Certain members of the public seemed to have some strange thoughts. Some said that covering the strike showed the services are overmanned, ignoring the fact that units were prevented from going on exercise or deployment, peoples' training was seriously disrupted and people were prevented from taking the leave and harmony time which they were entitled to. Also certain people seemed to think that serving personnel get free food and accommodation, do not pay domestic bills, and do not pay tax - all of which is complete nonsense.

Likewise certain FBU members claimed that they would not be able to fight fires or use modern equipment, or had no training to deal with NBC incidents. Some people probably believed them.

The media has to take at least some of the responsibility for the above. Apart from gaffes - such as describing RAF helicopters as Army ones, or Navy ones as RAF ones, or other combinations, describing RAF Regiment folks as "Army personnel defending airfield x", getting the names of units, places, vehicles, aircraft, etc. wrong, and other dumb mistakes - the quality of reporting on defence issues is often low.

Some of it is due to lack of knowledge. You would have thought that anyone writing an article on a defence issue for a newspaper would do some research first, perhaps starting by looking at the PR stuff available. But no, it would seem many are incapable of even this. Contacting the corporate communications (as it gets called now) people is often too hard for them as well.

Worse still is the sensationalist approach taken by many. Stories are exaggerated hugely, presumably to sell more copies. Journalistic hyperbole rules! Every base or unit gets described as "Top Secret", every operation as a "daring raid" - even routine ones, and given the chance every tabloid hack will try to mention the SAS. If a routine infantry patrol finds an arms cache you can bet that tabloid hacks will think up a headline like "Top secret SAS unit capture massive weapons cache in daring raid". It might sell papers, but does it inform the public of the real nature of things?

To add to this list of media sins, there is speculation. Frequently this speculation is based on flawed logic and incorrect information and assumptions. Assuming that they don't just make it up, that is. Often this speculation serves no purpose, except of course selling papers. All they do is cause people worry and anxiety, which they can do without. During the initial combat phases in Iraq the media seemed to like speculating on what weapons aircraft were carrying and similar. Why? When personnel were killed, particularly in the helicopter crashes or when the Tornado was brought down by a Patriot, the media speculated who it was, what type, etc. Apart from getting it wrong often, the stress and anxiety they caused the families is something they should hang their heads in shame for. Likewise the harassment of service wives and families by journalists - this happened to people I know. This was neither justifiable or forgivable.

Only exceptionally good news is reported - but negative stories are often blown out of all proportion. There's no news like bad news, or so it seems.

The Government would be well advised to think about what would have happened to the Tories if we had lost the Falklands war, which we would have done if the proposed cutbacks had been fully implemented. They would have been booted out of office or at least come close to it. The current Government should think about that. The cutbacks that they have made, or any future ones, may result in the political landscape changing overnight.

In peacetime however, defence will continue to be low on the list of political priorities. Personally I suspect that this is largely for the reasons outlined above, and until action is taken to improve the level of public awareness I fear that the overworked and underequipped British soldier/sailor/airman will continue to be taken for granted by the public and shafted by the system, and the defence budget will continue to be vulnerable to Treasury led cuts.

Edit - September 2013

The change of Government in 2010 did not improve things, with a defence review that was largely decided at the last minute, on political grounds (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).

It seems that major (and damaging) decisions, such as scrapping the MPA capability with only a vague idea of regenerating it at some future date, or ignoring the advice from the Admirals and scrapping the Harrier (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html#post6023131) without first having worked out how the skills needed for fixed wing carrier operations would be retained and developed for the future (still an unresolved issue (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-151.html#post7934621)), or opting to switch to F-35C and a CTOL future without investigating the issues, were not subject to proper analysis.

Lack of understanding by public, media, and politicians remains an issue.

[Beeayeate]

WE BF

Top post. It is surely true that we are our own worst enemy - but wasn't it ever thus? :(

[Scud-U-Like]

WBF

Much of what you say is very apt. However, to the majority of the population, the armed forces are like that insurance policy you keep tucked at the back of the drawer. You don't really think about it, until you need to make a claim. You moan about paying the premiums and wonder if the money wouldn't be better spent on something else. On balance, you're probably content to cough-up the money, but not really interested in the small print.

Are the public interested in the routine of service life? No, not really. Are they interested in hyped-up tales of daring do? You bet. People generally get the standard of reporting they deserve. If you read the tabloids, then you deserve to be lied to. If, however, you view the media and all its works, with a skeptical eye, you can generally see through most of the nonsense.

In general, the armed forces have a very good public image. The only thing we can do to maintain this, is to keep doing our job well.

[HectorusRex]

Perhaps the following from the Independent today may put the projected Defence cuts into the public eye?

Huge defence cuts to fund intelligence war on terror
By Andy McSmith Political Editor
07 December 2003


Ministers are planning big cuts in military hardware in order to pour extra money into high technology intelligence operations. The plans are likely to provoke a bitter political war with service chiefs.

The Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, is convinced that the main threats to Britain come from terrorists and insurgents, who have to be attacked with pinpoint accuracy, rather than conventional armies.

Mr Hoon is due to publish his long awaited Defence White Paper on Thursday but the cuts will not be made explicit because he wants to minimise political reaction. They will, however, emerge over the next few months.

Service chiefs fear they will lose millions of pounds worth of promised hardware. The controversy will be heightened because of the spectacular failure of the intelligence services in assessing whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Before sending British troops to war in Iraq, Tony Blair claimed in a published dossier that Saddam Hussein's regime had a "useable chemical and biological weapons capability" which presented a "serious and current" threat to the West. Since March, hundreds of inspectors have combed Iraq in search of these weapons, without success.

One casualty of the new policy could be the £50bn Eurofighter, Typhoon, being developed jointly by BAE Systems, Finmeccania of Italy, and Eads, the pan-European aerospace combine. The first batch of the 620 planes is already under construction, but there are fears that the final 236 may be at risk.

The Royal Navy is also resigned to experiencing an outbreak of what wags call SCS - "shrinking carrier syndrome". Improved technology means that new aircraft carriers can lose 10 per cent of their size without damaging their effectiveness. There is suspicion that the shrinking carriers will hit the Joint Strike Fighter that is due to enter service early in the next decade. The number of aircraft purchased could be 40 fewer than originally planned.

Explaining the philosophy behind the White Paper in a speech last July, Mr Hoon said: "The experts call this approach Effects-Based Operations. They focus on undermining an opponent's ability to exercise effective command and control of his forces rather than simply on battlefield attrition."

He also used a speech to the City of London last month to counter fears that thousands of army personnel could be made redundant as the Army's presence in Northern Ireland is cut from 14,000 to 5,000 over the next two years. He insisted that he wants to keep the Army at its present level of 103,000 trained soldiers. Even that will leave the Government open to complaints that they are asking too few soldiers to do too much.

Last week, Field Marshal Peter Inge, the former Chief of Defence Staff, said in the House of Lords: "Our armed forces are too small for the tasks that are laid upon them. The Army needs a minimum of 4,000 to 5,000 men and women to increase certain units to make them more robust... We are increasing the risk of operational failure."

Keith Simpson, a Tory defence spokesman, claimed: "They haven't yet done the detailed work required because they were hoping that Uncle Gordon Brown was going to be more generous than he has been. I fear the White Paper will be a long essay which the MoD will be using as a smokescreen to cover up what will, at the end of the day, be painful cuts."

Unlike that in Iraq, most future operations are likely to be more like those in Afghanistan or Sierra Leone, where there was no large standing army to be overcome.

Mr Hoon was delighted by the success of a computerised "game" based on satellite pictures and intelligence from MI6 which tested five options for taking Basra, in southern Iraq, last March. A team of MoD computer experts created a computer model which included information on the positions of Iraqi troops, their weapons, and even the buildings and alleyways where they might hide.
7 December 2003 21:16

:mad:

[HOODED]

Ah but will there be any redundancies? I hope there will and then maybe the powers that be will see the state of morale in our overstreached continually cut forces. My guess would be that they'd see a massive number of applications. All too much to hope for really!

[Impiger]

White Paper due out this week - I think Keith Simpson, given his reported comments in the post above, has seen an advance copy!:eek:

[Scud-U-Like]

The Sunday Times 7 December 2003:

Hoon Poised for £2bn Cut in Forces (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-923014,00.html)

A number of senior officers, however, see the white paper as a chance to break out of the service’s historic regimental structure.

“Anybody who argues on emotional grounds for cap badges and so on doesn’t understand the needs of the army today,” a senior officer told a private Whitehall audience last week.

The army wants to move from a structure based on battalions of about 600 men to an emphasis on company-sized sub-units of about 120 men that can be more easily deployed.

I hope that bit is true and that someone has seen sense at last. The regimental system belongs in a museum, not in a modern army.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Scud U Like

I think many Army people would disagree with you. The connections units and the area that they recruit from is probably a good thing. The sense of history and tradition is also a good thing, particularly when the chips are down. People expend effort "not to let the regiment down". It helps motivate the men.

Surely any change to "X company of Y battalion or Z regiment" can only harm unit cohesion and damage morale, effectiveness, recruitment and retention?

Since battalions are made up of companies why can't companies be deployed independantly? What happens when you need a battalion sized unit?

[WorkingHard]

Can any one tell us what proportion of the overall cost of the armed services is spent on:
Equipment
Current manpower salaries
Retired pay/ pensions (and include all senior officers who have "retired")
then we may judge better what the effect of any proposed efence cuts amy be. To simply cut the manpower at lower levels (as has happened in the past) will just exacerbate the situation. Who will advise on the cuts? No oen will suggest their own redundancy surely

[Winerack]

Scud U Like,

I suspect that you have never witnessed the Regimental system. I also believe it's time for change, however, not at the expense of a very cohesive fighting unit, something that 120 men could achieve unless they are all trained to the Hereford standard.

Pissed as usual

[timex]

The army wants to move from a structure based on battalions of about 600 men to an emphasis on company-sized sub-units of about 120 men that can be more easily deployed.

But isn't that just how the Army is structured anyway? Coy's can be deployed independantly anyway.

As for the Regimental system being outdated ? A Regt is just the next level up before BDE, DIV etc, what you call it is neither here or there. Why not leave well alone. The Black Watch seemed to do OK in Basra.

[Paterbrat]

Regimental system has worked well for many years, continues to do so, seems to be a retrograde step to abolish it. The sense of family, cohesion, and esprit de corps is easier to foster around a long and proud history and most regiments certainly have that.

Why was the Royal Tournamant abolished? It served as a wonderful way of entertaining educating and inspiring generations of the public in the history make up and various facets of the armed forces and how they serve the country. It was a showcase of all that was smart disciplined and proudly patriotic, it helped our armed forces stand out in an exemplary fashion and probably did more for recruitment and good PR than was spent staging it. I never did get the reason why it was axed but feel that in line with the gender confused politicaly correct athmosphere that now prevails it was probably considered hostile and generaly inimical to the general apathetic mood we are surrounded with. Another victory to the 'roll over who needs an army brigade' who would invite the enemy in for tea and biccies and 'lets talk about this in a civilised manner.'

[A Civilian]

People have been saying the regimental system should be scrapped for decades all the way back to WW2 as far as im aware yet it's still around today. It has to be said that the regiment is no longer the base unit organization of the army and it hasnt been for quite some time yet it's still around.

[You want it when?]

It works sort of, and no viable altenrative is yet in place or wanted.

[EESDL]

You know when senior officers and defence planners have run out of ideas when they start spouting mealy-mouthed phrases in a Gordon-Brown like fashion, with the knowledge that their audience will never believe them.

When was the last time a CAS was done for Sabotage?

Read CAS' memo, then re-read it, then read it again. Blimey, the RAF are in heap big trouble.
The reverse psychology works well in the accountant's classroom. Unfortunately, the same accountants are nowhere to be found when Bloggsy gets shot and dies due to them being half-way down the queue when Chest Armour was being handed out.

So, CAS' memo was meant to 'butter-us-up' for the next Defence White Paper. Call me old fashioned but will it mean the end of over-stretch or negligence?

The last senior officer who they couldn't convince just to 'nod' had to walk, but atleast he went with a clear concience.

Just glad that it's my last tour.

HOODED

Redundancies: One weeks' basic pay for each productive year of service. Enabling Acts of Parliament are already in force to get around the Air Force Act. You learnt about loyalty and integrity here at the RAF School of Man Management.

[polyglory]

There is nothing wrong with the Regimental System,

Bean counters and Poliies in Unison, a horrendous mix indeed.

In strife anywhere in the world, shout out the Ships Name/Reg/Unit and you they all come to your aid, if present of course, otherwise you were in deep stoomf ( PC police I don't think have thought of that one YET , anyway I never cared )
:ugh:

[BATS]

EESDL

You mention one weeks pay per year of service and possible legislation to get round the AFA. That's a bit disconcerting for the rather large numbers who will probably apply...... can you tell us where that particular change to our terms of service came from ???? The standard redundancy packages for military personnel are published in AP3392 and I am not aware of any changes since I last looked. To the best of my knowledge the one weeks pay/year is the minimum industrial standard, but the MOD has different arrangements

Only curious as I will certainly apply if a redundancy scheme comes around again.

BATS

[HOODED]

BATS you are not alone. I find the one weeks pay per year a little short of what was being given last time round. I seem to remember it going on time left to serve though not time served. More a buying you out of your contracted term left type thing really! Thats why I just signed on, just in case it buys me more pay off! Must find that darn AP3392 thingy tomorow. Mind you last time it went on negative assessments, so as I keep my nose clean I'd probably get one of those you're too valuable to loose letters! But then again the CO's wife looks OK!:ok:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

There was something about defence on the BBC news tonight. Missed the first few minutes of this. Also it was on Newsnight. I spent several minutes listening to some silly woman from an academic group saying we should funnel money away from the Armed Forces towards do gooders telling people to behave -

"Please Mr Hitler, come and join us around the camp fire and promise you'll behave...."

The talk of reducing the surface fleet flies in the face of the statement by the First Sea Lord that the Navy does not have enough ships. Talk of scrapping "older ships", something which it might well be claimed has already been done, might indicate in a reduction in the number of Type 42 destroyers. Apart from increasing the overstretch of the fleet, it would mean naval task groups would virtually no defence, apart from short range weapons, against air attack. It would also mean that the reasoning used to justify scrapping the Sea Harrier is completely false.

However, it seems likely that things are being deliberating leaked so that when the real decisions come out they do not seem so bad, particularly if it is done on a drip by drip basis.

Recently, Geoff Hoon was being awkward.. he said measuring the capability of our armed forces by the number of units will no longer be significant.

Really? How exactly does one undertake things like peacekeeping without troops?

Consider the following statement from the either CINCFLEET or the Second Sea Lord (sorry, can't remember which)...

Using technology to get rid of the fog or war and confusion on the battlefield is all well and good - but it will not replace someone simply being there.

So there we have it. Who should the public and parliamentarians believe? Senior officers, or the Ministers?

As for the Treasury, in 1940 they wanted to surrender to the Nazis to save money. That nihlistic penny pinching attitude still exists.

To go back to the original theme of this thread, the question is how do those of us who care/worry about defence go about getting the public on side?

As the issue of tuition fees shows, opposition by the public AND in parliament can make the Government reconsider things...

[Archimedes]

Er... like going to war in Iraq, for instance?

Sadly, the Times led this morning with a poll suggesting that the 'majority of the population' is in fact in favour with tuition fees, and that it is in fact Labour MPs who are out of touch. Chances of Bliar not seizing upon that? Slim...

You'd have thought that, with their (whisper it gently) socialist backgrounds President Blair et al would have remembered Stalin's 'Sometimes quantity has a quality all of its own' dictum...

[chippy63]

If the regimental system is so good, do the RN and the RAF suffer from not having such a system?
PS no smart-arrsed comments, thank you.

[NURSE]

excuse me the RAF and the Royal Navy do actually have similar systems in the navy its called a ship and in the RAF it called a Squadron!!!!

the Public and media are very ignorrant of our armed forces because the forces are now so small that few people come into contact with them. Added to the fact that things like the Royal tournament and events to keep the armed forces in the public eye were scrapped to save money. Armed forces careers offices were closed and how often do soldiers sailors or airmen visit towns, villages etc in uniform to keep the services in the public eye?
The media also don't help by always looking for negative stories and the PC lobby trying to undermine the values and sandards that make the military what it is. Add this to the fact that most MP's and civil servants have not served in the armed forces and no wonder the armed forces are in the state they're in.

The British armed forces are now to small and badly balanced. They need investment of both money and care by the country. we are meant to have looked at what we wanted the forces to be able to do but not invested in them to give them the capibility to do it. At present its all save today for the hope of investment in the future.

[chippy63]

Nurse
But it's not the same, is it? The ship or sqadron doesn't have the same long term staff postings, at least as I understand things. The regiments, however, are an individual's focal point: whilst people will have postings away, they return to the regiment regularly and keep the affiliation even after being promoted out of the regiment if they get to that rank. (Col/Brig xxx, late the zzz regiment).
In the RN and RAF, again, as I understand it, an individual will have a number of postings to different ships/ squadrons/staff postings without the central focus provided by a regiment.
Happy to be corrected if my thinking is mistaken.

[polyglory]

Quite correct Chippy63.

:ok:

[Muppet Leader]

Sorry and all that, but I’ve got to ask how, by scrapping the Royal Tournament, you save money.

The servicemen and women taking part, get paid a handsome bounty for the evenings performance perhaps?

These personnel have taken the Queens shilling and are available, in theory at least, twenty-four hours a day, three hundred and sixty five days a year.
So salaries will be paid weather the event takes place or not.

Wear and tear on equipment and uniforms, perhaps.

Ah that’ll be it.
I forgot that all armed forces personnel walk round b@@llock naked all day and sit on the floor playing cards, as to sit on a chair, would cause undue wear and tear. They mustn’t, under any circumstances perform any useful work, might entail replacing an expensive spark plug in the MT pool.

Cost?
What cost?

Surely you make money from the event?
Television rights to show the event.
Always a full house, so a percentage of revenue from ticket sales. A percentage from food and beverage sales, programme and memorabilia sales, and with modern technology, film the event and produce a DVD of the evening, for sale as the punters leave!

If the armed forces seriously put their heads together, they could MAKE a fortune.

Look at all the reality TV programmes that have been around of late.
I remember some years ago, the local TV station close to a certain airfield in Wiltshire, filmed for two or three weeks, and managed to produce an interesting but all too brief glimpse of life on a military airfield. Expand it, make it into a series.

Day to day stuff – expand the MT section, and turn it into a commercial enterprise, servicing and MOTs for the local community – profits to the base concerned.
Logistics – local deliveries for farms and shops – profit to the base.
Catering for the community, school / church fetes.

The list could go on and on.

But cancelling the Royal tournament due to cost savings - Please.
:*

[Mr C Hinecap]

Muppet

Don't be so blinkered. I think stopping the Tournament was a crying shame - fantastic PR etc, but you cannot seriously think that it didn't put some sort of strain on things. Yes, the participants were already paid, but diversion from primary duties, lodging in London, hiring the venue, running costs, people whose job it was to plan the next one (wages etc) all add up. How many Wednesday afternoons do we get for sport in the RAF these days? Expeds? Less and less. That grips my ***t, but it is the way of things.
Don't believe that things are free, cos the bean counters will soon prove you wrong and stop the fun in other places.

As for making money. We have not been allowed to do this - legislation prevents us doing that - unfair competition etc. Also brings in liability etc. There have been ideas like this in the past - making use of 'irreducible spare capacity' - but has not come to a lot.

[Irish Tempest]

Sadly, I think this country needs to get its arse kicked in a conflict. Until this happens the bean counters will keep on a stealing...

Maybe after we lose something then and only then will the powers at B decide "hmm we don't want this to happen again..lets do something about it".

Undoubtedly this will result in the loss of many lives. Maybe we should send a few of the politicians to the front lines...and take a camera.

Sorry to be flippant over this issue but I as a paid up member of the armed forces, I like others are getting increasingly cheesed off at been taken for granted.

Yes, we continue to win everything we do...but the armed forces capability is like everything else...finite and i feel we are approaching that boundary with rapid gusto.

There i've said it, good thing this forum exists else i'd be done for mutiny!

[EESDL]

Bats & Hooded

Hey, get in line if the redundancy package is going to be similar to last time but that's the whole point. The package cost a fortune last time and spoilt the savings that were meant to be made. That is why discussions have been made to find out how they can reduce the 'costs' of cutting costs.

When you find a copy of that AP may I suggest you take it along to an auction house and get the paper that it's written on valued!!

We have always been naive in the Armed Forces and have been 'used' because of our 'can do' character. The fact that the Armed Forces were seen to be free of such back-stabbing and acts of darkness attracted such personalities to a work place where they thought they would be left to 'get the job done'. Traits such as Loyalty, Integrity (you get the picture) were banded about to instill a feeling of comradeship and pride. Now that we have seen our leader's true colours and the fact that we are disposable to the lowest bidder do they honestly expect anyone to hang around?

