Defence Cuts latest

[Anton Meyer]

HUGE DEFENCE SHAKE-UP

The biggest shake-up of the military for a generation is being announced by the Defence Secretary.

Geoff Hoon told MPs the changes would ensure the armed forces could respond effectively to the new global challenges.


He announced that four infantry battalions - three from England and one from Scotland - are to be cut in the "restructuring" of the armed forces.

Three type-42 destroyers and three type-23 frigates will be taken out of service from the Royal Navy by March 2006.

Mr Hoon said that one RAF Tornado F-3 air defence squadron would be cut and the withdrawal of two Jaguar squadrons would be brought forward to 2006 - with the final Jaguar squadron to be disbanded in 2007.

Mr Hoon also announced that RAF Coltishall in Norfolk would be closed by the end of 2006 and the overall RAF manpower requirement reduced to around 41,000 by 2008.

The changes are driven in part by a shift in military strategy following the end of the Cold War towards the development of highly flexible rapid reaction forces.

But the shake-up also reflects financial pressures on the MoD.

Unveiling his White Paper 'Security in a Changing World' to the Commons in December, Mr Hoon said the emphasis would be on using technology to deliver the maximum military effect from the forces available.

[Razor61]

There will be FOUR Battalions to be disbanded.
THREE Type 42 Destroyers to be mothballed.
THREE Type 23 Frigates to be mothballed
All Jaguars to be withdrawn by 2007.
Older Jaguars to be taken out of service by 2006.
RAF Coltishall to close by the end of 2006. ONE Tornado F3 Sqn to be disbanded.
MoD will buy the 4 C-17s in current lease and buy 1 more.
RAF reductions in manpower to be reduced by 41,000 by 2008!

[Capt H Peacock]

All the grim details are here (http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/issues/security/cm6269/cm6269.pdf). The bullets are:

54(F) Jaguar to go by Apr 2005
41(F) Jaguar to go by Apr 2005
6 Jaguar by 2007

XI F3's by Oct 2005

My deepest symapthies to you all.

I'd have closed the MoD and sacked all the civil servants myself.

A sad day:(

[Archimedes]

Didn't the SDR (that security-driven, important refocusing, blah, blah) say that the minimum number of AD squadrons required was five?

[Prop-Ed]

If you can’t take a joke you shouldn't have signed up.

We will just have to fall back on our "legendary sense of humor!" (Again). :{

[PPRuNeUser0172]

Missed some oh (baf)Hoon's rhetoric, can anyone confirm what is happening to the RAF Regiment? I heard that the Army were taking over with Rapier?

There has also been no mention about other base closures which have appeared in the press recently or the massive cuts expected to hit the SH rotary world, although this would be totally barking considering our recent hammering from NATO about lack of heli capability.

Glad to see that Typhoon seems to have escaped the chop so far, however, I am watching this space closely...............

[Maple 01]

RA's getting RAF Rapier, Rock numbers cut, Neat and Boulmer binned, NT 1st April 05, BL sometime round 2012

-Nick

[VP959]

The budget for new helos across the board (Merlin CSP, SABR, BLUH, SCMR, SAR) was about £4.1Bn.

It is now (according to the white paper) "over £3Bn" (actually only just over £3Bn).

This tallies REALLY well with the well publicised SH shortfall, not to mention some of the other points highlighted in the recent NAO Battlefield Helicopters report.

[mbga9pgf]

Quote of the day, courtesy defence white paper site....


"The Chiefs of Staff support the radical change we are pursuing and have been instrumental in its preparation. "

Read....

The Chiefs of staff support the radical change in order to not get the sack....

Like how hoon avoided the question regarding The MR4, and whether BWoS actually get it airbourne... I reckon its next for the chop.

[Archimedes]

Wasn't someone telling us that in fact, defence spending was up, and this was good news? If this is good news, I'd hate to see what bad news is....

[Regie Mental]

If Colt is to go in 2006 and 6 Sqn in 2007, presumably they are moving elsewhere? Anyone confirm?

[althenick]

Nimrod 4 down to 12 aircraft according to revue - Current numbers at 21 (I think) therefore not far of half being retired (assuming they're not going to be operated at MK2) Therefore there could be an announcement about kinloss perhaps???

[November4]

we will need a targeted redundancy scheme. The details, once agreed with Ministers and the Treasury, will be announced towards the end of the year.

Techies, Admin and RAF Regt will be the main takers.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

What beats me is the way its presented.....like it's good news for the forces!!

In light of the reduction in ship numbers - I'll say this (now on the third thread)..

........ there is to be a reduction in frigate and destroyer numbers. Inevitably this will exacerbate the problem caused by the loss of organic air defence. The loss of the Sea Harrier means that the fleet's first layer of defence against aircraft (not including third party assets) is the Type 42 Destroyer with Sea Dart.

The Type 23 Frigate is not primarily an anti air ship, but can provide extended point defence for herself and nearby vessels with vertical lauch Sea Wolf. Apart from being more suitable for anti missile use, the vertical launch version of Sea Wolf has 32 missiles ready to go as opposed to Sea Dart's two.

Because of the need to keep Type 42s due to the loss of Sea Harrier, Type 23s may be cut. This makes little sense, and is probably a consequence of the loss of organic air defence.

My guess is that losing Sea Dart would be less of a loss (considering all our frigates now have Sea Wolf, we have more sophisticated decoys and CIWS aboard high value units and some other vessels) than the SHAR/Blue Vixen/AMRAAM combination. Doesn't Sea Dart contain lots of 60s/70s technology? And even if it is upgraded the basic limitations of range and only having two missiles on the launcher.