That's the plan of course. Why pay a 45 yr old Sqn Ldr/ Flt Lt and his boarding school allowance when a CR 25 yr old singly can do the same job. No need to talk about experience blah, the accountants bottom line is that if you are CR, you are CR.

With such leadership, loyalty and prospects I doubt the 25 yr old singly will stay around for long.

[Uncle Ginsters]

All pay deals aside for one moment, if i may....Surely we're getting this whole thing arse about face.
There's only so much cutting back that you can do.

Why should the armed forces - in such high demand lately - be cut back on financial grounds when Government spending on Labour's Immigration policy has gone from £500m to £1.5b in just a few short years....to mention but one expensive cock-up.

Bloody bean counters and their pots!

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

You have £100m for defence and you run the country...

You currently spend £8m on humint, sigint, MI5/6.

You currently spend £62m on the conventional Army, Navy, Air Force.

You currently spend £30m on a strategic nuclear deterrent.


Now. I *think* the biggest threat to this country at the moment is something like nerve agent release on the Tube, a fishing boat full of radioactive waste & semtex sailing up the Thames or some nutter hitting me on the head at work and driving into Big Ben.

So, dealing with the biggest threats first, I want to shift money from conventional forces into the intelligence areas - don't I?

I might have a good long think about whether we need to remain a nuclear power. I might think about the costs of replacing Trident sometime in the next 20yrs and take a long lie down in a dark room. Then I think I would be happier to retain the ultimate deterrent in these times when the likes of Pakistan has it.

So do I want a couple of hundred main battle tanks sat on Salisbury plain or 20 squadrons of jolly smart Eurofighters or 2 gor blimey aircraft carriers? Or would I rather have an extra 5,000 intelligence agents in the field, some amazing sigint capability and possibly a competent robust civil defence architecture?

I want to have intelligence agents in every corner of every dodgy country around the globe. I want them expertly trained and perfectly equipped and supported. I want them to have plenty of cash to loosen tongues and I want the best and brightest not Oxbridge Shaylors.

I want to be able to read every email listen to every phone call, track every mobile and scan every computer at will and without trace. I want to be able to watch any point on the globe in minute detail 24/7 regardless of weather and I want to share and exploit the capabilities of friendly nations to achieve this.

I want to have emergency services on standby that can handle a small nuclear detonation or a biological weapons release in a major city. I want a command and control structure that really will work when the worst happens, that can lock down the country in the event of a biological attack. That can stop the deaths of tens of thousands from being the deaths of millions.

Now at present we don't have any of the above 3 paragraphs.

If you tell me that most of Typhoon, most of the heavy tank equipment and most of the surface Navy is the price. Well. I'm tempted to pay it. I think it would serve my security interests better.

Terrible shame. I would have loved to pole about in a Typhoon had I been good enough and I'm sure a ChallengerII and Type42 is equally sporting in its own way. But the threat really really really HAS changed this time. I'm weary of pat historic parallels when its been said before.

The threat is as dedicated as the the suicide bomber. The threat is totally asymetric. The threat is illogical and idealogical. The threat exists without a state and without state backing. The threat is competent.

The only defence and offense is intelligence.

The odds on failure suggest investment in civil defence.

Both these things will require a lot of money. You tell me where it should come from?

Cheers

WWW

[BlueWolf]

But why do you only have 100 million (don't have a pound sign on my Antipodean keyboard, sorry) for Defence, when you have 1.5 billion to spend on immigration?

It isn't because the nation/government/state doesn't have the money; it's because politicians choose to spend it in other areas. This is where your answer lies.

We have exactly the same situation here. Government axes an Air Combat Force which cost $80 million a year to run (on the grounds of unjustifiable expense), but happily spends 1.1 billion on Social Welfare - every month.

Get political, people. It is the bean counters and the bent politicians who need preaching at. Here, we are already converted.

Good luck, and any useful feedback from your end gratefully received in our own campaign;)

Top thread, WEBF:ok:

[Mad_Mark]

WWW,

I'd expect to hear nothing less from someone who is from that particular town. I know your profile says you are a current ATPL, but do you have a vested interest in this field? Do your wife, familiy or friends work at a certain local establishment?

Mad Mark!!! :mad:

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Bluewolf - the 100 figure was purely to show percentages - obviously the Uk defence budget is in the many many billions.

Mad Mark - although as I gaze up from Weasley towers computer room I can see the rather striking new GCHQ building I don't know anyone employed there and I only moved here recently.

I'm just saying - with limited resources what would *you* choose to prioritise if you really were in the job.

Cheers

WWW

[Ali Barber]

How would 5000 intelligence agents have recovered the Falkland Islands, liberated Kuwait, sorted formaer Yugoslavia or overthrown Sadaam.

I would guess the US has got at least that many agents and it certainly has the money to loosen tongues. But they didn't stop 9/11! They also haven't got a clue where Bin Laden or Sadaam is and, in the meantime, troops hold the ground instead of agents.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

We couldn't do the Falklands again now.

We couldn't have liberated Kuwait without the US anyway.

Former Yugoslavia did not require a Typhoon, a main battle tank nor a large carrier.

Saddam was overthrown by the US with the UK helping here and there.

I'm not talking about disbanding the military nor cutting the expenditure. I am talking about hard choices, fixed budgets and the here&now.

Cheers

WWW

[NURSE]

unfortunatley Irish tempest is correct the UK will need to get its arse kicked before something positive is done and unfortunatley it will mean guys and girls will have to die....

The Bean counters of the civil service and the various over paid consultants Know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

What will happen when the UK has to mount an op without US or European support? Eg into Zimbabwe or another Falklands
and despite all the friendliness I would sugest if the argentinians thought they would get away with it they would invade again.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

We won't be able to do it so thats it. Simple.

If that means we don't get involved in various dodgy wars on behalf of the motivations of Foreign Office Mandarins then - thats un upside for johnny soldier. Sierra Leone again anyone?


Cheers

WWW

[WE Branch Fanatic]

What proportion of UK Government spending is spent on defence? Well, judging by the Treasury figures yesterday less than SIX percent.

In terms of efficiency, by which I mean money having an effect on the cutting edge/coal face, does the MOD rank amongst Government departments? They're all good at spending public money, but to little effect.

Weasly - do you think that terrorism is the only threat to the UK? Really?

So you gather intelligence. What then? Are you going to send the terrorists a strongly worded letter telling them to bahave or they'll be sent to bed without any tea? I suspect that you would want the means to do something about it. Like the Armed Forces, perhaps?

And the Forces do gather intelligence. Not many know that it was infact a Nimrod R1 that detected four Mig29s airborne in Serbia, only to have 3 shot down by F15s being controlled by AWACS (who iniitially did not see the threats become airborne). Again most people are unaware of the MIOPS (Maritime Interdiction Operations) being carried out by naval forces from a variety of nations, including the UK, in places such as the Med, Arabian Sea, and other places.

Gathering intelligence is something the Services do all the time.

[BlueWolf]

Six percent....wow, that would be mana from heaven. We get 1.1% nominal, and about 0.75% in real terms once the Government has finished taking back with the other hand.

As to the threats; deal with terrorism, but get real and prepare for China. The Muslim Hordes are a long way from assembling their excreta to the point of being a direct threat to Europe, but the Chinese are not.

There are 1.3 billion of them. Their population is growing by almost 50 million a year. The one-child policy has resulted in a situation where the surplus male population is now approaching 100 million.

They are a nuclear power and are entering the space race. They are technically advanced and becoming more so. They are organised, intelligent, hard working, and aggressively expansionist. They will not stop at trade. They will seek land and resources outside their own borders; food, fresh water, women, territory.

They have plans to build a fleet of aircraft carriers and are expanding their submarine capability. This is not doomsaying or fantasy or hysteria; it is happening.
India will provide a limited bulwark against China, but only within her capabilities, and only as far as suits her.
American military power is great, but not unlimited. Already it is spread thinly, and stretched in places. Taking on North Korea or Syria as well as current commitments will leave very little surplus capacity in Uncle Sam's ability to look after Britain or Europe.

If I were of a mind to apply timeframes to things, I might suggest that China will be a military threat to the sovereignty of Asian nations within 15 - 20 years, South Pacific and South-East Asian nations within 20 - 25 years, and Continental Europe within 25 - 30 years.

Enjoy the sunshine for now if you must, but don't be so naive and foolish as to believe that it will last.

[pr00ne]

Bluewolf,

Your living in the 1930's mate, not the 21st Century!

You also seem to be forgetting something called Trident.

UK is not a super power anymore. We may be the fourth richest economy on the planet but we are no where near the USA in terms of economic or military strength.

If China ever tries to become a major player on the world scene, and many political commentators note that if it did it would probably implode like the old Soviet Union did, then if it had any expansionist ambitions these would be matched and faced down by the combined strength of the free world led by the United States.

Don't forget, we (the UK) in no way could take on the Germans alone when they tried it twice in the last Century, that didn't stop us participating in a global campaign to stop them but no way could we ever have taken them on alone and won.

What makes you think China would be any different?

Also, what makes you think that China is going to be some militaristic expansionist state? They will have major challenges ahead of them, the most significant being how to hold together a huge monolithic state in the 21st Century world of instant global communication, fiscal dominance and human rights and individual expression.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

WEBF - I am well aware of the range of intelligence activities conducted by conventional forces. Fine, lets have more AWACS, R1, diesel electric subs, UAVs etc etc.

Main battle tanks, leading edge fighters and carriers could pay for it all.

6% is 6% and it ain't going to get any higher so work with what you have. That was kind of my point.

Cheers

WWW

[BlueWolf]

I bring you peace for our time....

The cheque's in the mail.....

I did not have sexual relations with that woman....

The Iraqis have weapons of mass destruction.....

The free world likes America and will happily be saved by her....

China is not a threat to world peace and stability....

Protracted nuclear exchange is possible within the laws of physics.....

Nope, I'm living in the 2030's, mate. The Soviet Union was an artificial creation cobbled together out of a whole lot of states, peoples and religions who didn't want a bar of each other, and held together by brutality.
China is an homogenous nation, and unlike the Soviet Union, it has embraced capitalism. Many political commentators have said many things which later turned out to be bollox.

The combined populations of the Axis Powers in WWII was less than 250 million. China alone is in excess of 1.3 billion. Nuclear war being, as it always was, impossible, any future conflict will be primarily conventional.

Set your alarm clock for 2033, my good pr00ne, and I'll tell you "I told you so".

:ok:

The earth is flat, I tell you! FLAAAAAAT!!!!!!

[Oggin Aviator]

.... only if they let you !!!! ;)

[NURSE]

the editorial in the sunday torygraph by Max Hastings is very good

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/12/14/do1402.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportal.html

[polyglory]

Interesting read in some ways.

The French are increasing their spending on Defence, perhaps its to cover the cost of the propellers falling off their new Carrier amongst many other things.:E

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The services command greater admiration than any other British institution. I remember Raymond Seitz, when he was US Ambassador in London in the early 1990s, expressing astonishment at the Government's parsimony: "Your Armed Forces really can enable Britain to punch above its weight," he said. "They are by far your most cost-effective means of exercising influence in the world."

Enough said! Note this is relevent to virtually every thread in the military aircrew forum...... uncluding Sea Jet, CVF, MRA4, Eurofighter...

So what can we/you/they do to improve:

a) Public awareness of defence (particularly issues raised in orginal)?
b) Political awareness?
c) The low standing of defence in political priorities?

Also I have just thought, isn't all this talk of network centric stuff a bit dishonest? Haven't we had things similar to that for a long time? Warships have had data links for a long time - since the late '70s I believe. Link 10 (?) was used in the Falklands.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

For reasons known only to theselves, the Ministry of Defence decided not to comemerate the twentieth anniversary of the Falklands war. Somehow I cannot help feeling that this was partly to reduce the potential for controversy over the issue of the Sea Harrier. Likewise, the Government benefitted from other news which may have distracted the public. The death of Her Majesty The Queen Mother dominated the newspapers, the articles on the Sea Harrier/Fleet air defence in the Telegraph, including a piece by Admiral Sir John Woodward, were relegated to the middle pages. I may or may not have put a link to it in a SHAR thread - "SHAR Wars" perhaps? Then came the Football world cup.

As has been proven many times the Government likes to bury bad news, embedding the signal of its own policies amongst the noise of other news. News of cutbacks in defence are no exception from this way of doing things.

A final thought - should defence planning be based on (predicted) threats or on vulnerabilities?

[Archimedes]

I suspect that the reason was to avoid the slightest risk of irritating the Argentines. After all, if the government is slightly concerned that celebrating Christmas in the UK could upset people...

The controversy over the SHAR wouldn't actually have featured that much, surely? As the title of this thread suggests, Joe Public is likely to believe the line that the fleet doesn't require an AD aircraft but needs more ground attack potential, particularly if someone (like the then-AOC 3 Group) says that the move is a good idea (as he did in at least one publication).

I fear that you assume too much public concern with defence cutbacks as well. Defence was an important issue for the grand total of 2% of the electorate in the 2001 (or was it '97?) election. It's always two or three days of fuss, then the story is overtaken by something more important. Like a footballer forgetting to take a drugs test and getting upset when he's told off :rolleyes:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Hence my first post on this thread Archimedes....

What if people find that there's no petrol due to an interuption of the oil supply- they care then.

I only used the Sea Jet as an example, there are numerous others...

[Magic Mushroom]

Also I have just thought, isn't all this talk of network centric stuff a bit dishonest? Haven't we had things similar to that for a long time? Warships have had data links for a long time - since the late '70s I believe. Link 10 (?) was used in the Falklands.

WEBF,
Yes, the British Forces have had data links of a sort for many years. The primary Links used by the RN have been Link 14 and Link 11 until recently. While they still use the latter, it is gradually being superceded by JTIDS.

However, you cannot compare systems such as Link 11 and 14 with modern data links such as JTIDS. It really is like comparing an F-86 to an F-22. When today's data links are then fused in modern C2 systems, their benefit is multiplied beyond all recognition. Even since the days of Bosnia, the data link architecture during TELIC was massively more complex, with sensor data, imagery, remote target cueing (and many others activities) all taking place simultaneously via a wide variety of systems.

So, for once, HMG are not using buzzwords such as network centric as an excuse. That's why there is big investment in the UK ISTAR community (E-3D, Nimrod R1 and Sentinel R1) when other fleets are being cut.

Regards,
M2

[Archimedes]

Er... oddly enough, I got that this was the point of your first post. I was agreeing with your sentiments (hence the rolling-eyed smiley).

But your example of the Sea Jet is an excellent one for highlighting the problems - the public takes an interest in defence when the forces are sent to war (or whatever the politicians choose to call it), the Sun comes over all jingoistic (or more jingoistic than usual) and talks about 'our brave boys and girls in the [insert theatre of operations]' and spouts utter bolleaux about the capability of kit and the like.

However, if the public is given info that Admirals and other senior officers (who, in general, they seem to trust) think that getting rid of the SHAR is a good idea or at worst something tolerable in the current climate, they won't fuss about it.

And given the fact that we've had a debate espousing both sides of the SHAR argument (and indeed both sides of the carrier argument) on this site, and are still having it sporadically, the public isn't going to rise up and say 'Ooh, disgraceful.'

If you'd chosen the SA 80 (which the public believes still doesn't work properly, although comments on the 'other means' would suggest it does) or the recent NAO report as examples, you'd have picked ones with which the public has some engagement.

Even commemorating the Falklands last year wouldn't have stirred much public debate about the SHAR, I fear.

[NURSE]

the publics attitude to the armed forces is probably still best summed up by Kipling over a century ago

" Its tommy this and tommy that and tommy go away. Buts it the thin red line of heroes when the bands begin to play......"

[The Gorilla]

Nurse

I have been out in Civvy Street for over four months now and have met hundreds of fairly typical civilians from all spectrums. 99% do not know what the Armed Forces do, didn't even realise we had such a wide circle of operational theatres in use today.
“We didn’t have any forces involved in Afghanistan did we?” Was typical of the questions I have been asked.

The even sadder thing is that broadly 90% do not approve of our Armed Forces being used abroad especially the Middle East. The bottom line is that all taxes are going up exponentially at home, the NHS is struggling to cope and there are economic migrants everywhere.

When I discuss the forthcoming Defence cuts and use words like concentric networking Joe Public doesn’t give a t*ss. They would much rather we have a cheaper home defence force protecting our shores from migrants, some of whom may turn out to be suicide bombers.

The Armed Forces have huge problems to sort out, they cannot recruit or retain. A lack of cash in the next FY is going to cause huge burdens. You have a Blairite puppet as a CDS because the last one retired early. Funny that CAS has also retired early. These are not good indicators for a stable future.

My own view is this, HMG blames the MOD for the fiasco that led to Gulf war 2, poor intelligence and then criticism of shortages of equipment. This fiasco is still going to claim Hoons scalp and maybe a few others. Blair, whilst sucking up to the USA, never wants the UK to get involved in armour on the ground fighting again. Gordon says he can't any way because it costs too much!! What better way than to go hi-tech and send a few E3’s, ASTORS FAC’s etc, whilst reducing ships, tanks, aircraft and manpower. As we all know, it is the wages bill that makes up the lions share of the annual defence budget

I believe that plans for an RAF of 38,000 will come to fruition sooner than you may think. Joe Public will read about it in the paper as he flicks to the sports pages to delve into Posh and Beck’s lives, and that moment will be gone forever.

Be assured I am doing my bit to put Joe Public right about the Armed Forces and the huge sacrifices you guys all make. It is an uphill battle of disinterest but I am trying!!

To all of you out there who know me, Happy Christmas and I hope 2004 brings, for once, a peaceful year in which you can all spend quality time with your loved ones.

TG

[bay17-20]

TG

Sadly I think your post is spot on.

After 27 years I have eventually realised that all the reasons that I joined the RAF sadly no longer exist, and its time to move on.

Its all PC, Coshh, H&S, duty of care, poor leadership, core hours, micro management etc etc, infact everything to make it "just another job", and I can do that outside of the RAF at a better rate of pay, the benefits of staying have all but gone, those that are left are already under attack.

I do not want to be the sad g1t sitting in the corner of the mess spouting "in my day..." stories. I just want to leave the RAF with fond memories and not hang around to see it cut to brink of being pointless, cuts that would not be needed if existing resources were spent effectivley.

Reading some of the threads on here it is may be just as well that the public do not understand what we do, witness the J - K and movers - loadies, scribbly- aircrew, threads (some of the younger chaps need to know the difference between "banter" and "slagging off" in a public forum) reading that would make any civvy dubious of our efforts.

Its not all hopeless, there are some very good officers destined for great things that will hopefully get to the top and make changes, but ineffective yes men tend to promote people who have the same qualities they have, the next few years may be a little rough.

Good luck to those that are left, the RAF's only truly great asset are the blue suited people it employs, and if we crabs are honest, that is true of the Army and Navy as well, so be nice to each other, the force may be at a level where everyone is on first name terms soon!

So, with exit date and next job obtained, I would like add my seasons greetings to those of TG's, stay safe and DLTBGYD.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Will they replace Trident do you think when it passes its out of service date?

If they intend to then perhaps money needs to be saved over the next few years...

Cheers

WWW

[BEagle]

Good luck, bay17-20, your sentiments are no doubt echoed by many who lack your conviction.

[Magic Mushroom]

And Season's Greetings to you too, Gorilla. I hope that the new job is going well.
Regards,
M2 (I think you know who I am!)

[Scud-U-Like]

I'd say this is a pretty good public endorsement of our efforts.

The Queen's Christmas Message

Filming the broadcast at the home of the Household Cavalry, rather than in the comfort of a royal residence, was a strong statement of support for the Armed Forces, the Palace said.

The Queen’s broadcast will explore the theme of teamwork and will pay tribute to the professionalism and dedication of servicemen and women during a difficult year.

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,101477,00.jpg

[WE Branch Fanatic]

But how many people will watch/listen to The Queen's speech?

Whilst looking at old threads I came across the following link:

Why I left (http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2002-11-23&id=2517)

The question is how to get the support of the public......

[Archimedes]

An awful lot of people listen to HMQ's speech, WEBF - still part of the Christmas tradition and all that.

The question there is how many are a) sober enough to understand it b) remember the theme of it.

In general, survey after survey suggests that the public are very supportive of the armed forces, feel a great deal of pride in the services and regard the members of said body far more highly than they regard most other professions (especially those with the letters 'MP' after their name).

I'd respectfully suggest that the question is actually not one of how to go about getting support for the forces from the public, but how one goes about translating that general good will into moving defence to being one of the top priorities of the government through public pressure.

Problem is that with the NHS, Transport and education in such a mess, an immigration policy that makes the NHS, Transport and Education policies look effective, law and order policies that all-too-often place touchy-feely policing and protecting the rights of the criminal ahead of solving crimes and implementing effective punishment, etc, etc causing the public far more concern than the state of the forces (who always do what's asked of them, unlike many other departments of state) how do we get to that stage?

You've posed the question several times now - what's your answer? Not a dig - genuine enquiry to take the debate on.

[NB Restarting the Cold War and persuading the Russians to retarget all their ICBMs onto this country does not win any Christmas prizes]

[NURSE]

or what will probably happen the British armed forces being sent on one Op to many and getting a severe Kicking.

[WorkingHard]

The Gorilla - Joe public is sadly very ignorant of much of what the British Forces do but they do have a right to know where their taxpayers money goes. Why not educate them and see what happens. For example how many aircraft are in service with the RAF? What is the personell number by rank and what is the cost?
How many are pensioned /retired and what is the cost? You see Joe Public just sees an ever increasing defence cost and has no idea where the money actually goes. We should have a properly equipped and trained fighting force upholding the very best of the British excellence but we shall not achieve this without much more detailed knowledge in the public domain.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

....... a bit like this?

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/

[BlueWolf]

I thought QEII's Christmas message was a brilliant way of raising the profile of the forces and engendering public sympathy.

Well said Ma'am:ok:

[Small Spinner]

WorkingHard
I'm all for giving more info to the public about the Forces, however there are a few more sacred cows to have public scrutiny before us.
The NHS, Social Services take a far bigger proportion of my taxes and are very inefficient and unfair in how they are used and abused. Lets sort them out first IMO.

[NURSE]

its Just a pity that no Govt of any presuasion has the balls to do reviews of the education or the NHS with such vigour as they have with defence. Having worked in both NHS and Military healthcare systems the NHS (and DEMTA)is a complete mess with so many areas that could be cut to save money that could be reinvested in patient care. The the drugs budget is a huge blackhole that needs looked at. With Properly reformed management it would be a world leader.

[Scud-U-Like]

Might I suggest that running a relatively small military medical service is a bit different to running the NHS (the largest organisation in Europe). The larger the organisation, the more scope there is for reform. The armed forces medical services deal with a generally fit and disciplined customer base and are not normally burdened with resource-sapping older people, smack heads and malingerers.

If the NHS is seen as a sacred cow, that is because most people like it that way. With advances in medicine and higher public expectations, there will never be sufficient resources for the NHS and, consequently, it will always be found wanting.

Have I missed something or are the health and education sectors not almost buckling under the weight of performance targets and reforms?

[WorkingHard]

WB SATCO - thanks for the link but where in the hell does one find the data in such a morass of statistics and unknown references? As I said earlier, if Joe public had some readily identifiable data it just might make a difference.
If you look at the RAF for example the often PERCEIVED view is for idiotic low level fast jets in the dead of night or rotary wing frightening animals to death or tragically horse and rider injuries. We know this is just a fraction of what goes on (and training is necessary) but the taxpayer has to be convinced that it is the correct way to do things and more resources are needed. On an earlier thread there was comment about the troops not having the right equipment in Iraq, it may be the ultimate fault of the politicians but Joe public sees this as a failure of the services or at the very least a whinging service trying to blame the politicians for it's failures. And dont shoot the messenger, I may be part of Joe public these days and I listen to what he says (without agreeing) and he is the majority. I say again - this is what I hear not with what I agree.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

We know this is just a fraction of what goes on (and training is necessary) but the taxpayer has to be convinced that it is the correct way to do things and more resources are needed. On an earlier thread there was comment about the troops not having the right equipment in Iraq, it may be the ultimate fault of the politicians but Joe public sees this as a failure of the services or at the very least a whinging service trying to blame the politicians for it's failures.

My guess is that if the public had a greater awareness of these things, as discussed here (and elsewhere) then their would be more approval for defence spending.

As an aside, from personal experience I know that the forces have to account for EVERY pound they spend, yet other agencies and organisations of HM Government are not so tightly watched over. An at the same time as demanding the Services do more with less people and less equipment, Mr Brown from No 11 is happy to give BILLIONS every year to the EU, and organisation so corrupt that its own accountants have refused to sign the accounts.

[The Gorilla]

WEBF

You are miles off matey. Even if the public had a greater awareness (something they don't want) you would never get their approval for greater Defence spending for our little jaunts abroad.


When the first suicide bomber goes off here, then you will see a huge chunk of defence spending happening in the UK. Even then it will not be an increase!! What use your massive carriers eh?

As for Gordon and the EU, he has no choice but to contribute £Billions to the EU. We are one of the few net contributors to the EU i.e. we pay far more in year on year then we ever get out. Apart from, that is, the couple of years that the handbagger got the UK a rebate.

Ted Heath was responsible for our entry terms and it had to be that way in order to stop the French from blackballing us for a second time!! It was corrupt from the moment we entered the EEC!

Unfortunately Joe Public would much rather see NHS improvements and less tax on his next pint than see defence spending increased. Thats the reality of it all.

:ok:

[WorkingHard]

The Gorilla - The real question is of course is the defence spending effective and justified or is there a huge amount of wastage as in other large operations (NHS has been highlighted for example)?

[NURSE]

Scud your description of the military secondry care couldn't be further from the truth. The MDHU's are basically NHS wards manned by military staff. You get very few soldiers/sailors/airmen through because the NHS control the beds and given the choice between canceling military patients with no come back or NHS patients and having to incur penalties then our personnel loose out. The defence medical services are now having to spend a fortune puting service personel through BUPA etc and pay for bednights in MDHU's that we don't get.

The NHS needs a major overhaul and definitly some major investigations into where large ammounts of the money is going.
I would sugest that the NHS has sufficient funding but its management is apalling.

The UK is falling into the European belief that there is no need to spend on defence as the USA will always bail us out. Is there is less money about to spend on defence has the GDP of the country fallen that much. What is needed is a Prudent government who won't allow the waste we see every day in the public services.

[The Gorilla]

Working hard

Effective, absolutely!
Justified? No!

[WorkingHard]

TG - Your defenition of effective. (expenditure is the subject remember)

[Scud-U-Like]

Nurse. Sorry, but I was referring, in the main, to primary healthcare.

I'm not sure what the answer is to the services' secondary healthcare problems. The services don't have enough sick people to justify running several regional general hospitals and, while, collectively, the services have a large enough population to justify running a single general hospital, the problem is, where to locate it. Wherever you put it, it's going to mean a lot of (personally and operationally) inconvenient trekking for a lot of outpatients. So, on the face of it, MDHUs are the answer. Are there no contracts between MDHUs and their parent hospitals regarding bed allocation? If not, why not?

[Maple 01]

Why not build a hospital at Halton, or Ely? The local area health authorities could use the surplus bed space when not needed by the mil.............oh wait, no...the Torie$ killed that one a while back during 'Option$ for Change' didn't they?

Regards

-nick

[NURSE]

The major problem was they kept the royal naval hospital haslar open. Wrong hospital wrong place. Have heard arguments about all the military hospitals and the pros and cons of opening one. The major problem occuring is the military ethos in the MDHU's is slipping away. And Doctors and Nursing staff are really pissed of and are leaving many left the NHS because the military claimed to offer them somethng different.
Out on tellic i we had numerous chats about the future we suspect that it will all centralise into Birmingham. But we agreed Haslar was the wrong hospital in the wrong place. And the best place would have been Wroughton with the land on the site being developed into accomidation and storage for at least 1 field hospital as well. But I see its now been demolished.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Perhaps this old thread says it all?

British Apathy (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48096&perpage=15&highlight=apathy&pagenumber=1)

[Archimedes]

I'm almost tempted to say 'Sorry, but I can't be bothered to read it' but seem to recall that the first response to that thread was along exactly those lines... {edited to add - actually, it was the second reply...}

It all boils down to the fact that as long as the general public perceive there to be little threat (because they now don't believe Presidente Tony when he says that there is one), and as long as other things that impinge upon their lives (or the lives of friends and acquaintances) are in need of sorting out, then the public won't bother.

As Gorilla says, as soon as something happens in the UK courtesy of AQ (God forbid, but even He might be a bit hard pushed on that one), then there'll be a fuss, mutterings about increasing defence spending - which will largely be smoke and mirrors through misleading use of figures - and then.... then we'll be having a similar discussion to this one no more than twelve months after.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

See here for more tales of woe (http://labour-watch.com/defence.htm)

[Scud-U-Like]

WEBF

I notice "Labour-Watch" (authors of your selective "tales of woe") aren't too up-front about who they are. Typical BNP tactic.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Scud-u-Like

I hadn't thought of that. I hope they're not from the far right...

Whilst looking for stuff on the web to put in/on the Sea Jet thread, I was dismayed to find that those BNP Scum had hijacked defence issues....

[CatpainCaveman]

A cunning plan to save the armed forces - we all enrole on a minorities conversion course!

We can have sqns of illegal immigrants, regiments of homosexuals and ships full of 16-year old single parents. All of which will naturally have to come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Sorry if this sounds flippant - no I take that back, I'm not sorry at all. Short of the body bags turning up at Brize, this seems like the only way we'll ever get any money.

Who knows, it might just work. After all, isn't the government supposed to be equal opportunities employer - they'd have to give us some cash!

[BillHicksRules]

WEBF et al,

Sorry for coming to this thread relatively late on.

I have read with interest all the posts made so far.

Lots of well –argued points made but I feel the most telling was the quote in a post that commended the British Armed Forces for punching above their weight for so long. This is the crux of the matter as I see it. Although I am a Liberal (with a capital L) I am not peacenik loony. I have for the last 25 years had, some would say, an unhealthy interest in defence and military matters.

What has to be realised is that since the end of the First World War the UK has been operating above its ability to properly pay for its military. We need to take stock of whom we are and what we NEED to do as opposed to what we would LIKE to do. I would like to give 3 example countries to compare with the UK and to look at their Armed Forces. The countries are Germany, Canada and Japan. If you look at these three countries and then look at the more costly line items in the defence budget of the UK it is difficult to justify the expenditure. Neither of these three countries has any carriers nor any plans for them in the future. None of these countries has a nuclear deterrent or any known plans to acquire one. In the cases of Germany and Japan both of these countries are heavily reliant on oil from the Middle East yet they do not seem to have the same need for massive navies. The Japanese and the Germans both have “warrior” heritages like us Brits so it is not like the Swedes or the Swiss who just prefer to be neutral. The Canadians have massive coastal issues to deal with. Furthermore for the whole of the Cold War they were as much on the frontline as we were.

The point I am trying to make in my own hapless style is to quote Garth from Wayne’s World, “Live in the now” and prepare for the future that is coming not what we would like it to be. The warfare of the future will bear no resemblance to that we have seen so far. We are talking unconventional warfare to the max. Carriers, nukes, MBTs and Typhoons are for the past. Lets look to the future.

Another way to look at it is that most of the world will be looking to purchase these new emergent technologies so lets get a shift on and make our way to the forefront of developing it rather than crying over our chips.

Cheers

BHR

[Biggus]

BHR

Without meaning to decry the basic thrust of your arguement I would say your use of Japan as an example is a poor choice.

Japans military does not have carriers because it is supposed to be a "Self Defence Force". Carriers are cocsidered offensive, and echoes of WW2 etc, which doesn't mean that the Japanese military wouldn't like to have them! Japan has F-15s, son of F-16, about 100 P-3s (MPA), AWACS, would like to acquire tankers (again considered potentially offensive in nature), and a fairly massive (larger than the RN I think) and modern navy (just look in Janes fighting ships) which has units routinely operating far from the Pacific region, etc!!

[BillHicksRules]

Biggus,

I did not say that any of the examples were perfect fits. I was postulating that we need to change our focus.

We no longer have an empire. We no longer have large numbers of overseas dependencies (I know we still have some before anyone jumps in on that). We no longer have a need for a nuclear deterrent since unique conditions that potentially supported the desire to have one have long since gone ( I do not want to hijack this thread on the pros and cons of a continued nuclear deterrence. I would be happy to start a separate thread on that should anyone so desire). We no longer have a War Ministry but instead a Ministry of DEFENCE. As you have stated carriers are offensive so we do not need them.

As for the Japanese Navy operating far from the Pacific region I do not understand the significance of that. The Irish Navy recently operated in the Indian Ocean with I believe a visit to Australie and New Zealand (although I could be wrong about the ANZ visits) but that hardly makes them an offensive force.

WEBF,

As to your point about the publics lack of knowledge about defence matters being the reason that the defence budget gets cut I have to disagree. Since when has public opinion mattered either way on government policy decisions. I am not only talking about this government but almost every one I can remember and before that too.

With regards to the death of the Queen Mum keeping the Sea Jet scrapping off the front pages of the papers I think you are being rather naïve. It would have had to have been the slowest newsday in the last 100 years for the Sea Jet to have made front page news with its retirement. I am not even sure it made the front page on the Navy News in that period but I could be wrong I have missed a couple of issues.

Cheers

BHR

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Bill

You may have point about nukes, but carriers, MBTs and Fast Jets have all been used in recent operation, including several wars and various peace support operations.

As Biggus says, the Japanese MSDF is, in reality, a major blue water fleet. I thought they they were considering acquiring a carrier with AV8B(+)s - maybe ORAC or Archemedes can confirm this....

As for carriers being offensive - well I won't mention maritime air defence (here anyway) but there is no black and white dividing line between defensive and offensive systems.

As regards the publicity over the Sea Harrier, you are probably right however.

Back to my single service advocacy:rolleyes:

The following was an article early last year in a Cornish(?) newspaper called the Sunday Independant. I expect similar pieces could be written on the other services too:

MIKE Critchley wrote his first British Warships and Auxiliaries guide in 1979. Since then, 16 editions of the Royal Navy 'Bible' have appeared but each time, the role of the Senior Service has been eroded in some way. The latest edition is published this week and while the former active serviceman remains richly proud of the Royal Navy, he is fearful of the future, as JOHN COLLINGS discovered

MIKE Critchley's analogy between the UK's ailing Health Service and what was once the country's Senior Service won't be lost on his peers.

`Were I a doctor, I might diagnose the "patient" as critical,' says the Cornish author and doyen of Naval publications.

`But given the correct treatment, the prognosis could be fine - however, the next five years are going to be decisive.'

Since leaving the Navy, Mike has seen his Liskeard-based Maritime Books cottage industry flourish. Sadly, he can't say the same about the service of which he was once so proud to be a part.

His handbook guide to the ships of our fleet is so detailed, from pennant numbers to dimensions, complements and even builder's details, that it has become the `Bible' for those in authority as much as members of the general public who might almost regard it as an adult's `I Spy' as they look out over the Hamoaze at Torpoint or Plymouth Sound.

But his latest tome carries a health warning which Whitehall will only ignore at the peril of putting its citizens at risk in an age of heightened terrorist activity and at a time when servicemen from the Army, Royal Air Force and the Navy have been enjoying quality time with their families in the West Country; many of them openly saying that they expect the order for a war on Iraq to be given as early as this week.

Critchley says that the Senior Service remains as professional as ever and will respond to all the demands placed on it with its usual `can do' attitude.

But he warns that the Government must stop `salami slicing' of what remains of the fleet: `There will be a time, in the not too distant future, when it (the Navy) will have to put up its hands and say "Stop!"'

In a wide-reaching examination of the service's capabilities, Critchley questions what would happen if fanatics drove small plastic boats filled with explosives into a cruise liner; expresses concern that the new Astute submarine class is 18 months behind schedule; queries whether, on the eve of a potential war, the UK should only have one carrier in active service and advances the thought that, in the case of destroyers and frigates, the Treasury is selling off the family silver.

He attacks Press mocking of the grounding of HMS Nottingham off the Australian coast earlier this year, predicting that history will show how the crew fought relentlessly to save their ship and should be feted, not laughed at.

And, in a final ground-breaking move, he puts the case for a floating hospital which can spend 95 per cent of its time alongside but is readily and easily deployable should a situation arise.

`The RN cannot truly remain a credible force if the Government continues to "salami slice" what remains of the active fleet during the crucial "gap years" before promised new tonnage (ships) arrive,' he warns.

THE ROLE OF WATER

SEAS cover 70.8 per cent of the world's surface, and two thirds of the world's population live within 100 miles of the coast. More than 150 of the 185 member states of the UN are coastal states. Britain has a world-wide expatriate community of over 10million and UK citizens make 34million journeys abroad each year.

The UK is the world's sixth largest trading nation exporting a higher percentage of its Gross Domestic Product than France, Germany, USA and Japan.

We export more than a quarter of everything we produce, of which almost 95 per cent by weight (Some £250billion of our trade) is transported by sea.

The UK merchant shipping sector is still increasing. The fleet is the 13th largest in the world and second in the EU after Greece. There are some 27,000 British merchant seafarers.

The UK has 10,500 miles of coastline and in an average year RN aircraft expect to conduct over 500 search and rescue operations.

The UK has an Economic Fishing Zone of 270,383 square miles (three times the land area of the UK). Under the Defra contract, the Fishery Protection Squadron was required to conduct 950 patrol days in the last two years.

Says Mike Critchley: `Against such a background, the need for a modern, flexible and strong Royal Navy to preserve our interests, protect our seafarers, maintain our trade routes and police our fishing grounds, would seem to be common sense.

`In the wake of the 11 September atrocities in the United States a commitment to take the fight to the terrorists must also be included.

`And yet as these tasks place ever increasing demands on an already stretched Fleet, the RN, already cut to the bone, continues to see ships axed from the frontline fleet.'

CURRENT OPERATIONS

THE Royal Navy currently has ships deployed to all `four corners' of the globe. But the role of the Navy in the current war against terrorism raises many concerns about susceptability to attack from small craft. The attack on the USS Cole in Aden followed by the attack on the French supertanker Limburg in the same area must raise many questions for world leaders.

Says Mike: `Will these fanatics be driving their small plastic boats filled with explosives into a cruise liner for their next headline-grabbing attack?

`Understandably, the British Seamen in the NUMAST union had their leaders calling on Foreign Office and MoD officials asking for more protection.'

Throughout the year the ships of the Atlantic Patrol Ship (North) have been enjoying tremendous success in the war against drugs in the Caribbean.

HMS Grafton made a third seizure, removing drugs from the dealers with an estimated street value of £3million, when her previous seizure saw the interception of £75million worth of cocaine.

Critchley accepts that these operations are well-suited to the Navy. But, he says: `It is, perhaps, time that consideration was given to procurement of vessels more suited to this type of surveillance and intercept mission. The requirement for expensive and sophisticated, equipped frigates to conduct these tasks must be questionable.'

The crew of the ill-fated destroyer HMS Nottingham earn Mike's high praise `for their finest hour.'

He says: `Perhaps it wasn't evident until the vessel was lifted clear of the water - but that crew put into action years of damage control training and fought relentlessly to save their ship.

`One look at the damage to the hull revealed just how close she had come to sinking. With major compartments breached, water coming in through massive rents in the hull, no power, no communications and no lighting, the crew won the battle to stem the flow of water and over the ensuing days secured their ship.

`It is a tragedy that the Press chose to seek ridicule and place blame. It is to be hoped that when the dust settles proper credit is paid to that crew who, as one, upheld the proudest traditions of the service.'

The State of the Fleet - Submarines

THE Vanguard refit facilities have been completed at Devonport and the first boat, HMS Vanguard arrived last February to begin her two-year refit.

The hunter-killer force was heavily tarnished by the reactor faults which resulted in suspension of operations in 2000. Last year, things were better with three submarines being involved in the opening attacks of the war against terror. But now, HMS Trafalgar is out of service having struck the seabed off the Isle of Skye, while HMS Sceptre and HM Sovereign have lain idle at Rosyth and Faslane respectively for over two years.

`The new Astute class is running 18 months behind schedule,' says Mike. `This means that unless one of the older S-class is run on beyond its announced decommissioning date, the submarine force is going to have to run a reduced number of boats for several years.'

Carriers

IT has been a mixed year for aircraft carriers. The refit cycle has meant that at the end of the month only one carrier, HMS Ark Royal, was available for operations. On the bright side, the Government has reaffirmed its commitment to the future carrier programme by selecting the Joint Strike Fighter as its next carrier-borne aircraft.

But Critchley warns: `The excitement following the announcement must be tempered by the fact that the selected aircraft is the STOVL version, and that the two carriers are to be built with ski-jumps rather than catapults and arrestor wires.

`It is hard to see the thinking behind this selection process. These huge vessels, big enough to operate any current fixed wing naval fighter, will be restricted to STOVL operations.'

Amphibious Vessels

WITHOUT doubt, says Mike Critchley, the flavour of the moment is `Amphibiosity.' Modernisation is on the horizon, with HMS Ocean now the Navy's only available amphibious asset.

`Herself overworked, she has spent the latter half of the year in drydock while modifications and repairs (believed to have cost £5.5million) are undertaken. `Delayed yet again, HMS Albion is not now scheduled to enter service until July, which would put her availability for operations around six months later.

`She is scheduled to be joined by her sistership, HMS Bulwark, at the year's end.'

The elderly `Sir' class are also to be replaced by four ships of the Bay class which are much larger and more capable than their predecessors.

ESCORTS

WARNS Mike Critchley: `It is here that the most concern must rest.'

Already painfully overstretched and operating some ships well past their prime, the destroyer and frigate force continues to suffer from `salami slicing' cuts, he says.

`Following rumours of more large-scale cuts to the escort force, to fund the future carriers, HMS Sheffield was paid off early.

`The reasoning behind this reduction below the agreed minimum of 32 escorts, was accredited to new refit cycles.

`By extending the period between Type 23 refits from nine to ten years it was assessed that the Royal Navy could lose a frigate and still field the 26 operational vessels as stipulated.

`The quite unbelievable aspect of this is that it was done at the same time as HMS Nottingham was severely damaged on the other side of the world and obviously out of action for a very long time.

`How can the Government reconcile paying off a frigate whilst at the same time knowing that a destroyer is going to be out of action for many months, possibly years, outside of the normal refit cycle?' he asks.

A further argument for paying off HMS Sheffield was the saving of £20million operating costs but to date, it has cost almost £20million to bring HMS Nottingham back to the UK to be surveyed.

Warns Critchley: `There is no slack in the escort force - no reserve ships to call on should a ship be unexpectedly put out of operation.'

To pile misery upon misery a cross-channel ferry hit St Albans recently, causing considerable damage to the superstructure. A brand new frigate, she has now been withdrawn from operations, well outside of her scheduled refit cycle.

`With no new escort tonnage being available until 2007, the Navy cannot afford to lose another escort,' he says.

`Persistent reports in the Press of massive cuts and interest in Type 22 and Type 23 frigates from foreign navies does nothing to dispel that feeling that the Treasury are trying to sell off the family silver.'

MINOR VESSELS

THE role of the minehunter has been reduced in recent years. Says Mike Critchley: `Whilst it could be argued that there is not really a credible mine threat at present, it doesn't take much imagination to see the chaos that could be wrought by a terror organisation wishing to inflict serious disruption to the country.

`A couple of years ago Britain was almost brought to its knees by a few motivated people picketing fuel depots ashore.

`Imagine the consequences if a terrorist organisation placed, or even intimated that they had placed, mines around a handful of our most strategically important ports.'

Because of that, Critchley says that it is `amazing' to find a relatively new ship, HMS Cromer, paid off and relegated to an alongside role as a floating classroom at Dartmouth during the year and, seemingly, a sister ship, HMS Bridport, heading for a similar fate.

At the start of the New Year, the first of three new fishery protection vessels should be in service. Eventually three vessels (owned by Vosper Thornycroft and leased to the MoD) will have replaced the original seven `deep sea' vessels of the Fishery Protection Service.

Says Mike Critchley: `Although advertised as being more capable than the vessels that they replace, three vessels cannot be in seven places at one time.'

And he hints at a hidden agenda which will strike fear into the fishing industry, when he says: `These vessels are also to be operated on a five-year public finance initiative.

`The whole subject of fishery protection is one of a once important task being rapidly downsized (and eventually quietly forgotten?) as the country is forced into a new future within Europe.

`After five years, no doubt we will see these vessels operating with a new role and "our" fish available for anyone to plunder.

New tonnage has started to arrive to give the Survey Squadron a reprieve from its highly rundown state. A wartime role for these vessels seems to have given the whole of the Hydrographic Branch - linked to the Hydrographic Office at Admiralty Way, Taunton - a reprieve from possible extinction.

SEA HARRIER

MIKE Critchley considers that the decision to pay-off the Sea Harrier in 2004 was the biggest body blow which the Royal Navy had to take during the year. `Inevitably their demise will put ships in unnecessary danger if an expeditionary force is to be deployed any distance away from shores - where friendly shore based fighter cover is available,' he said.

`It is a decision that should be hotly-contested and reversed before time, and personnel, run out. `Despite its shortcomings in extremely hot climates, the capability of the Sea Harrier has been praised extensively by senior officers and it seems this obviously Treasury-inspired cut is, indeed, a cut too far and should be fought vigorously if any meaningful RN task group is to be deployable worldwide.'

And he added: `Even though the demise of the Sea Harrier and the advent of its replacement may only be a relative few years away, the loss of junior Sea Harrier pilots will be one extremely difficult to remedy when the Joint Strike Fighter starts to become available.

`The loss of experienced fixed wing pilots and the training of their replacements is a major cause for concern, even if the establishment of 727 NAS to offer free flying lessons, at Plymouth Airport, to potential recruits, is a step in the right direction.'

CASUALTY SHIPS

AN answer to a question in the House of Commons in the autumn revealed that the Primary Casualty Receiving Ship project was not proceeding to plan, and that the building of the two promised ships was being put back until `the end of the decade.'

Observes Mike Critchley: `The goalposts appear to be moving - the size and capability has been downgraded - and the whole project has taken a lower priority as the year ticked by, coupled with the problems throughout the Defence Medical Services, where cuts made a few years ago have been acknowledged as being too severe.'

He believes that there is a requirement for a whole new hospital to be resurrected for totally tri-service use.

Many of the staff allocated to NHS hospitals in Plymouth under the current system as being redeployable - frequently at short notice - create a major problem for the NHS,as happened last week.

Argues Critchley: `Surely there is scope for one of these hospitals to be built within the hull of something of supertanker size that can spend 95 per cent of its time alongside, but is readily and easily deployable should an appropriate situation arise.'

THE FUTURE

MIKE critchley clearly believes that there is a future for the Royal Navy; that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

But he realises that, at present, it is only `when looking through the Government-supplied rose coloured glasses' that the service appears in good shape.

`There is a vast re-equipment programme underway,' acknowledges Critchley.

`Amphibious forces are at last due to get much improved vessels and increased sealift; the Fleet Air Arm are to get supersonic fixed wing aircraft to operate from two new super carriers; new large state-of-the-art air defence destroyers have been ordered and a new class of nuclear-powered submarines are under construction.

`But let's not lose sight of the fact that this capability will not be fully available for, perhaps, five or ten years.

`In the meantime, the Navy must soldier on with old and out-of-date tonnage; in some areas capability will continue to be withdrawn before new equipment arrives to replace it.

`The Navy has lost a lot of good ships to pay for this new future. Whilst it struggles on to bridge the gap between old and worn-out ships, and promised new capability, rumours continue of more cuts to come.

`The RN cannot truly remain a credible force if the Government continues to "salami slice" what remains of the active fleet during these crucial "gap years" before the promised new tonnage arrives,' he warns.

THE AUTHOR AND HIS COMPANY

BORN and bred in a heartland of the Royal Navy, Gosport, Mike Critchley entered the service at Dartmouth in 1963. During then years as a Seaman Officer, he served in a number of ships and was the commander of an inshore minesweeper during the Torrey Canyon emergency of 1967.

He left the Navy in 1974 to pursue a career in journalism and was once press officer to Prince Charles.

After two successful books - written in his spare time when he was harbourmaster at Looe (1978-80) - he became a full-time writer and broadcaster on Naval affairs and set up Maritime Books which also publishes the bi-monthly magazine, Warship World.

See also this story from Navy News:

The First Sea Lord on defending against the seaborne terrorist threat (http://navynews.co.uk/articles/2004/0403/0004030401.asp)

[Biggus]

BHR

First of all if you bothered to read my thread, before throwing your teddy bear out of the cot, you will see that I stated that I did not necessarily disagree with the basic thrust of your arguement. It was your use of Japan as an example that I thought unwise. You stated:

"...Germany, Canada and Japan. If you look at these three countries and then look at the more costly line items in the defence budget of the UK it is difficult to justify the expenditure. Neither of these three countries has any carriers nor any plans for them in the future. None of these countries has a nuclear deterrent or any known plans to acquire one. In the cases of Germany and Japan both of these countries are heavily reliant on oil from the Middle East yet they do not seem to have the same need for massive navies."

I tried to point out that Japan does indeed have many of the more expensive/costly items in a traditional type defence budget, AD fighters, AWACS, tankers, MPA, a modern navy, etc. I discussed why carriers weren't even an option for the Japanese for historic reasons (which does not mean they do not want them). I didn't even mention before that both Germany and Japan would never consider going near nuclear weapons, whether they wanted them or not, for exactly the same historic reasons! I tried to point out that Japan does indeed have a fairly massive navy. As for the point about the Japanese navy routinely operating a long way from home (ROUTINELY - not a one off global visit like the Irish jolly you mentioned), I was trying to point out it is a major 'blue water' navy, not a coastal defence outfit!!

I didn't attack the basic premise of your arguement, if you can't take some simple criticism you aren't going to win many people over to your way of thinking!!

Nuff said

[BillHicksRules]

Biggus,

“before throwing your teddy bear out of the cot”

At no time did my teddy leave my cot. Unlike your own apparently.

“I didn't attack the basic premise of your arguement,

I was quite aware that you did not attack “the basic premise” of my argument being the “reader” that I am. My reply was simply to give you some more information on my thinking. The quip about the Irish Navy was meant in jest but since I now see you have no sense of humour I will refrain in the future.

As to “if you can't take some simple criticism” !”, the funny thing here is that I am quite capable of taking criticism, simple or otherwise. Furthermore I do not post so that I can “win many people over to your way of thinking”. I leave that for people like yourself. I do not require the validation of others that you find so important.

I posted on this thread to add my opinions to the rest. I am quite willing to discuss any of these issues but I am not looking to convert anyone.

Cheers

BHR

[BlueWolf]

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031222-122617-5344r.htm (http://)

In fact Japan is more than capable of arming herself with nuclear weapons, and in recent years, in the light of perceived threats from North Korea and China, has considered doing so, and the debate goes on even as we proone.

Japanese Naval vessels regularly visit here. I have no idea how much further they regularly go.

[BEagle]

From Sky News ( http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13015360,00.html )

IRAQ: WE COULD HAVE LOST

British soldiers could have lost the war in Iraq if they'd faced a more capable enemy.

That is one of the findings in a major report by MPs.


It says troops were left vulnerable to chemical attack because of a shortage of kit.

Although it says the overall military operation was a success, the report - called Learning the Lessons of Iraq - said there were "serious shortcomings" in the supply and distribution of vital equipment to protect against chemical attack.

And the Commons Defence Committee highlighted a series of critical failings in the military supply chain which meant that vital kit - including ammunition, machine guns, body armour and desert clothing - did not reach the troops in time.

The report is published on the eve of the first anniversary of the invasion.

Overall, it says the operation had placed demands on the Armed Forces which were "very close to the maximum they could sustain".

The committee said troops had been left without sufficient supplies of chemical detectors and protective clothing. They were given only one protective suit, even though "ideally" they should have four.

It suggested that if Saddam had used chemical weapons on the scale he did in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the British forces would have been unable to cope.

"There were serious shortcomings in the supply and distribution system and the required levels of detection and protection were not always available to everyone," the report said.

[Archimedes]

That can't be true.

The nice Mr Hoon told the House of Commons that the troops were properly equipped and that there were no problems. And as we know, he'd never lie to the House of Commons, since he'd have to resign. :uhoh:

[BillHicksRules]

Arch,

The continued survival of Mr Hoon is a source of some considerable surprise to me.

Cheers

BHR

[Archimedes]

And to me.

We've not had a 'Hoon faces fresh calls to quit' story for some time now - surely we're due another raft of tales about how he's fouled something up?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Today, the deployment of extra troops to Iraq was announced in Parliament. One of the units being sent was out there during the combat phase of Telic.

Being sent back, for a second time in a short space of time, is a real kick in the teeth for them and their families. It raises the issue of the Army being so small that the same unit is needed,and of overstretch.

But what really gets me is the way the wives/families found out. They found out when the deployment was announced in parliament.....

I expect that good ole Geoff Hoon will go on holiday now - he usually does.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[HectorusRex]

Army blasts Blair for delaying fresh Iraq deployment
By Sean Rayment Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 30/05/2004)


Tony Blair's decision to postpone the announcement of crucial troop reinforcements for Iraq until after the local and European elections has infuriated defence chiefs.

Senior officers believe that the decision to delay deployment plans could have serious consequences for the 8,700 British troops in Iraq.

Defence chiefs have called for 4,000 more troops

They fear the delay will be seen by insurgents as a sign of weakness and will encourage more attacks on troops.

"The Government can't fight the war as though it were taking place in Surrey," said one senior officer, accusing ministers of risking the lives of troops for short-term political advantage. "We have to be bold, strong and decisive."

He continued: "Military strategy has become subservient to political expediency. We want to get on with the task [of reinforcement], but we're being held back for political reasons - namely [next week's] elections. The assumption is that the electorate will launch a protest vote because of growing disenchantment with the crisis in Iraq.

"Security in southern Iraq is deteriorating daily. The enemy is becoming more confident and using a wider range of weapons. The prognosis is not good."

Defence chiefs have been pressing No 10 for 4,000 more troops to be sent in a move that would see the whole of southern Iraq come under the control of the British-dominated Nato Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps.

Last week, however, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, told MPs that only a token force of 200 armoured infantry troops and 170 engineers was being sent.

Ian Gibson, the Labour chairman of the Commons science and technology select committee, said he thought plans for large-scale reinforcements were being kept in ministers' "bottom drawers". "This would be a very difficult time politically to send more troops, given the unpopularity of the war and its aftermath," he said.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

A current advertsing campaign emphasises the fact that politics effects us all, both directly and indirectly.

The recent events in Saudi Arabia have led to speculation, which in turn has caused oil prices to rise. This gets passed on to the consumer. Surely this is proof positive than security issues effect us in our everyday lives.

In a crisis, being able to respond by deploying forces reduces uncertainty. Uncertainty is dangerous from any economic view. Thus not having forces to deploy will lead to higher oil prices, higher shipping insurance, and higher costs for both raw materials and manufactured goods that are imported. The costs of exports may may be adversely affected.

Current talk of protests over the cost of fuel underline how sensitive this issue is to the public.

For Joe Public, spending a little extra on defence may well be cheaper than paying higher prices for everything. Is is not time he was told?

[pr00ne]

WEBF,

Er...., I think you might find that the current "uncertainty" as you quaintly put it was actually CAUSED by us deploying forces in the first place.

Joe Public, by and large, feels that we shouldn't be out in Iraq right now and given a choice would withdraw our forces right away. Far from accepting higher defence expenditure I fear that the current mayhem will only cause the public to question further what we have military forces for and what we do with them.

Old fashioned thinking again matey.


Must stop watching this bloody Hells Kitchen.......................

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I wsn't actually refering to Iraq, but to other things....

[The Gorilla]

Deliverance

You could not be more wrong old son, Joe Public doesn't care in the slightest about Iraq and want our forces out ASAp. Why? Because he doesn't want to be footing the bill for it!!

:ok:

[soddim]

It is plain that Joe Public does care about the price of fuel but at the moment he probably blames Bush and Blair for stirring up the ME and causing the current price inflation. Whilst this may be justified even Joe Public understands that a secure oil supply needs stability in the ME and the forces to ensure that.

Pulling out of Iraq now would only serve to encourage those who are currently involved in the anti-western terrorist action. Joe might not understand that but then he probably reads a tabloid newspaper and votes Blair.

[SirToppamHat]

It would be very interesting to see the rate of oil production from Iraq over, say, the last 5 years. I suspect, notwithstanding protestations to the contrary, that the 'allied' politicians have oil production right at the top of the agenda for the rebuilding of Iraq.

Cynical, moi? Well yes, I suppose so, and I do accept that this will be essential if Iraq is to have any chance of stability in the long-term.

[Vage Rot]

It's all down to panic by the buyers. Production is at it's highest level for years so prices should be low. However, the oil companies are stock piling so they can still sell at high prices if it all goes pear shaped.

Interestingly, when the price of oil drops the cost of petrol will remain high as they have paid for the stockpiled oil and need to recover that cost. Funny how the cost of petrol seemed to go up immediately the scare started and didn't wait for the cheap oil, that was already in the purchasing system, to run out.!!

[Biggus]

Nobody has yet mentioned how much of the cost of petrol in this country goes straight to that nice Mr Brown. Perhaps the Opec countries have a point when they say the cost of fuel would be cheaper in the west if the governments reduced the tax they charge on it? ....... (taking cover now!!)

[BlueWolf]

It is of course quite possible that the Powers That Be were fully informed of the fact that Iraq did not possess any chemical weapons, and that therefore, issuing the troops with suits, masks, and other countermeasures against such a potential threat was unnecessary.

Now why was it that "we" went into Iraq again? Oh yes, it was 9/11, wasn't it.

Oh no, hang on, that was Afghanistan and the Taliban and Osama bin B@stard.

Iraq was about....um....well, it couldn't have been the switch from the US dollar to the Euro as the currency for oil transactions, back in October 2000, now could it. That would smack of conspiracy theory.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

An interesting link (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html)

also

This (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/12/wirq12.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/12/ixnewstop.html)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Found this very interesting paper on the net...

Overstretch and the changing relationship between the military and civil society (http://www.ukdf.org.uk/grey/gr23.htm)

Overview

At the heart of the problem of overstretch lies the public’s reluctance to provide the armed forces with adequate recruits and resources.

If the forces are to secure adequate personnel and equipment they will have to convince the public that the services are an attractive career and deserve the investment necessary to bring them up to the strength needed to fulfill their commitments.

The relationship between the military and society has undergone a profound change over recent years. This change has affected society’s willingness to support the armed forces.

Society has undergone profound changes while the military has resisted change. The result is that the armed forces have become detached from the lives and aspirations of everyday people.

I suggest clicking on the link and reading the full article...

There are lots of other papers availible from the UK Defence Forum (http://www.ukdf.org.uk) on all sorts of topics.

[Navaleye]

Today's Times is reporting that the cuts announcements will be made next month. The Army is to lose 4 battalions. With the RN and RAF listed to get "severe" cuts. The RN's rumour mill suggests that the Sea King Fleet will be axed. The "logic" for this being that the airframes are old and maintenance intensive. Not a million miles from the truth. The RAF is likely to lose it Pumas for similar reasons. If the gossip about the Tranche 1 of Eurofighter being sold on to Foreign buyers is true then these cuts are going to be incredibly painful for all.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Nato gaurds skies over Euro 2004 (http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2004/06-june/e0616a.htm)

And the Olympics (http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2004/02-february/e0219b.htm)

But few people will think about that, but without adeqaute security measures would events like these still take place?

And Afgahnistan (http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2004/01-january/e0106a.htm)

[CatpainCaveman]

One of the main issues in the forthcoming cuts, sorry, strategic realignement is the numers of Typhoons we're ordering.

I have this one simple question, which if there are any brave enough to stick their heads above the parrapets, I would love the no-good waste of space expensive chisselling bean counters and number crunchers to think about (I would say answer but I'll retire before I get a straight one).

Our original order was for 232 airframes, a combination of AD, offensive support/recce as the Jag replacement, 2-seat trainers and probably a few for reserves. Apparently we no longer need this many.

The Swedish airforce have a requirement for 200+ Grippens. Although very professional and capable, they do not do the World Policeman thing nearly as much as UK Plc (nos combat ac deployed to Gulf 1/2, Balkans, Afghanistan etc etc ). If the Swedish govt thinks it needs 200+ to maintain a credible defence of Sweden combined with its other commitments without all the levels of commitment UK plc provides around the world, why oh why do our bean counters think we don't need 232 ac any more.

And before the bean counters kick-off about ex Cold War ac, out of date blah blah blah, think about this lot:

1. Yes it was designed as a Cold War weapon. Yes the Sovs aren't playing anymore. They aren't playing at all which means their kit is being flogged off around the world, and we still end up facing it when we go on ops. If DROC had kicked off, are the bean counters aware of how many FULCRUMS and FROGFOOTS there are in Central Africa. Or in any other s**t hole we're likely to end up in, more often than not crewed by ex-Sov pilots making some money. Hmmm me thinks not. The threat is still there for the Typhoon to face.

2. It was designed as an air superiority fighter which we don't need anymore. True, reading the small print in the late 90s SDR, UK AD had been pushed down the bottom of the list of priorities. After all, where will the air threat come from now there are no Sovs coming over the Kola??? As such lets cut down and not get the final tranche because we need OS rather than AD ac/ Hmmm, which is the tranche that is optimised for ground attack/offensive ops that we are doing lots of these days. Oh that will be the one you are cutting.

3. We DO still need an AD capability, albeit for deployed ops. It's all well and good sticking the Pongos on a beach and telling them to crack on. Not going to happen until we have total air superiority. And before you all quote Iraq, it doesn't count when the enemy pack up and go home before kick-off - that's a rarity
And when we do go off on ops and the Pongos are getting a pasting against a state that actually decides to fight, whether that be in FROGFOOTS or anything else, can I please be there when the bean counters tell them they will have to put up with it because the fiscal planning didn't take into account Umongo-Bongo land using their air assets when we invaded so there's no air cover.

4. Plus many other logical arguments that the military shouldn't have to spell out in words of less than on syllable.

This round of cuts has to be the most ludicrous and short sighted bit of thinking it has ever been my privilege to see. When will the accountants and civil servants realise that you cannot put a cash value on defence. The sort of value they need to realise investing in defence brings is the ability to get to their comfy Whitehall office without being gassed on the tube, or go on holiday without being hijacked en route.

So I go back to my original question. If Sweden thinks it needs 200+ Grippen, any chance of a re-think on our cutting the numbers of Typhoons?

Answers on a postcard to T Bliar, 10 , The Funny Farm, London

[DummyRun]

Memo to St Tone, Vicar of St Albions from AC;

Mate, ignore all the previous militeresque ranting, they're has-beens that's why I put Buff in charge - its edukayshun and helff where it counts, deefence is the last of our worries, they won't strike they'll just knuckle down and get on with it, their bosses will all come onside if we give the wifey a sniff of a Ladyship and half one of our pensions (would a KCB help?).

Reply from Vicar of St Albion

Like, er cool, er y'know, er, I mean, er, so we could cut them back to my Vatican guard of 100 of those embassy raiders, a couple of helos and one of those giant Hercules thingy's.
PS what Have you done with Cherries royal yacht oh and I'd rarther like one of those G Dubya flying jackets, y'know like I'mean with wings on so the parishioners can identify with me,

( memo to Carol) - would I look better in a G Dubya stylee leather jacket with airforoce wings or navy wings, AC wodya rekkon ?

Reply from the Rev Dubya , Church of the Latter Day Morons,er Vicar Tone, watch and pray, lest you join my list of those folks who are in need of a regime change. Eyerak, Germanland, Froggyland and St Abionland'

Vicar of St Albion.... bending over now Your Holiness.......

I could go on.......

Load moving............

[VP959]

CatpainCaveman,

Just for the record, the detail of the cuts isn't being decided by civil servants or beancounters, in the main it is serving personnel at OF5/1* who are making the suggestions as to the shape of future forces, particularly the platform mix required.

It's true that there are some massive cost overuns driving the need for this, largely due to a couple of big programmes going massively over budget, plus the compounding, but unforeseen (by the Treasury), effect of RAB on real year on year cash flow. Given that the Government are not prepared to put more cash into defence to compensate, the DMB has little choice but to force some savage "efficiency" measures through.

If we end up with an unbalanced capability that is inadequate for the conflicts we find ourselves in, then it's worth remembering that the blame may well lie with a handful of career minded senior officers who see the opportunity here to curry favour. Unfortunately, common sense often seems to go out of the window when this happens, as we will no doubt find out officially in mid-July.

[JessTheDog]

Can we expect some 1* plus resignations this summer? I think not.... Backbones of jelly.....

[pr00ne]

CaptainCaveman,

You're a bit out of date and touch with the Swedich situation (OOoer)
They have had their own series of Defence cuts and realignments and have a requirement for far less than 200 Grippens. They are peddling them around the world to anyone who is interested and all of their early Grippens are being replaced by a later updated NATO compatible version resulting in around half of the Grippen order being declared surplus.
Plus it is their only FJ so it has to do the lot. They are declaring a grand total of 4 to be available for UN sponsored peace keeping missions.

[allan907]

The national cake is sliced up according to the pollies wishes (and they argue that they are responding to the wishes of the 'people').

The defence budget is then passed down from the Treasury to the Big Wheel civil servants in the MOD who then have a meeting with the Big *s in green, dark blue and light blue. They then go off with their worry beads and it eventually comes down to the sqn ldr staff officers who then have to produce a paper which then works its way back up the chain to the Big *s office who pronounces himself well pleased with the efficient staff work. He then passes it on to the Big Wheel civil servants who pass it on to the Treasury who pass it on to the Cabinet and the PM says to the public "Lo, we have achieveth what thou hast asked for and have managed to restrict prescription charges to only a quid rise this year"

Moral: It's the bloke next door's fault so go and kick his nuts in. You are certainly not going to get any Big *s giving in their notice on principle (Sorry Prime Minister, you are talking bollocks. We cannot do what you want with this level of resources. You can do without my services)

[CatpainCaveman]

PrOOne -

The Swedish situation???? The ladies beach-volleyball team getting rowdy again?? Volunteers to intervene for the sake of northern Europe security one pace forward - and watch for the stampede!

Thanks for the update - it's a fair cop, I have been somewhat pre-occuppied with issues other than Swedish defence procurement and the Grippen site could do with updating. However I think the gist of my point still stands, and judging by some of the other replies I think others may agree with my general sentiment.

I still can't understand why if the Grippen is so capable (Typhoon detractors keep plugging it as a cheaper but equally handy option) why the Swedes need so many for a relatively limited requirement that doesn't extend much further than their ADZ? I don't think it's anything to do with Swedish military expansionism, more a realisation that a credible defence needs investment, which our government needs to realise.

VP959 - the OF5/1* are mearly trying to allocate the resources they are given. It's still the Sir Humphries of this world that work out how much pocket money we get to spend on toys according to our political masters' wishes and vote-winning needs. Rather than simply taking it up the hoop, it would be nice to finally see some of them stand up and defend the military amd what we need. Or don't they believe we are worth defending anymore??????? Some one please prove me wrong - being sent into a war where people have 20 rounds and no body armour means guys & girls at the coal face are beginning to seriously doubt how much of our collective interests they have at heart.

If all the rumours are true - carriers to be mothballed, aircraft types axed, regiments sold off to the lowest bidder, and I realise these are all worst case scenario media-led stories, it will be a catastrophe. Can you imagine the headlines if the NHS turned round and said that we have reviewed our capability requirements and have decided to axe all heart surgery to meet budgetary constraints? Well take that analogy and transfer to MOD ........

[VP959]

Don't you just love it when the political spin starts? It's common knowledge that there isn't enough dosh to provide the kit that is desperately needed, and that what dosh there was has been savagely cut. In steps the Treasury, with the following quotes from the Mail:

"A spokeswoman said reports that as many as 15,000 personnel, four Army battalions and six Navy warships were facing the chop were "totally wrong".

The spending review would provide sufficient funding to ensure that the armed forces were equipped for the tasks facing them, she said.

"Far from cuts, the 2002 spending review delivered the biggest sustained increase in defence spending for 20 years.
"On top of that, we have met in full the cost of campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror," said the spokeswoman.

"We are ensuring, and will continue to ensure, that our armed forces are best equipped to do the job we ask of them."

Anyone care to place bets on how "totally wrong" the rumours are? My guess is that "totally wrong" might mean cuts of 12,000 instead of 15,000.......................

[Open Sauce]

http://www.modoracle.com/news/detail.h2f?id=5673

[soddim]

As a taxpayer who has to go private to get dental treatment, has to use BUPA to get timely medical attention, had to pay boarding school fees to get his kids a decent education and is still paying National Insurance contributions well after his 60th birthday because he has no choice in the matter I wonder if some philanthropist will come up with a way I can buy defence of my homeland on easy payments.

It is quite obvious that in my lifetime no government has looked after my needs and this one looks like sacrificing my ultimate insurance - our armed forces.

[pr00ne]

VP959,

BTW, is that a Devon? Might have flown in it.


....."and that what dosh there was has been savagely cut."........


Sorry mate, that simply is not true, an extra £2billion last year, an extra £500million for Iraq and Afghanistan and the leak of the Cabinet spending review promising real term increases of 1% per annum for the next three years.

What we need is what is changing, priorities and emphasis are changing. The changes are being driven by guys in Khaki and light and dark blue.

Overspend on many major procurement 'big ticket' items and a DLO and DPA who couldn't organise a fun night in a brothel and boozer?

That's a different matter!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

This week's local paper (you might consider it last week's as it gets published on Thursdays) reports an 18 year old member of the TA being called up for service in Iraq.

His unit is NOT an infantry one, yet they are being sent to do infantry tasks. Local TA infantry and already serving in Iraq, and also in Afgahnistan, where one of them got killed.

So it would appear that we've run out of infantry units, including TA ones, so now people trained as tank gunners or loaders are being sent.

Still, Geoff Hoon says there's no overstretch.....:rolleyes:

[TheWelshOne]

BBC Article today:

Defence plans criticised by MPs:

Troops, regulars and reserves are overstretched, the report said
Serious problems of under-manning and overstretch in the armed forces could put British troops at risk, an all-party committee of MPs has warned. The Commons Defence Committee was reporting after a five month inquiry into the Defence White Paper.
The Ministry of Defence had prioritised hi-tech innovation at the expense of army personnel, the MPs said. The plans could result in troops being sent "unprepared" into "complex and dangerous situations". The MoD's plans are "depressingly short" on details of how to resolve the chronic problem of "excess stretch" in the armed forces, the report continues. "We believe the manpower shortages must be tackled urgently," it added.

With the armed forces "depending" on reserves for "their operational capability" - the role of reserves and "what can be reasonably expected of them" must be reappraised.

The report is also critical of plans to reduce the scale of the armed forces - especially before new hi-tech capabilities and equipment are introduced.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Pr00ne

Does that 1% take into account inflation? If not then in real terms....

As for the Reserves....

Reserve forces (by which I mean Volunteer Reserves) are, like their regular counterparts, overstretched. During the Cold War the role of Reservists was to provide extra capabilities and manpower in the event of the Cold War going Hot. Fotunately this never happened.

After the Cold War, changes have been made to achieve closer integration with the regular forces. In the early 90s the squadron of coastal minesweepers that that were operated by the Royal Naval Reserve were removed from service as it was assesed that that they were no longer needed, the threat of Soviet deep water mines being placed in the approaches to Submarine bases on the Clyde died with the USSR. Whilst these vessels were relatively unsophistacated, they had a wide range of people to man them, seamen, communicators, engineering, chefs, etc etc.

Another branch that was disbanded after the Cold War was one called Port Defence or something similar. This branch had the role of protecting ports, achorages and shipping from sabotage, terrorism and the like.

Snce then the RNR has changed, many of the skills that it had still exist, but its role now is different. Several hundred members of the RNR were mobillised for operation in the Gulf last year, they are still calling people up. Funding for training is limited which causes real problems - for example not everyone recieves weapon training. One of the major roles of the RNR is providing teams for protecting RFA vessels and chartered shipping. If the Government were willing (which they're not) to make a small invstment, portable systems (eg ones like this one (http://www.radamec.co.uk/systems_2700.html))could be procured to provide a level of defence greater than that possible with just small arms.

The TA was cut to shreds during the Strategic Defence Review. In particular, the TA infantry battalions were cut. The role during to Cold War was partly to reinforce UK forces on the continent, but also home defence - providing personnel to defend key points from sabotage, terrorism or Spetsnaz (Soviet special forces) attack. There are hundreds of key points in the UK, each of which could be a terrorist target.

What infantry the TA still has tends to get deployed to Afgahnistan, Iraq, Kosovo - anywhere really, as the regular Army does not have enough troops to do the jobs asked of it. Non infantry TA personnel also get deployed to do infantry jobs.

I haven't mentioned the Royal Marines Reserve or RAF Reservists due to lack of knowledge.

Additionally, hundreds of Reservists (of all types) are one Full Time Reseve Service - without them the Armed Forces could not function - in peacetime!

Whilst it makes sense to deal with terrorism as far from the UK as possible (keeping troops in Iraq and Afgahnistan until both places are fairly stable, using warships and maritime patrol aircraft to make the seaborne movement of terrorists, explosives etc - see here (http://navynews.co.uk/articles/2004/0406/0004062901.asp) and here (http://www.navnorth.nato.int/navnorth/pages/update/envision_3_02/terrorism.htm) - anti terrorist patrols off of Cyprus and Gbraltar, and many other activities, we lack the means to defend key points on land, or ports.

See This from epolitix (http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200407/76278d97-04f4-4f73-b4da-2ee39bd56cf2.htm)

[HectorusRex]

More bad news for EuroFighter and Defence?

Eurofighter Project May Wind Down, Imperiling Thousands of Jobs

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&refer=uk&sid=aJDEen36j4A4#

July 18 (Bloomberg) -- Eurofighter GmbH, the venture in charge of Europe's biggest defense project, may start to wind down production, threatening thousands of jobs, unless the U.K. and other countries buy a second group of 236 planes this month.
``A binding commitment for funding'' by the end of July is ``the minimum we need followed by an undertaking that contract signature will follow,'' said Eurofighter Chief Executive Officer Aloysius Rauen, 47, in an interview. ``The Eurofighter partner companies are preparing steps to run down the program.''
The U.K., Germany, Italy and Spain have pledged to buy 620 planes in three batches from Munich-based Eurofighter GmbH. The combat plane, conceived 20 years ago for air defense against Soviet MiGs, is built by BAE Systems Plc, European Aeronautic, Defense & Space Co. and Finmeccanica SpA's Alenia unit.
Eurofighter is at least six years behind schedule already and the cost has tripled to more than 83 billion euros ($103 billion). The program employs about 10,000 people working on the airframe and another 10,000 working on the engine and other equipment.
``You've got the cost of shutting down production lines and then of starting them up again,'' Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace industry analyst with the Teal Group in Fairfax, Virginia. ``It's not just jobs at the four main companies, but across the program's very many subcontractors.''
The U.K. wants to cut the price of the fighter and add the capability to attack ground targets with precision weapons to the planes earlier than planned, according to British government documents seen by Bloomberg News. The U.K.'s demands are under negotiation, Rauen said.
U.K. Position
``The U.K. is not yet where the other countries are'' on funding, said Rauen, who declined to give details. ``Hour-by-hour negotiations are ongoing'' to get a commitment. Britain has said it will purchase 89 second-batch aircraft. Germany this month granted approval to buy 68 further planes.
``The U.K. remains committed to tranche 2 and negotiations are ongoing,'' said Steve Bethel, a spokesman for Britain's Ministry of Defence. Talks between the four nations are ``commercially sensitive,'' he said., declining further comment.
Britain is the primary obstacle to an agreement to pay for the planes, said EADS Co-Chief Executive Rainer Hertrich, 54, and Thomas Enders, 45, head of EADS's military unit, speaking before the tomorrow's start of the Farnborough Air Show in England.
``Hurry up in the U.K.!'' said Hertrich in an interview yesterday in Bath, England. ``If we don't have an agreement by the end of July, it will start having consequences immediately'' with employees at EADS and subcontractors being asked to work part-time or even lose jobs, he said. ``Who pays the bill?''
14,000 Jobs
As many as 14,000, or 70 percent of the Eurofighter workforce, might be lost by November 2005 and 1.5 billion euros added cost because of delays in signing contract for the second group of planes, according to a Nov. 3 letter, seen by Bloomberg News, from Ernst Dintner, deputy general manager of NETMA, the agency managing the four-nation project.
Spokesmen for the defense ministries of Germany, Italy and Spain did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Rauen, Hertrich and Enders did not comment on the exact number of jobs that would be affected. EADS employs 6,000 people on Eurofighter.
``We face the serious threat that we could have a gap here, a disruption of the program which could be very costly,'' said Enders. ``We estimate that could run to between 1 billion and 2 billion euros.''
The companies will have to start talks with unions to reduce shifts and redeploy workers because of a lack of work if the governments do not commit to the second batch of 236 planes, Rauen said in the interview in his Munich office on Thursday.
First Tranche
The four nations agreed to buy 148 planes in a first batch designed for air supremacy. Of that total, 36 have been delivered, 104 are under construction and work remains to begin on eight. Final delivery of the last plane in the batch is set for early 2007. Delivery of the first planes in the second batch is scheduled for the same year, dependent on work beginning soon.
``The four Eurofighter governments had some time ago agreed that by end of July, latest, they wanted to have a tranche 2 contract signed with industry in order to avoid our coming into a production interruption,'' said Enders.
``We have already slowed the manufacture'' of the first-batch planes ``to the maximum'' to prevent a costly gap in production, Rauen said. A gap will hurt smaller suppliers more because of their ``limited flexibility'' to ``take workers out of the production process.''
Representatives from the contractors, NETMA and the four governments will meet this week during the air show to discuss the state of the program.
Ground Targets
The U.K. would like the next batch of planes to have the ability to attack ground targets with precision ordnance including laser-guided bombs, such as Stormshadow and Brimstone missiles, government documents show. In the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, there was little need for air-defense aircraft.
BAE in April said it plans to cut 1,000 jobs between now and 2005 at plants making Eurofighter and Nimrod planes as the air- systems division reorganizes to handle less work. BAE Chief Executive Mike Turner said in February a production contract for the second-batch planes may be delayed until the end of 2004.
Eurofighter reduced the cost of the second batch of planes by 200 million euros and agreed to sell 18 aircraft earmarked for the U.K. to Austria, easing Britain's defense budget, Hertrich said in April. The U.K. will take delivery of an equal amount at a later date, he said.
``Three parties have largely done their homework, one party hasn't,'' said Enders. ``That is posing a problem.''

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Having read the document on the cuts......... I mean reforms again (see here (http://www.mod.uk/issues/security/cm6269/chapter1.htm)) I note the following........

The importance of those capabilities which can rapidly come together to achieve specific military effect and then rapidly adapt with other capabilities to achieve what is required by the next operation. By doing so decisive military effect may be achieved through a smaller number of more capable, linked assets acting quickly and precisely to achieve a desired outcome.

OK but what about peacekeeping/peace support etc?

During the Vietnam War over 800 sorties were flown against the Thanh Hoa bridge before it was destroyed by aircraft using precision weapons. Today we would aim to destroy a similar target with a single formation of 6 Tornado aircraft with Enhanced Precision guided bombs.

Apart from the fact North Vietnamese airspace was heavily defended by MiGs, SAMs and AAA, with an integrated air defence network the US rules of engagement left largely intact...

Surely that numbers of sorties (800) includes not just the aicraft dropping the bombs but also escorting fighters, defence suppression and EW types, tanker support and AWACS type aircraft. Surely we would sent some support for our six Tornadoes? So more than six aircraft then.....

From Chaptor two....

NEC scenario

Autumn 2010, UK maritime, land and air forces are engaged in a focused intervention somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa.

Nice choice of theatre, with no opposing submarine or air assets and only terrorists on the ground.

The whole paper put great emphasis on operation in future being at times and places of our choosing. Err- what about unpredictable events? Can't be predicted therefore can't happen?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

CINCFLEET speaks out (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/05/nhoon05.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/08/05/ixportal.html)

A very interesting quote....

"The Armed Forces' 'can do' attitude is our greatest asset and our greatest weakness," he said.

[JessTheDog]

We now know how much UK defence has been given .

However, does anyone know how much UK defence actually asked for ?

And what the difference between what we asked for and what we actually got!

[the_grand_dad]

Looks like the site gets a mention on Channel 4 news tonight at 19:00:ok:

http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/messageview.mv?view+brownenvelope+462+index

[pr00ne]

Jessthedog,

That's not how the Defence vote works!

There is a whole series of alternative assumptions going on all the time, future expenditure is dependent on a whole range of scenarios, at no stage does UK Defence (who ARE they?) actually ASK for anything.

National archives have published similar rantings and ravings, otherwise known as 'alternative assumptions' for the 1970 to 1972 period where planned defence expenditure (by the Tories note!) was to fall year on year from 1971 until 1982. The proposed reductions in the forward equipment programme by the Chiefs of Staff make fascinating reading!

Of course none of this actually happened as the 1973 Arab-Israeli war broke out, the fuel embargo hit, there was a General election and both parties planned massive defence cuts as a consequence. When Labour eventually got in and were confirmed in power they then hit the forces with a HUGE cut in Defence expenditure, which limped on until 1976!

[ROLLERSKATE]

This is a totally pointless arguement as our present government and the opposition haven't a clue about the UKs defence needs.
As a observer I have read over the years that the initial new Nimrod requirement was 25, 21 were ordered which was reduced to 18 and now stands at 12.
A report stated our helicopter support capability was 34% below requirements and about £4bn was to allocated to buy 100 replacement helicopters but now the budget is cut so how many will you actually receive?
They were going to buy 150 JSF a/c to replace the Harriers and Sea Harriers but with the SHARs fate already sealed and have you ever known a government in recent history creating more fighter squadrons you will be lucky to get 75!
2 years ago they wanted to increase the RAF regiment by 10% but that is now to be cut.
Type 45 destroyer ordere cut from 12 to 8, 12 fishery protection cut from 12 to 7 leased vessels.
Both our main political parties want to seen as agressive supporters of the war on terrorism but are unwilling to pay for the means to combat it.
It is wrong there is total apathy towards the military I am a civilian and know there are major problems and the forces are over stretched, do not have the equipment for the jobs given to them but until a 767 full of innocent people is aimed at the Houses of Parliament or Canary Wharf our politicians will not change as unfortunately the majority have only one interest and that is themselves.

[pr00ne]

ROLLERSKATE

Just how is ANY of that equipment you list going to even interfere with your 767 let alone stop it?

We have to deal with the reasons and the causes of all this, fleets of jet fighters, Nimrods and Destroyers are not going to do it.

[ROLLERSKATE]

prOOne
I agree that huge fleets of a/c and ships will not stop terrorists but my point is the inconsistency by politicians when it comes to making decisions about defence requirements.
Personally I feel there is little need of hundreds of fast jets when the threat to the UK by aircraft or ships is small and when we do deploy fast jets to conflicts outside Europe this is done in very small numbers.
I know we have a limited defence budget and technology is expensive but lets have some consistency so everyone knows where we stand - stop moving the goalposts.
Mr. Blair and co. must learn as bad as some the worlds problems are the UK can not get involved in every conflict, it is time for some others with large armies to pull there wait.

[JessTheDog]

That's not how the Defence vote works!

There will be a bid, and there will be an allocation. My question is simply this: how much was the bid, compared to the allocation?

This is purely a cost cutting exercise, based around the coincidence of a number of expensive, overspent and overdue equipment programmes. It takes years to generate skilled personnel, and this is what is being lost. These cuts will be regretted, the trouble is it will only be those left in the services that will be around to regret them!

I am fed up to my back teeth, and I will be off at the next opportunity, quite shortly. :mad:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Who will defend our Armed Forces from enemies at home? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/08/18/do1801.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/08/18/ixportal.html)

[BillHicksRules]

WEBF,

Having posted the link to Keegan’s article I would be interested in your opinion of it. Do you agree or disagree with it in principle?

Cheers

BHR

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Yes.

Although the article contains a few errors the basic thrust is, in my opinion, correct.

[BillHicksRules]

WEBF,

I personally find it a disgustingly political piece of work. I am shocked that someone I had held in such high regard from his scholarly works has stooped to the level of fairground barker for the Tory party. I was aware of his affiliations however in the past he has managed to maintain a tight rein on his horses in this respect. Personally I will be unlikely to read anymore of his publications as a result of this article.

Cheers

BHR

[Navaleye]

I'm with Webf on this. "Political correctness" these days seems to be an excuse for not publishing the truth in this nanny state. Mr Keegan has clearly hit several nails on the head with his article.

[soddim]

Mr Keegan speaks for every thinking person in this country when he criticises the recent defence cuts - and don't you dare, Pr00ne, call them anything else!

If new labour waste the money instead I hope they realise what a risk they take with the security of us all and I hope they realise that now they must stop playing on the World stage.

[BillHicksRules]

Soddim,

What makes me wince is all the Tories coming out of the woodwork claiming that they would have been any different

[Jackonicko]

More of Keegan's tired, ill-informed anti-Eurofighter prejudice and some new nonsense about the 'inevitability' of retiring 'worn out' Jaguars. The Jaguars that could go on longer, cheaper than GR7/GR9, and which don't need a new back end to do so.

More backward looking carping about sensible reductions to Cold War armour and to unfortunate but essential changes to 'cap badges'.

But what does anyone expect from an Army historian? The tragedy is that the Telegraph give this tired windbag such credence.

[Regie Mental]

That's right Jacko, let's just take all the cuts on the chin. And if anyone dare speak up then lets just personally attack their credibility. Nice one.

[pr00ne]

Soddim,

I think there are far more “thinking” people in this country that would strongly disagree with Keegan’s clapped out, old, inaccurate rhetoric than you would like to think.

How can you define a £3.7billion increase in funding in real terms as a cut? How can you define £2.8billion in efficiency savings reinvested in the Defence budget as a cut?

Take a look around you at what’s happening in the world. The busiest and most employed Air Force on the planet , the United States Air Force, is cutting 22,000 people and has admitted that it is going to drastically reduce it’s number of tactical fast jets, not that they use that ridiculous phrase, as they are using less than half of them to fulfil their global commitments.
The Swedish Air Force is also reducing to a fraction of their 1990’s fast jet numbers.

Increasing defence budgets in the major players in the so-called War against terror such as the US, the UK and Australia are being used to fight a very different campaign against a very different enemy.
We no longer face fleets of combat aircraft, surface ships and submarines contesting the worlds oceans or skies, or hundreds of tanks rolling across Europe.

I do agree that some of the decisions do not seem to make sense, why on earth, for example, are we apparently reducing the future Support Helicopter budget by a billion after the damming report on SH shortfalls by the NAO. This is an area that I thought would be substantially boosted, instead it seems it is to be further reduced.
We still retain 7 Tornado GR4 squadrons yet only ever seem to need less than three, surely funds here could be found for a more robust SH force?

Have to agree with BillHicksRules and Jackonicko on both the Tories and the Telegraph.

I am afraid as a substantial taxpayer I agree that it is the duty of ANY Government to spend the very minimum required on Defence, a penny more is a waste of taxpayers money. That minimum of course has to ensure an adequate defence.
We appear to be spending the correct amount, but on the wrong things.

[Maple 01]

I'm with pr00ne and Jackonicko,

The Cold War is over (Even ASACS worked that out) let go, we're not facing hoards of Backfires over the Cape, nor will the Russians be sweeping through the Fulda gap.

Much as it pains us, the realignment of equipment and forces to meet the new dangers is necessary. Lets not play the old ‘I don’t like Tony Blair so it must be wrong’ card. Do you seriously think the Conservatives would have done any different?

-Nick

[stuk]

Yet again on this site.....
"How can you define a £3.7billion increase in funding in real terms as a cut? How can you define £2.8billion in efficiency savings reinvested in the Defence budget as a cut?" How many times do you want telling that There Is Not A £3.7 billion increase. Read the paper on defence - the rise was £2.8 billion in savings plus a bit more to add up to £3.7billion. How were these savings made? Sacking Buffoon would have saved a wodge of money and not inconvenienced the forces at all. However how have the "efficiency savings" affected the squaddie in Basra?
By the way I am not an old fashioned Tory coming out of the woodwork - just someone who is fed up with Bliar and his incompetent croneys and apologists.

[pr00ne]

stuk

1.4% increase in REAL terms plus £2.8billion in effeciency savings REINVESTED in the Defence budget plus a Defence technology fund plus Iraq costs met from the Treasury.

It's all there in the statement.

[soddim]

Pr00ne,

Spin it any way you wish but less aircraft ships and troops in the front line is a reduction in my security - and yours. I call that a cut.

Bill HicksRules,

I agree - I don't like this lot but any other lot would try for budget reductions too so it's no use playing politics over defense - it's far too serious anyway.

[BillHicksRules]

Proone,

I have to take issue with your point. What good is a 1.4% increase in money when op tempos are up by at least 10 times that? Our armed forces are committed to a degree probably only exceeded during WW2. A 1.4% increase in at best an offensive political sop to the Treasury and at worst endangering the lives of service personnel everywhere. My only annoyance is all those who think that the other mob would not do exactly the same or worse.

We as a nation have to realise the levels of spending we can afford and then commit ourselves within those limits. It will be hard. We will not be able to be the player on the world stage that Blair would like. Those days are gone. They were gone 50 years ago really. I have no problem with the size and make up of our armed forces that are proposed (except the CVF’s, what a huge white elephant boondoggle they are) but we need to stop sending troops everywhere the US does. We do not need vast numbers of MBT’s, we do not need SSBN’s. We need reliable comms for the Army. We need a decent rifle for the Army as well. We need more Air Transport capability. We need more SH capability. In short cut the Cold War c**p and lets live in the now.

Please excuse the less than eloquent phrasing but I am doing this on a mobile phone.

Cheers

BHR

[pr00ne]

BillHicksRules,

Pretty impressive stuff from a mobile, and not a trace of yoof speak to be seen!

Let me clarify one thing about the Defence White paper, I only took umbrage at the biased and inaccurate reporting of "Labour cuts in defence expenditure" when that is the exact opposite of what was happening. It was the political opportunism and hypocrsy of Tory supporters that riled me.

I thought the whole point of the white paper WAS to bring about a rebalancing precisely because OP tempos are up and are also of a very different type.
If these cuts in numbers are to enable the forces to be reshaped then they have to be a good thing, if they are merely to cover up procurement mismanagement then they are very bad. The forces are, by their very nature, very resistant to change and quite genuinely conservative (with a small c) in habit and outlook. This makes any radical reshaping very hard to achieve.

If the Support Helicopter situation is as bad as rumour has it, then this white paper has indeed been very very BAD. Only time will tell.

[Spotting Bad Guys]

We have been 're-shaped' (as you put it) too many times - not least when our esteemed Pry Minister (sic) ordered the Strategic Defence Review. So, either the SDR was a flawed, incomplete and thoroughly bungled effort or the latest round was in fact A CUT. Hmmm....maybe I'm right on both counts.....:rolleyes:

SBG

[pr00ne]

Spotting Bad Guys,

Oh come on! I cannot believe that you are that naive!

….”when our esteemed Pry Minister (sic) ordered the Strategic Defence Review..”

“….So, either the SDR was a flawed, incomplete and thoroughly bungled effort or the latest round was in fact A CUT….”

Now, let’s see, what major event of world shattering importance has happened between 1998 and July 21st 2004?

WHERE WERE YOU ON SEPTEMBER THE ELEVENTH TWO THOUSAND AND ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Between the SDR and July 2004 we have, in addition, had the removal of Iraq as a threat, the emergence of a global terrorist phenomenon, the radicalisation of the Palestinian situation and Libya and Iran lowering their nuclear and other WMD profile.

You can knock New Labour for what they are doing to the defence capability of this country, knock the Chiefs of Staff for their silence and acquiescence, but please do not try and claim that the world has not changed out of all recognition since SDR.

[JessTheDog]

Sep 11: 3,000 dead in an event that was without doubt a massive tragedy. However, it was not the first terrorist atrocity and arguably an aberration waiting to happen, more to do with lax airport and airline security. The world was arguably a more dangeous place in the 70s with the threat from Palestininan and Communist inspired terrorism.

Iraq - never a threat to the UK or US unless you are insane enough to believe Mr Blair. Until now, that is, now that we have put ourselves in harm's way....

Libya - what nuclear profile was lowered? Gadaffi giving away something he never had, in a cunning move.

Iran - the nuclear profile is down, then up, then down. Also, with over 100,000 troops tied down in Iraq, the Iranians know that threats are empty rhetoric.

Most of the changes are down to a lack of Western vigilance and an excess of Wester vigilante behaviour!

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Where was I? I was at work, watched the whole thing unfold, then deployed to VERITAS with the first UK aircraft type to take part (less than 4 weeks later). Came home four months later then re-deployed to another location in the AOR in March. Where were you, Proone?

In answer to your question - no, I'm not that naive. SDR was supposed to re-focus warfighting abilities in the light of the end of the Cold War, taking into account the changed world situation, and the increased threat of international terrorism. Funny how, as SDR was supposed to be 'capability led', every single item had to be approved by the Treasury.....but that's another story.

So, by 1998 Iraq had been a problem for ourselves and the US for some eight years, we were about to launch Op Desert Fox and take some punitive action - but it was clear even then that there had to be an end-game at some point. The US were not going to walk away from that one.

Op Allied Force was on the horizon, and started some four months into 1999. I was there, too.

Terrorism i.e. Al-Qaeda? I was at Khobar Towers four weeks before it was bombed. Where were you? Yes, the scale of 9/11 was astonishing, but are you trying to tell me that there weren't predictions of an attack on such a grand scale prior to that date?

Dress up the CUTS any way you like - it's merely proving that under the current climate the desire to spin and failure to acknowledge the evidence is more important than truth, honesty and integrity.

But then I get paid to defend democracy rather than practice it.

SBG.

[soddim]

Sad thing is that less people like SBG will be paid to defend democracy in the future - but, of course, that's not a cut!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Here (http://www.billyarmstrong.co.uk/040723_defence_cuts_are_misguided!.htm)

And here (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=853162003)

And here (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=852522004)

And here (http://www.warshipsifr.com/pages/defenceCutsSpecial.html)

Shame about the anti Eurofighter nonsense - worthy of something written by Max Hastings, described by Private Eye as "The World's Worst Columnist"....

What if terrorists attempt to attack targets in the UK using light aircraft? Anti hijacking stuff will offer no defence then....

[Archimedes]

Oh dear. That last link has touches of green crayon in it. 'Cancel Eurofighter NOW' - and see almost all of the money go in penalty clauses...

Also on the point of the Eurofighter, and now that Mick Smith is known to visit these hallowed portals, I note that the Telegraph's leader yesterday described the Typhoon (or Euro-fighter as printed) as 'preposterous'. I'd be very interested to learn:

a) Why the Typhoon is 'preposterous'

and

b) What the Telegraph would have the govt (or successors) replace it with?

Also, if the Eurofighter is an outdated Cold War project, why is the Telegraph not similarly critical of the F/A-22, Gripen, JSF (granted that just squeezes in to Cold War era planning), F-16, F-15E and, in fact, just about every combat aircraft available?

[soddim]

Thankyou, WEBF, for those links. Some a little biased but it does seem that the public are at last beginning to be concerned about the low level of defence forces - even if they are not yet ready to pay more tax to improve matters.

I can see why Typhoon gets criticised but it's too late now - the time for action was when the Germans were anxious to delay and reduce numbers. Now it is the best news we are likely to get in the RAF front line for some time.

However, knocking Typhoon in the hope of increasing the likelihood that we will afford the new carriers is a bit stupid - this chancellor would be delighted to cancel both and save even more money to waste on some other new labour target seeking expenditure.

A question that is worth asking is can we defend these new carriers when we get them?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Nice to know, isn't it. But exactly how, and what with?

Perhaps by dealing with the situation in Iraq, Afgahnistan and other places. The main things we need there are troops on the ground and forces to support them. Unfortunately the infantry are being cut at a time they're already overstretched, the budget for support helicopters has been cut and so have other things needed to support troops on the ground.

Perhaps by intercepting terrorist movements/activites at sea - except the frigate/destroyer numbers have been cut to a level where performing all the peacetime tasks will be impossible. Submarine (very useful for ISTAR use) are also on the decline. Perhaps we could use aircraft - Nimrods perhaps? Except they're being cut.

Special Forces operations instead perhaps. Well, apart from suffering overstretch like everyone else, they will suffer from the Recent cuts. They do not exist in isolation, and there will be both a reduced number of people to recruit from. Moreover, they will be less helicopters, ships, submarines, vehicles etc to insert/extract them, and less aircraft, ships, infantry, artillery etc to provide fire and other support.

Home Defence then? Hmmmm! There are less and less aircraft to deal with rogue aircraft (didn't they once suggest extra QRA bases), and our forces spend less and less time at home. In 2002 they came up with the idea of using Reservists for home defence. Unfortunately the Reserves Forces are heavily commited to supporting operations in Iraq, Afgahnistan, the Balkans etc etc etc.

Is using defence against terrorism as an election theme really such a good idea (considering the above)?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From the Telegraph.

A recent piece by Sir John Keegan:
Here (http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/04/19/do1901.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/04/19/ixopinion.ht)

And a reply from Geoff Hoon: On the letters page (http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=2P2W3X1CCA0CJQFIQMFCM54AVCBQYJVC?menuId =1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule=0#head2)

This is in contrast to the cuts in defence spending that were the hallmark of the previous Conservative government...

Something to do with the end of the Cold War?

This new money means that our Armed Forces have the equipment they need to remain the very best in the world.

As long as the US are there too?

We remain 100 per cent committed to providing the new aircraft carriers, fast jets, helicopters and the very latest equipment for our Armed Forces.

Help! I'm choking.

Carriers - delayed, not ordered yet.
Fast Jets - Typhoon orders have occured.
Helicopters - yes there is no shortage.
The very latest equipment - like what?

[BillHicksRules]

WEBF,

RE: John Keegans article.

I refer you to my previous post on this thread on the last piece of work of his you linked to here.

Cheers

BHR

[WE Branch Fanatic]

BHR you weren't the only person who was less than impressed. See here. (http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm3.showMessage?topicID=4235.topi c&index=11)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Blimey there's an election today. I hope nobody votes for Blair and his "more cuts, more wars" party.

Look here. (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn/Forums/viewtopic/t=16340.html)

Blair didn't even know how many people had got killed....

[Mad_Mark]

Anyone else see the interview with Gordon Brown on the BBC Breakfast programme on Tuesday?

Whilst discussing the war in Iraq GB said that it was for "the national eccomic interest" :confused: Strange, I thought it was for the 'national security interest' that we went there, leading to all those brave souls being lost :*

This (that) Government really are a bunch of liars and tw@s :yuk:

MadMark!!! :mad:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Who was it who mentioned Japan?

JSDF to have missile defence and two "aircraft carriers" (http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/undercurrent/20040309_uc_s18/)

[pr00ne]

WE Branch Fanatic,

"Japan to have missile defence and 2 'aircraft carriers'"

Your point is...........................?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

BHR offered Japan as an example of a nation without advanced military capabilities.

[pr00ne]

WE Branch Fanatic,

Oh, OK, can't see that bit but as a matter of opinion;

Japan has no nukes, no SLBM, no SSN, no cruise missiles, no sophisticated ground attack capability over any decent range or in inclement weather, no real amphibious lift of any real reach, no heavy lift and no AAR capability, so I would tend to agree.

What they DO have is a large FFG/DDGforce, a very large LRMP force and a very capable AD capability, so, I think that gives them a very good home defence capability, but when you look at where they are in the world, wouldn't you?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Umm have you seen the new ships that they're building? And yes they do have amphibious forces. I think the Japanese constitution and political sensitivities makes offensive assets controversial.

[Cambridge Crash]

Since 11 Sep 01, the Japanese constitution has been quietly amended to allow for increasing deployment of Japanese assets outside of their EEZ. For example in Sep 03 the JSDF, along with civilian units, boarded vessels in the Coral Sea, off Queensland. As an Australian observer put it 'it's not the first time they have operated here.' They are also keen aprticipants of the US-led Proliferation Security Initiative.

Arguably - and this is a point forwarded by Dan Plesch, late of RUSI - Japan has rationale and wherewithal to become the next (open) nuclear power. There is the old emnity with China, beligerancy of DPR (North Korea) and territorial issues with Vietnam, to name a few. They have the launch vehicles, the nuclear industry and the means of production. Politically a time-bomb, but the Japanese are not institutionally passive.

As some readers are aware, they have deployed ships in and around the Gulf for years, safeguarding their energy lifeline.

CC

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I expect many parts of the media will turn a blind ey to this, but HMS Endurance will soon be conducting important work to help us understand and protect out natural environment.

See this link. (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/rn/content.php3?page=1&article=970)

Of course, it wouldn't do to report anything postive.....

[pr00ne]

WEBF,

WHAT??????????????????????????

[An Teallach]

WEBF

So Endurance does the job it was funded, designed, built and crewed for and has done for years. So where's the story you want the meeja to cover?

Would it come above "Shock, Horror: Toilet Cleaner Cleans Toilet!" and below "Exclusive: Chemistry Teacher Teaches Children the Periodic Table!"?

[Data-Lynx]

Veer away WEBF. Why not wait until the Plum gets to the South Atlantic Islands and beyond. Circumstance will place news in her path; it does every season.

Factoid to calm you: A puff jet couldn't land on it when it was MV Polar Circle because the flight deck was covered in tarmac.

[Roland Pulfrew]

AT

If your story was edited to be....

"Shock, Horror: NHS Toilet Cleaning Contractor Cleans Toilet"

Then that WOULD be a headline.

Actually as would

"Exclusive: Chemistry Teacher Teaches Children the Periodic Table!"

IIRC there was an article in the national press just recently that teachers no longer teach the periodic table!!!:E :E

[WE Branch Fanatic]

See this article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1056-1861864,00.html) By Libby Purves.

You do not need registration to read it, therefore I will not copy and paste.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Another article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/01/22/do2201.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/01/22/ixportal.html) from the Telegraph.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I was going to post this on the Future Carrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221116) thread, but I feel it is better placed here.

I recently found the story below on the MOD website which gives an insight into one of the less well known aspects of UK and coalition operations in the Middle East.

UK charts the way for Iraq’s economic future (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/UkChartsTheWayForIraqsEconomicFuture.htm)

Perhaps this in some ways highlights the importance of the naval/maritime part of Telic. The threat from terrorists, pirates and other criminals is real, you may remember a terrorist incident off the Iraqi coast in 2004 in which several American sailors died. However, it must be dealt with if Iraq is to have any chance of reconstruction. See Ring of Steel Protects Iraqi Lifeblood. (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/COL967719.htm)

See The Royal Navy and Gulf Operations (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.4695) and Maritime Security Operations (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.5561).

Coalition maritime forces operate throughout international waters in the Arabian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden, Indian Ocean, and the Red Sea, conducting MSO.


Within this area, at any one time.........

1. There are about fifty warships conducting MSO operations, mostly frigates and destroyers. To put that into context, it is twice the number we have after the Hoon cuts, and is twice the number sent south in 1982.
2. About twenty of these are in the Persian/Arabian Gulf itself.
3. A number are constantly patrolling the Iraqi coast.
4. Supporting assets include submarines (in an ISTAR role, as they did in the Adriatic in the 90s), tankers and other support vessels, and maritime patrol aircraft (including our own Nimrods).
5. Most of the equipment used by UK forces is transported by sea, and the vessels involved have to be escorted and protected in other ways. This also applies to shipments of equipment to Pakistani ports for use in Afghanistan.

To state the obvious:

MORE OPERATIONS + LESS UNITS = OVERSTRETCH + MORALE PROBLEMS

This applies across all three services, although the public is much less aware of the RN's operation than Army/RAF ones. Sadly, as this news story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4779321.stm) shows, Overstretch is still denied at Ministerial level.:mad:

[Compressorstall]

And luckily you for you, you don't suffer the overstretch and morale problems.:ugh:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Luckily for who?

The above post was intended to make the point that any more cuts to any of the services will cause problems. The public/media perception is that the Army and Royal Marines are busy on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places and so are the RAF. The public seems unaware that there is a naval/maritime side to current operations.

The fleet cannot be cut any more without having an adverse effect on the war on terror. However, public perception is everything...........

[LFFC]

The fleet cannot be cut any more without having an adverse effect on the war on terror. However, public perception is everything...........

The Telegraph, 13 Aug 06. Cash crisis so severe that base faces closure because Army can't afford to build a fence (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=SLCY4LROXJNGPQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/08/13/narmy13.xml).

Yes, public perception and spin is everything. And when faced with headlines like these, my guess is that Fleet and the RAF will both suffer as well!

Defence spending has long been a running sore with many senior officers, who believe that the procurement of main weapons systems are too often made for political reasons rather than their practical use on the battlefield.
I suspect that big changes are in the wind, but I wonder when we'll see some action?

[engineer(retard)]

You missed the line on 232 Eurofighters that will never go to war.

regards

[Archimedes]

And the bit about the 'senior officer' who claims that the RAF will have 'dozens' of Typhoon squadrons... That news must have come as a nice surprise for CAS as he read that over his morning cup of tea.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Back to my comments on the maritime side of operations. HMS Bulwark has returned home after her long and varied deployment.

From Defence News (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/HmsBulwarkWelcomedHomeAfterLebanonOperations.htm#)

During the deployment, the unique Commando Assault ship has developed an entirely new way of operating to protect the vital oil infrastructure in Iraqi waters and to keep the troubled waters off Somalia safe for the millions of tonnes of shipping that passes through.

The ship’s eight landing craft have also been detached up to 150 miles away from the ship for extended periods enabling ‘Formation Bulwark’ to cover an unprecedented area of sea, forcing terrorists and other maritime criminals to re-assess their intentions in these waters.

At the same time the ship has experimented in deploying training teams of Commandos and sailors to up to six countries at a time in East Africa and Arabia, some times up to 4,000 miles away from the ship, so that they can train regional forces to be better able to take on security duties themselves.

That was before Lebanon.

[ZH875]

From Defence News (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/HmsBulwarkWelcomedHomeAfterLebanonOperations.htm#)

During the deployment, the unique Commando Assault ship...... Unique, as we can only afford the one ship.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Apart from her sister ship Albion.

[ZH875]

Therfore still not UNIQUE.

from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unique

The only one of its kind.:)

[MercenaryAli]

. . . we, the long suffering taxpayers. have £15,000,000 of our money - yes that is fifteen million pounds - every day of the year sent off to those unelected unrepresentative commissioners in Brussels to with what they will. It is squandered, wasted, misappropriated, stolen, lost and otherwise misused and our troops are having to buy some of their own kit! What in heavens name is going on and how much longer will the the senior officers and more to the point the British public, put up with this? :ugh:

[BellEndBob]

The 'public' are more interested in the price of Gas/Fuel/Groceries and Mortgages so I doubt they even think about what the troops need.
I have never known a time when the Armed Forces were so unpopular or, to be more accurate, regarded as such a low priority.
My own personal theory is that the wars/conflicts we are involved in at the moment are not supported by a significant percentage of the population. The Three Armed Forces of the UK were long held in high regard because of the two World wars, when it was the combined efforts of the RAF/RN/Army plus our allies that kept the invading hordes at bay. Even the Cold War saw us in the role of protector. The Falklands conflict then raised us all to new levels of esteem because we went thousands of miles to liberate our own citizens.
Since then, however, we have become embroiled in conflict in the Middle East and the average Joe on the street sees little benefit for the homeland. In fact, he is seeing spiralling fuel costs, increased terror threats, general panic and erosion of freedoms. The Armed Forces are now seen to be part of that negative process. From protecting our shores we are now seen as instrumental in bringing the problem home through our exploits overseas.
Add on to that ineffective leadership from the top, negative media spin, especially towards the Army, and we have gone from hero to zero.
Therefore, I do not think there is much stomach from the public to support us if it comes to the crunch.
Also, like it or not, when we try to send the message that we are overstretched and yet the Army is still changing the guard at Buckingham Palace, the RAF is still providing 49 aircraft for the Queens Birthday Flypast and we can afford to have a minimum of 9 FJ pilots on permanent display duties, is it any wonder that people on the street can't see the problem?
Before you shoot me down, I am postulating on what I believe to be the problems, they do not necessarily reflect my own views.

One view I do firmly hold though is that the constant sniping at Politicians is a waste of time. Politicians are in their business to gain power and then hold on to it. Therefore it should come as no surprise that they are as slippery as hell and unreliable. When it comes to Defence, like any other areas, they will be advised by the 'experts', in our case the highest ranks in the service. This is where the real weakness and disgrace is, The total lack of backbone and the protectionism displayed by our Starred Officers who would rather target their own Knighthood than the welfare and wellbeing of their respective Forces. Any sackings should be from within their ranks.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I'm suprised it hasn't happened yet but I suspect soon the activities of HM Armed Forces will be targetted by the Green lobby. They'll call for fewer exercises, less live firing, more use of simulation and a generally 'greener' posture. Smaller will be better.

Whilst Range Rovers get noticed by the sandal botherers most military fuel burning activities don't. But they'll get around to it and their marketing/propoganda is very strong.

Utter rubbish I know but then the country is going to the dogs after all.

Cheers

WWW

[MReyn24050]

Utter rubbish I know but then the country is going to the dogs after all.
Cheers
WWW

Going to the dogs? It has already gone.

[Lyneham Lad]

snip/
Smaller will be better.
WWW
Probably been said before, but maybe we should as a nation cut our defensive cloth etc etc to suit our national wealth and needs. Could do worse than modelling our selves on the Swiss, who have a similar GDP per capita. Being strongly independant, not beholden to Brussels (and not sending them £15m/day) definitely appeals.


I know, I know - hat, coat, passport........

[WE Branch Fanatic]

What is to be done? How can the public be educated, the media informed more and defence made more of a hot issue politically? These were the questions I asked in the first post on this thread.

I believe a good start would be dealing with the way service personnel are portrayed by the media. When was the last time you saw a member of HM Forces portrayed as anything other than a bully, idiot, old duffer or drunk on Casualty or the like?

[pr00ne]

WEBF,

Educate the public to what? Why does anything NEED to be done? Defence cannot be made a hot political issue because it is a sad fact that in today’s world it is NOT a hot political issue!

You need to face some facts, you appear to be a military enthusiast, the majority of the public are not, never have been and never will be. That has always been the case, there is no “Golden age” you can hark back to where it was any different, Kipling’s famous “Tommy this and Tommy that” poem was written in 1892, so this is nothing new! A liberal democracy such as ours will always tend to treat its military with a certain amount of disdain, the alternative is the sort of militaristic society that dictators tend to hide behind, surely not what you would want?

Let’s look at some harsh facts and unpalatable truths. We live in a world where there is no military threat to this country nor to any of our near neighbours. Yet we still spend an enormous sum of money on defence every year, only the USA spends more, 2.2% of our GDP (5.6% of total Govt expenditure if you include such things as military pensions.) Government is notoriously bad at spending money wisely, look at the billions poured into the NHS and education and you will see that it is not just defence in a cash crisis despite increasing budgets. We spend far more than most on defence but seem to get far less out of it compared to some of our allies and friends, so I don’t think there is much of a case for getting the general public all fired up about lack of defence spending.

The threats we face today are not military in nature, so we cannot utilise the military to defeat them. It is a sad but true fact that today it is not the fighter pilot at QRA or the operator hunched over a radar screen that enables us to sleep soundly in our beds at night, it is the Police forces, the intelligence services and the whole host of security operatives who do that. They are currently doing that in Walthamstow, High Wycombe and Birmingham and prevention is far better than cure here.

You can try all you like to energise the public to the plight of the forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they are nor perceived as fighting to defend us, in fact there is a very plausible argument that we are under threat precisely BECAUSE our armed forces invaded Iraq, would there have been a 7/7 if that hadn’t happened?


Face facts WEBF, you are trying to do the impossible.

[RonO]

My liberal democracy treats our military with a great deal of respect and we happily fund them appropriately.

But then again we don't have a bunch of silly t*ssers running around saying we're not under threat when it's fecking obvious we are.

1% of anything is not an enormous amount of money. Wanna tell me you spend less than 1% of your personal income on insurance for yourself and your possessions?? Why don't you stop buying insurance and instead rely on burglars not picking your house or car because you are so lovey dovey?

What's the difference between you and those idiots in the 1930's that said the facists weren't a threat because they are only concerned with their own countries? Go on, tell me that a nuclear armed Iran will be satisfied with wiping Israel off the map and will stop right there.

[pr00ne]

Ron0,

"Your" liberal democracy didn't exactly treat it's Vietnam vets with a great deal of respect and "your" Generals are complaining about a lack of boots on the ground in Iraq and "your" Govt is in the process of putting the likes of the USAF through a rather painful down sizing and multi billion dollar spending reduction.

I do concede that your overall attitude to your military is rather healthier as a nation than that in Europe though, and your funding of defence and homeland security is certainly on a level that no-one else can compete with, though you do have a rather alarming national budget deficit as a result.

We are all under threat but not from an organised military, if you think that Bush is currently making the world safer for Americans to wander the planet then you are dafter than I thought.

Just how are you going to stop a nuclear armed Iran, you going to invade there as well? That'll produce a nice safe world, thanks!

[MarkD]

Perhaps the higher-ups should start promoting the fuel efficiency of newer equipment as a way of justifying capital spend. Comparing the load/range per tonne fuel burn between VC10/Tri* and an A330 would be a good start.

[tucumseh]

MarkD

“Perhaps the higher-ups should start promoting the fuel efficiency….”


I agree. But one has to appreciate that in the MoD, if you make a suggestion on how to save money, you take an enormous risk. If you are lucky, someone with influence and who agrees with you will read your suggestion. You are more likely to encounter severe resistance.

DPA and DLO, and their predecessor organisations, have taken formal disciplinary action against juniors who, in good faith, suggested savings or challenged waste. To my certain and personal knowledge, these actions have extended to threats of sacking. The system is purely arbitrary but it would seem the higher the potential (or actual) savings, the greater the resistance and the more senior the rank/grade they will wheel out to apply pressure to withdraw.

Confirmation of above obtained under FOI.

[RonO]

pr00ne, WTF do you know about Vietnam vets or the way the US treats its military? Read all about it in the Guardian eh? Your pinups Blair & Brown haven't even got the balls to go visit brits wounded in Iraq. Liberal democracy my asss.

[SaddamsLoveChild]

Media: The Observer
Byline: Mark Townsend and Richard Brooks
Date: 20 August 2006

The full extent of the financial crisis affecting the British army has been revealed in a leaked Whitehall document obtained by The Observer. The memo, written by the MoD's second most senior civil servant, has sparked fears that requests by commanders for vital equipment to save the lives of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq may not be met.Ian Andrews admits that the budget for the acquisition of new equipment for soldiers is among the worst affected and that 'painful measures are required'. He has even ordered MoD staff to cut travel expenses as the department attempts to cope with the cost of an army which is enduring its busiest period of operations since the end of the Second World War.
Union officials yesterday warned ministers that more troops will be killed in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the budgetary crisis. 'These cuts could eventually see more body bags returning to Britain as a result of inadequate equipment,' said an official who specialises in defence logistics from the Public and Commercial Services Union. He added: 'The cuts and plans to move logistics and procurement work pose serious risks to the effective provision of battle-winning equipment to troops on the front line'.
In the memo, dated 1 August, Andrews reveals he has imposed an immediate moratorium on hiring, to halt 'increases in military manpower... including temporary posts, or by the employment of full-time reserve service individuals'. The drastic decision comes at a time when the army is accused of lacking the manpower to cope with its responsibilities in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Andrews, writing to senior defence officials in charge of funding for procurement and logistics, also calls for 'existing contracts for agency and casual staff '[to] be terminated after the requisite period of notice'. Defence staff are told to avoid air travel and use email or telephone. Overspend in the procurement and logistics departments is now running at £100m over budget every three months, the document reveals. 'Equipment, support, fuel and utilities costs are causing real pressures across the department and all [budgets] are having to take painful measures... ,' it states.
The concerns come at a sensitive time for the MoD with British commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq requesting more helicopters and tougher armoured vehicles to reduce fatalities. A recent report by an all-party parliamentary committee concluded that British troops are having their safety compromised by ageing or inadequate equipment which urgently needs replacing. In particular, it identified the failure to replace lightly armoured Land-Rovers, leaving soldiers vulnerable to roadside bombs which have killed more than 20 in recent months. The committee concluded: 'Our forces cannot wait for long-term procurement projects to come to fruition; they need the kit now.'
MoD officials are told to sign no new contracts costing more than £100,000 a year and not to employ any consultants. Andrews admits 'these measures will be very disruptive and in many cases will have a disproportionate impact on outputs for the savings achieved'. In one passage his memo identifies the causes of the financial difficulties. Major programmes, including plans to set up a £19bn defence training base in the UK as well as two IT systems, are 'all bringing additional costs beyond our control'. An MoD spokesman said: 'Our over-arching priority is to ensure that the front line is properly supported'.

________________________________________________

So there it is then, "our over arching priority is to......'Blah Blah Blah, sold out again by those at the the top is the reality. Does that mean RAF Stns will stop wasting money on fat overpaid consultants who are preaching LEAN principles that only apply on MOB eng and Supply organisations!! I thought not :ugh:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Recently there was discussion on other threads of limits on flying hours being placed on aircraft in Afghanistan, largely due to the cost and limited stocks of spares. This makes me suspect that there is some truth in this story from the Telegraph:

Troops use up ammo as war with Taliban claims 14th life (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=GY5GXHV5J1EJPQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/08/28/wtaliban28.xml)

[NURSE]

given the behaviour of some members HM Forces this weekend Mod has a very large damage limitation exercise to carryout, And there was very little empathy/sympathy for the plight of UK Forces in Kent on Sat night/Sunday.

[Widger]

Nurse,

While I understand your concern and probable disgust, at least you can be safe in the knowledge that if any Service personnel are found to have mis-behaved, they will be treated with a damn sight more justice than the average yob on the street!

[The Gorilla]

Nurse

Care to enlighten me as to what happened in Kent? I can't find anything on the BBC News site.

TG

[modtinbasher]

Recently there was discussion on other threads of limits on flying hours being placed on aircraft in Afghanistan, largely due to the cost and limited stocks of spares. This makes me suspect that there is some truth in this story from the Telegraph:

Troops use up ammo as war with Taliban claims 14th life (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=GY5GXHV5J1EJPQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/08/28/wtaliban28.xml)

About 5 years ago the Non Project Procurement Organisation (NPPO) was formed to enable all 3 Services to obtain their spares and commodity supplies through major contacts let with "Industrial Prime Vendors or IPV." The premise for this action was based upon the realisation by some do-gooders that the same screwdriver (for example) was bought by three different people, working in three different Support Authorities (SA) across the three Services. The idea was that we (in the MOD) would let one contract, with one IPV for each group of similar items eg tools, and this would run for 5 years or longer. This IPV would then be responsible for purchasing the spares or other requirements from other suppliers, storing them, and then delivering them to each of the Services that required them, on demand to satisfy a Just-in-Time (JIT) requirement. The particular IPV for each segment would also be responsible for establishing and maintaining the supply chain and indeed the technical support for the spares or commodities it supplied. The upshot of all this was that we, "would not require all these costly hangars, warehouses, distribution centres, transport facilities, and suppliers to maintain the stock, and moreover, we can get rid of all technical bodies in the SAs and Integrated Project Teams (IPT) who have lived with the stuff over the years and provided technical support on demand. And above all, it will be much, much, cheaper."

All very laudable one would think, but four or so years down the line,

Do you get the correct fastener when you demand it and when you want it?

Do you get the correct piece of equipment to fit the fastener and does it arrive in time?

Do you get the correct aircraft fuel tank sealant for example and is it still in date and does that arrive in time?

Do you get the equipment spares you so desperately require and at the time you want them?

Do you get the technical support that you enjoyed pre NPPO?

Can you now afford what you want out of your meagre budgets considering there is a further middle-man in the supply chain?

Is it really working?

[tucumseh]

Modtinbasher

21 years ago, the Naval Air Radio Stores Integration (NARSI) initiative was in full flow. Aims were exactly the same as the ones you list. RN had to close their stores and workshops at Copenacre. RAF suppliers took over commodity management, but the workshop capability (2nd line filter) was lost forever.

Copenacre had four staff (EO, plus 3 AOs) managing all air radio spares, including main LRUs and test equipment. At a conservative guess, they were replaced with about 30 staff at Harrogate, with a raft of Sqn Ldrs, Wg Cdrs and Gp Capts in charge. And the RAF had a lesser stores computer system (4/72).

Wasted tens, if not hundreds, of millions – scrapped much needed spares, bought duplicates for kit which had gone out of service. You name it, they mismanaged it. Crucified by auditors, whom they ignored. And because the filter benches were lost, the no fault found rate rocketed at 3rd and 4th line – more waste, causing outstanding demands at first line. And they never did get the hang of the concept of a ship being at sea for 6 months, or their storing demands. I remember Gannet (Prestwick, Scotland) was signalled by Harrogate to send a spare LRU they had to Ark Royal – by Red Star, overnight, to arrive 0900 next day. OK if it’s between RAF stations, but Ark was half way between Hong Kong and Sydney. “OK, we’ll fly it out by Herc”. “And land where?” “Well, it’s an aircraft carrier isn’t it, we’ll land on”. “Can’t”. “We’ll airdrop it”. They never did learn.

[modtinbasher]

tucumseh

Yes, as you say, and then there was Harrogate, and London, and Bath, then John Major came into power, lived in the house on the hill, and lo and behold there were the Wyton donuts and Harrogate and London became Wyton and Abbey Wood and John looked thereon and happiness abounded. So it came to pass that the Services became one and a purple cloud descended upon the masses, many promotions were secured and then John went to his cottage in Norfolk. Brampton became Wyton and Wyton became Abbey Wood and various Royal Air Force stations begat local airports and all was good as BAE Systems and Marshalls took control of the Land.

And then I awoke and realised I'd not had a bad dream at all ................

[NURSE]

Nurse,

While I understand your concern and probable disgust, at least you can be safe in the knowledge that if any Service personnel are found to have mis-behaved, they will be treated with a damn sight more justice than the average yob on the street!


Yes but a team espically selected for recruiting misbehaving is a huge PR disaster

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Surely yobbish behaviour is pretty much the norm in the UK now, so when service personnel are portrayed as drunks/louts etc it is nothing more than hypocrisy. Also its about finding an easy target for blaming alcohol related violence.

Talking of hypocrisy most criminal behaviour is not punished, the liberal lawyers who decide which cases to pursue think things like assault and drug dealing are not worth court time, the infantryman in a firefight with the Taleban is liable to prosecution if a liberal and very PC lawyer thinks he used excessive force.

How did this happen?

[pr00ne]

WEBF

Simple, it didn't happen!

As a Barrister I can assure you that you are spouting rubbish of the highest order.

Show me ONE instance of an infantryman being charged with using excessive force in a firefight with the Taleban.

If you really think that most criminal behaviour goes unpunished you try thumping someone in public view or on CCTV, I think you'll find you are in for a bit of a surprise!

I and a good number of my colleagues are rather closer to this than you are and I can assure you that our courts and our prisons are full of folk who thought they could get away with violent behaviour in public!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Even if it didn't happen, the perception is that you need to think about what you will say to the lawyers before you squeeze the trigger - even if you follow ROE to the letter. I base this both on things I've heard, the guidance currently given to RN personnel on certain courses, and on talking to a practisising lawyer.

Regarding law and order more generally, well I hope you're right.:rolleyes:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

National Defence Debate - ARRSE (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=45693.html)

Interesting..........

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Whilst searching the MOD website for other stuff I came across an interesting and rare article on the activities of one of our submarines.

Superb submarine returns.... (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/SuperbSubmarineReturnsToClydeNavalBase.htm)

In the first half of her deployment, Superb supported the UK effort to safely evacuate UK nationals from Lebanon in Operation Highbrow. Her specific role was to help protect the Royal Navy ships involved in the operation, by using her sensors to watch for any surface or aerial threat to the UK naval force.

Of course this didn't make the headlines, submarine operations seldom do. But submarines have played a part in all recent operations (excluding Sierra Leone). They have frequently been used in ISTAR type roles, and like other ISTAR assets (Nimrods (both types), AWACS and others) rarely recieve the recognition they deserve.

[movadinkampa747]

rarely recieve the recognition they deserve.

Well done to Superb and her crew. There.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Thankyou.:rolleyes:

Another paragraph from that article:

Following a stop in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to take on supplies, Superb continued national operations as part of the war against Global Counter Terrorism.

How many members of the public know that submarines are very much involved in current operations? Therefore when cutbacks happen, there is little opposition.

Having said that, surveys show that a worrying large chunk don't associate submarines with the RN!!

HMS Endurance is again supporting scientists from the British Anatarctic Survey. See this story (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.7304) from the RN website.

In order to understand climate change and make realistic predictions, both scientists and Governments need to understand how the climate has changed in the past. This is for two reasons. Firstly the models used by climate scientists to predict future change need to be ‘tested’ against past data to make sure that they can correctly simulate climate changes. Secondly, a record of past changes in climate is needed in order to understand the long-term context of climate change caused by human activities. In other words, we need to know the longer-term trends in order to correctly interpret the origin of the recent (short-term) changes.

Later............

HMS Endurance is critical to the success of this work as its helicopters provide access to many remote regions and the capability to lift the heavy equipment required by the scientists. The BAS team have been able to use the logistic capabilities of the ship and helicopters to place field camps in several locations across a wide area of the South Shetlands and northern Antarctic Peninsula. The work will continue through most of the Antarctic summer, with HMS Endurance collecting the last field teams and returning them to the Falkland Islands in late January.

Chances of the RN getting recognition for this...........any guesses?

[vecvechookattack]

But submarines have played a part in all recent operations (excluding Sierra Leone).What makes you think that?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

What makes me think that? Public acknowledgement of RN submarines being involved in:

Gulf 1991, two old O class diesel subs were involved in operations. Reece, possibly some SF type stuff.
Adriatic 90s, Operation Sharp Guard involved RN submarines, after the operation ceased this was acknowleged.
Kosovo 1997, reece and ELINT type stuff and first use of Tomahawk by non US forces.
Afgahnistan 2001, UK boats fired Tomahawks at Taliban targets, and perform other roles.
Iraq 2003, UK boats fire Tomahawk at regime targets, and perform other roles.
War on terror (ongoing), submarines perform ISTAR and other roles.

[ORAC]

None involved in Afghanistan or Sierra Leone Operations, at least according to the MOD.

Hansard:

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy vessels were involved in the (a) Iraq, (b) Afghanistan, (c) Saif Sareea II, (d) Sierra Leone and (e) Kosovo operations; and what primary role they played. [124059]

Mr. Ingram: The following Royal Navy vessels took part in Op Telic in Iraq:

HMS Ark Royal, in her Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) role and HMS Ocean in her role as amphibious carrier and Landing Platform Helicopter.

HMS Edinburgh, Liverpool and York carried out their role as destroyers, providing air defence for the task group.

HMS Marlborough, Chatham and Richmond carried out the role of close range protection for the carriers and other high value units.

HMS Blyth, Bangor, Brocklesby, Sandown, Grimsby, Ledbury, Ramsey and Shoreham were deployed on mine clearance tasks.

HMS Roebuck was deployed in her coastal survey role.

HMS Splendid and Turbulent provided strike weapon platform capability.

RFA's Sir Percival , Sir Tristram, Sir Galahad and Sir Bedivere were deployed in the Landing Ship Logistic role;

RFA's Grey Rover, Bayleaf, Brambleleaf and Orangeleaf were deployed as Fleet tankers.

RFA Fort Rosalie, Fort Austin and Fort Victoria were deployed as Fleet Replenishment ships, providing stores for the task group.

RFA Argus was deployed in her role as Primary Casualty Receiving Facility.

RFA Diligence was deployed as Forward Repair Ship.

RFA Sea Crusader was used in the strategic sea lift role.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Afghanistan—Op Oracle

HMS Illustrious provided air projection and a command platform.

HMS York, HMS Southampton and HMS Cornwall provided air protection.

RFA Fort Rosalie, RFA Fort Austin, RFA Fort Victoria, RFA Fort George, RFA Sir Tristram, RFA Sir Galahad, RFA Sir Bedivere and RFA Sir Percival provided support, fuel and stores.

RFA Diligence was deployed as forward repair vessel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Saif Sareea II

HMS Illustrious provided air projection and a command platform.

HMS Ocean deployed as Landing Platform Helicopter.

HMS Fearless deployed as Landing Platform Dock and provided an amphibious capability.

HMS Nottingham and HMS Southampton deployed in an AAW capacity, providing air defence.

HMS Monmouth, HMS Marlborough, HMS Cornwall acted as escorts.

HMS Quorn, Cattistock, HMS Walney, HMS Inverness, and HMS Roebuck worked as survey ships and also Mine Operations.

RFA Sir Tristram, RFA Sir Galahad, RFA Sir Bedivere, RFA Sir Percival, RFA Diligence, RFA Fort Rosalie, RFA Fort Austin and RFA Fort Victoria provided fuel, logistic support, stores, and land force transportation capabilities and a forward repair facility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Sierra Leone—Op Palliser

HMS Illustrious provided air projection and a command platform.

HMS Ocean provided a helicopter platform.

HMS Chatham and HMS Argyll provided force protection and acted as escorts.

RFA Fort Austin, RFA Fort George, RFA Brambleleaf provided tanker support.

RFA Sir Bedivere and RFA Sir Geraint provided support, fuel and logistics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kosovo—Op Allied Force

HMS Splendid and HMS Turbulent carried out submarine tasking.

HMS Invincible was deployed as CVS.

HMS Newcastle and HMS Iron Duke were responsible for anti-air warfare (AAW).

HMS Somerset, HMS Grafton, HMS Norfolk and HMS Coventry carried out patrols and Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIOPs).

HMS Atherstone, HMS Sandown and HMS Bulldog carried out surveys and mine clearance patrols.

RFA Argus acted as an aviation platform and Primary Casualty Receiving Facility.

RFA Bayleaf deployed as Fleet tanker.

RFA Fort Austin, RFA Sea Centurion, RFA Sea Crusader and RFA Sir Geraint provided stores and logistic support.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Not what the chronology (http://www.operations.mod.uk/afghanistan/summary.htm) says.

Look at the bottom.......

13 Oct 01 US and UK forces attacked seventeen targets. Royal Navy Tomahawk missiles were fired, and RAF aircraft flew combat support missions.

7 Oct 01 Royal Navy submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles were fired at a terrorist site

[Widger]

fight, fight, fight, there's a fight......


WEBF, I admire your dedication. I got 1/4 of the way down the page, my eyes started to bleed and I lost the will to live!

:eek: :uhoh:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From the Gaurdian: Brassed Off (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1981158,00.html#article_continue)

For 400 years, politicians and soldiers have carefully maintained a formal distance between policy and operations. Now they want a say. Sir Richard Dannatt, the serving chief of the general staff, suggests that British troops should "get out [of Iraq] sometime soon", while the man in charge on the ground, General Shirreff, declares that "a 100% solution" is not an option. The retired officers are even more outspoken. In an interview in October, Lord Guthrie, Mr Blair's favourite soldier, described the Afghanistan war as "cuckoo". It is easy to be sympathetic to their cause: they lead forces who risk their lives every day, while we at home complain that they should not be there at all. But before it is allowed to lapse altogether, it is worth remembering that there is a good reason for the traditional relationship. Society owes a debt to the armed forces. But we, not they, decide what they do.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Blair Speaks (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/ExclusiveTonyBlairSpeaksToDefenceInhousePublications.htm)

Blair faces TV questions (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/PrimeMinisterAnswersToughDefenceQuestionsDuringTvDebate.htm)

[Exrigger]

I know it has been said before and not wanting to upset anyone from the thread subject not being exactly Military Aircrew, but again we have another retired man from the top (General Sir Michael Rose), speaking out in the interview with TB about the state of the forces caused by the government. Then we have the high flier who still evidently has career prospects (Brigadier Andy Salmon) who appears to think that at least the marines have no problems at all, plenty of suplies, not stretched with great moral, go figure.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

More from the Telegraph:

We need to spend more on armed forces - Blair (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=EQQXVGOMLFLHVQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/01/13/nblair13.xml)

And today:

Taliban vs British Army vs Whitehall (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/14/wafg14.xml)

A lack of political direction, a shortage of soldiers and "complete disconnection" between the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence combined to hinder progress in the war in Afghanistan, a report by military chiefs has concluded.

[NURSE]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2152472.ece

intereseting article

[WE Branch Fanatic]

To me it speaks volumes that the Government does not consider it worthwhile to celebrate the 300th anniversary (today) of England and Scotland coming together to form Great Britain.

Happy Birthday Britain.

The distaste for our history and the achievements of our nation can be seen in the way the services are treated by elements of the establishment. For example, Blair couldn't be bothered to attend the ceremony in Moscow that marked the 60th anniversary of World War Two ending. :mad:

I surprised that we're allowed to remember this (http://navynews.co.uk/articles/2007/0701/0007011201.asp).

[Not_a_boffin]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2152472.ece

intereseting article

Interesting and extremely dangerous. The thrust of the article essentially suggests that we institutionalise a policy of equipping to fight todays wars, rather than providing a more rounded insurance policy. Some of the "imbalances" quoted are laughable, particularly the one about Polish welders for CVF. Done properly, half that ship can be built on a panel line which generally uses machine welding anyway! Wouldn't argue with their call for more battlefield lift though....

Unfortunately with Mr Chuckles about to get his shot at being PM (and no doubt one of his equally humourless chums as Chancellor), it could well be a case of I like this argument, don't confuse me with facts......

[mbga9pgf]

Unfortunately with Mr Chuckles about to get his shot at being PM (and no doubt one of his equally humourless chums as Chancellor), it could well be a case of I like this argument, don't confuse me with facts......


Rather appropriately, the chap who is most likely to take over the unenviable role boss of the UK economy would be Mr Ed Balls...

Rather fitting for this government....

[WE Branch Fanatic]

So what happens when we find ourselves facing an enemy who can fight back by conventional means, or does have an Air Force and/or Navy?

"We were planning to fight yesterday's war............"

[BillHicksRules]

WEBF,

We only take on those much weaker than ourselves anymore.

Granted that list is getting shorter.

Cheers

BHR

[WE Branch Fanatic]

That assumes that the Government's predictions are right, and nothing unexpected happens!

[NURSE]

and that we have 10 years notice of imending hostilities.

[BillHicksRules]

WEBF,
Question for you, when was the last time the British Armed Forces took on a numerically and technically superior foe all by themselves?
There is always going to be a call for more spending on defence than whatever the current amount is.
Take a look around the world and conjure us up a threat to UK security so severe that it would require your dream fleet to defeat it yet so minor that it would not be threat to the US or anyone else.
The only one that can I can come up with is a 2nd Falklands War. I would say that with current tech available to the UK armed forces the plan to retake an occupied FIs would be strikingly different from that in 1982. That is even if you have access to your dream fleet.
It would not be a matter of steaming down there again in battleline and doing the same assault but with modern kit.
Cheers
BHR

[jindabyne]

BHR

Decent enough post - until your reference to a 'half-assed assault'

[BillHicksRules]

Jindabyne,

I hope you prefer my edited version.

Cheers

BHR

[Melchett01]

Question for you, when was the last time the British Armed Forces took on a numerically and technically superior foe all by themselves?


I believe it was 1939, but all the way through the 1930s everyone was saying exactly the same thing about the threat. And look where we ended up then.

The real question is not when the last time the BAF took on a superior foe by themselves, but are they ready to do so in the future? Whilst we may be in bed with the US now, that will not always be the case - when it suites them they will drop us like a hot brick. Barring the behind the scenes AIM-9 stuff, I don't recall the US bending over backwards to help us with the Falklands, or being in any great hurry to stop Republican fund rasing organisations operating on its soil.

We need to be able to stand on our own 2 feet, not stick our head in the sand and hope everything will be fine in the future.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

ratty1

I take it you're a gambling man.

[Not_a_boffin]

,
when was the last time the British Armed Forces took on a numerically and technically superior foe all by themselves?

I could have sworn that the idea was to fight people numerically and technically inferior, thereby making sure if it comes to unpleasantness, more of their lads get hurt than ours. In order to make sure that we don't end up being the most numerically and technologically inferior country on the list, we need to up the defence budget, sharpish.......

[Jackonicko]

There seem to be a lot of folk with their fingers in their ears, shouting "la la la, I'm not listening, I can't hear you" very loudly.

BHR makes the point that the massive investment in carriers will not give the UK a meaningful ability to conduct anything but the smallest scale operation autonomously - and that we will still rely on coalition partners for most conceivable ops, while we would be able to undertake most small autonomous ops without carriers.

We have never NEEDED to use carriers since 1982 - host nation support has always been available (and if ever it is not, then the proposed op is probably politically unsustainable) land based assets could have always done the job - and could have done so better, cheaper, quicker (eg Sierra Leone).

Now that we have a standing AD det and a reinforceable airfield on the Falklands, even the Falklands no longer represents a scenario in which only a carrier task force could 'do the job' - even if we still had the political will to retake the islands if we withdrew forces and they were invaded again.

Moreover, the other side of the coin is that the massive investment in carriers is distorting the EP, and is ensuring that force structure will continue to erode, and that we will not be able to make the kind of contribution to coalition ops that make us a valued partner, and that allow us to operate for sustained periods without over-stretch.

Carriers or sufficient FJs to be able to sustain ops, or to be able to make a meaningful (Granby type) contribution to another Desert Storm?

Carriers or adequate funding for the kit that the soldiers on the ground really need?

Carriers or adequate helicopter lift?

Carriers or a Trident replacement?

Given a 5% GDP investment in Defence, there might be enough in the pot to be able to do everything, but increased taxation to pay for everything is unlikely, so tough choices must be made.

[ZH875]

Now that we have a standing AD det and a reinforceable airfield on the Falklands, even the Falklands no longer represents a scenario in which only a carrier task force could 'do the job'

I hardly think Faith, Hope, Charity and Desperation gives a really credible standing AD det.

MPA is only reinforceable if we have sufficient AAR and AT assets to enable us to get people on land early, have we got these to hand?.

At least with a carrier, you don't need any AAR and can get the pointy end of the forces into the active zone PDQ.

[BEagle]

But with proper carriers, you can even have credible AAR.

I seem to recall that the twilight time of the Supermarine Scimitar included a 'tanker' role with big jugs (we like big jugs....:ok: )

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Jacko that's what they said 25 years ago.........then the Argies invaded.

The new carriers (and their air groups) will allow the UK to influence things as never before. Being able to contribute a carrier group with aircraft to any coalition operation (whether it is the US or others) will give us far more influence than just support assets. Why do you think that France, Italy and Spain all feel it important to have carriers? The ability to not depend completely on others? The lessons of 1982 perhaps? The fact that they make your Navy able to operate weapons and sensors at greater ranges? The fact they you can then use your forces (land and air as well as naval) more effectively?

CVF is a keystone of UK defence policy. The entire planned force structure of all three services depends at least in part on them. The entire RN fleet would need redesign without them!

Your mention of Sierra Leone shows your bias. What would land based aircraft (Ascension based?) actually have achieved? Could they have put troops ashore? Supported them with helicopters? Provided medical support? Provided gunfire support (ie medium/large calibre guns, not aircraft cannon) if needed?

Then you ignore the issue of logistics. A detachment of x aircraft ashore somewhere will need logistics, with supplies of fuel, spares, ammunition, food, etc. How does that get there?

Didn't you once suggest that "all Army and land based RN units" should be moved to old airfields to keep them open? Yes, let's have massive disruption and expense to keep open airfields we don't need, for aircraft we haven't got, thousands of miles away from likely theatres. This alone suggests you're not the expert on defence you pretend to be.........

BHR

The same can be said for you. On the Sea Jet (page ninety something) thread you questioned the need for naval forces and suggested a comparison with Germany and Japan, when I said I though France, Italy and Spain were better examples. You replied that you had picked Germany and Japan on purpose (didn't say why though) and asked me to say what I knew of the three nations I mentioned and their Navies, and future plans. You also asked me to do the same for Germany and Japan. I did, but further posts from you on the same thread ignored what I said. I wonder why?

You also wrote that you considered Ultimate Farce as giving a good insight into the SAS etc, but this may have been satire.....

Your views should be taken with an unhealthily large amount of salt.

[Not_a_boffin]

You can't knock Jacko & BHR for suggesting what many in town are also whispering. However, you can question whether that logic holds up.

If we assume that someone else will always be there to do the "difficult" bits, then you can pretty much wish away all the RAF, less three AD squadrons for UK AD and the AT & SH fleets. All that UK plc needs to do is pitch up with the requisite amount of Percy to deal with the unpleasantness and a few SH & widebodies to get their kit to theatre and support them there. The RN would similarly retrench to a few OPV and MCMV. Loads of money for skoolz n ozpituls.

The problem is that every time such assumptions are made, based on "what the world looks like now" they are invariably wrong. We know that nobody was thinking of doing an unsupported amphibious assault way OOA in 82, because we all thought we'd be fighting a massive air / land war in CENTEUR with a big ASW op to support REFORGER. You can guarantee that no-one in 1UK Div (or 2 or 3 for that matter) were planning on fighting an armoured campaign in the desert in 1989. We nearly binned the heavy armour in the 90s, as we'd always be doing Peace Support ops a la Bosnia / Kosovo and that would have put the mockers on TELIC. Even though 3Cdo are a tad ambitious, I don't think they planned on assaulting a hostile country with heavy armour L,R & C through a very small front until they were told to get on with it. The point is, if we wish to play globally, then we had better have the resources to do it - or leave it to the new players on the block.

BTW Jacko, I think it's a tad harsh to point the distortion of the EP at CVF. If you add Typhoon, Nimrod, ASTOR, FSTA, A400M, Meteor and half JCA together, then I think you get quite a bit more distortion than £3.6Bn over 6 years.......

[Climebear]

At least with a carrier, you don't need any AAR and can get the pointy end of the forces into the active zone PDQ.


To be fair though, it does take a, comparatively, long time for them to get there.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

I hardly think Faith, Hope, Charity and Desperation gives a really credible standing AD det. MPA is only reinforceable if we have sufficient AAR and AT assets to enable us to get people on land early, have we got these to hand?.

We only need a ground force bigger than RIC if Johny G gets ashore. That will relieve the AT pressure, CIV or MIL. It will be much simpler reinforcing the Islands with mud movers and additional interceptors via 8500 ft of black top at MPA than it would have been in '82 via 3500 ft at Stanley. Admittedly, the pressure would still be on the AAR assets.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Reinforce them with what? Surely deterrence is the key?

The sortie rate achieved by CVF will be similar to that of a US Carrier, so what makes people think that a UK carrier group wouldn't be a useful contribution to operations, particularly when the USN has less carriers and carrier groups than it did a few years ago?

[Kitbag]

'cos there ain't gonna be enough carriers to achieve a Middle East/North Korea/China Sea* policy and operate in the South Atlantic. Someone will then have to make a tough decision and sacrifice one of those commitments.






*delete whichever potential threat you deem least important.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

WE B F

Reinforce with Tonka 4s and, probably, 3s. Repulsing an air supported amphibious assault with 3s (4 EA max and more likely 3 EA) isn't going to work. FI is one of the few places on the planet where we don't need a carrier; unless we're daft enough to lose it again.

The fact we can reinforce the air component faster than they could marshall and launch an assault is the deterrent.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

From Hansard: Defence in the World (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070201/debtext/70201-0007.htm)

About half way down the page.

[Archimedes]

When I was in Basra I met the Staffords, and no words are good enough for me to describe my pride in the work that those young people are doing in very difficult circumstances

I think the Staffords would find 'I have decided not to go ahead with the restructuring that will see their fine regiment disappear as they become the 3rd Mercians' a more than adequate form of words, Des.... :hmm:

[NURSE]

Have to agree with what Not a boffin says history shows us we don't get to fight the wars we plan on. And we therefore need an armed forces that is balanced and with suficient quality equipment/personnell and training to make it flexible. Unfortunatley we don't have that at the minite. Our armed forces have to few manned and equipped deployable elements and the culture of robbing peter to pay paul has moved to be the norm.Everytime our powers that be promise us new sturctures to redress the problem they strip the budgets and promise the kit at some date in the future and then increase the comittments. I seam to remember SDR being based on a premis of having 10 years notice of having to fight a conflict......well obviously the crystal ball has broken.