When I was at University one of my lecturers was a ex RN Instructor Officer who had done other things in the mob. According to him the T42 design was criticised as a ship that would have trouble defending herself, let alone anyone else. The events of 1982 may have vindicated that view....

1. AAW. Sea Dart limited, old, and obsolecent.
2. Anti Surface. Same as above, additionally was Sea Dart ever serious in the anti ship role?
3. ASW. Noisy, difficult to use own sonar 2016, vulnerable to homing torpedoes or acoustic mines due to noise, no STWS, can't operate Merlin, aviation facilities limited.
4. MIOPS - due to problems with operating boats T42s are not the preferred platform for boarding duties.

I have been told the only task which has to be a T42 is the Five Powers' deployment in the Far East. Also escorting CVS/LPH/LPD(?), although I would have thought they'd be better of with a T23 providing extended point defence with vertical Sea Wolf and the Sea Harrier providing air defence.......

As I see it, we should have kept the batch two T22s we've scrapped as targets/flogged (interesting that the Romanians want 76mm guns fitted) and considered losing more of the T42s instead of the Sea Jet. However, the need to have a certain number of frigates/destroyers may make this unrealistic. Although these numbers are under threat at the moment. Perhaps the RN should acquire less sophisticated vessels for MIOPS and the like. Unfortunately the Treasury etc would no doubt use this to justify more cutbacks.

However, the need for the fleet to have an ability to deal with enemy aircraft/missiles at a range of more than a few miles means that we may end of losing more useful, better armed, Type 22 or Type 23 Frigates.

A more cynical view might be that the Type 42s are old. Many of them are due to be decommisioned in the next few years. The oldest Type 23 is newer than the newest Type 42. So if only a certain number of T42s are paid off now, the other ones will reach their paying off time in a few years anyway, so the frigate/destroyer numbers are reduced even more, which the Government then use to justify only ordering a limited number of Type 45 Destroyers.....

Lord Hill Norton said of John Nott: does not understand defence, and shows no apparent inclination to learn

Hoon appears to be made of the same stuff. The wrong stuff.

As as for losing yet another air defence squadron......

[Sideshow Bob]

althenick MRA4 was at 18 aircraft, the announcement at kinloss was as follows , MRA4 cut to 12, MR2 fleet to be reduced by 5 aircraft by April 05, also 5 front line MR2 crews to be cut by April 05 along with 1 OCU syndicate. A review is underway to see whether we keep 3 front line Sqns or reduce to 2 front line Sqns

[Jacks Down]

AD definitely not flavour of the moment. The Regt is loosing Rapier: 15, 16, 26 and 37 Sqns RAF Regt will also be sorely missed. Only slightly balanced by 3 and 63 Sqns RAF Regt (currently IS role in NI and QCS respectively) being bought up to strength as fully deployable 'general duties' field sqns. Overall reduction of 10% in RAF Regt strength.

[Ali Barber]

If 6, 11, 16, 41 and 54 are for the chop, presumably somebody will decide to have a review of the Sqn numberplates remaining. We can then spend what little is left of the defence budget shifting the numberplates around and producing glossy brochures explaining why!

I like the idea on the other thread of the miltary having a Gov't review (orignially mis-typed as revue, not sure I wasn't right in the first place - bl00dy bunch of clowns). The Monster Raving Looney Party would have more of a clue!:mad:

[teeteringhead]

Reggie Mental
6 Sqn (or whoever) to go to Coningsby for their last year-ish.

[Trumpet_trousers]

25% increase in C-17 strength......at least it's not all bad news....

[buoy15]

This is just the skeleton guys!
They will put the flesh on after (if they win?) the next General Election - then we will see some reductions!!
But what if War-Doh! wins or perhaps the DimLebs?

Military jet noise - the sound of Freedom

[John Farley]

AD definitely not flavour of the moment

Hardly surprising when the last time Brits came under attack from the air (not counting from their friends) was 22 years ago and the last time the UK was bombed from the air was 60 years ago.

The Treasury guys have a duty to look after our cash after all.

Plus when nobody has had smallpox for x decades you don't spend money on inoculations any more...do you?

I think I will go for a paddle, my feet are getting hot again. (Sorry only my mates will understand that)

Please will somebody come and lead me back to my ward. I have tried Blackbushe and its not there.

[Archimedes]

And not wishing to depress those who were hoping to become FJ pilots (and Nav... sorry, WSOs) - re: the threads of a few weeks back about Linton:

...When standing quick reaction alert tasks are taken into account this translates into a front line force of 55 crews, compared to about 80 crews at present. This will allow the disbandment of XI(F) Tornado F3 squadron in October

2.22 The overall reduction in the number of fast jet aircrew required will reduce requirements for fast jet training and the number of training aircraft. We remain committed to the procurement of the Hawk 128. Final numbers, beyond the initial 20, will be determined over the next year.

So I think we can guess that, unless Two Jags kicks up a very large fuss indeed, the Hawk 128 order will be chopped substantially as well. Makes all the remarks about how 'good' things were for defence and that to claim that there were 'defence cuts' was all rather silly.

[Trumpet_trousers]

....the reduced requirement for Air Defence squadrons will permit Tornado operations at RAF Leeming to cease from 2008
.....wither Leeming? Chinny's/Apaches, or yet another 'xxx barracks?'

[Ali Barber]

Will enough Typhoons be ready for the Jag pilots when their Sqns close? Will the Rocks get transfered to the RA?

[the_grand_dad]

I see Keetch mentioned the dreaded word Manning Control and redundancies again funny how Hoon would not mention it when asked specifically

more examples of servicemen & women being stabbed in the back

[althenick]

Side show Bob - thanks for the correction - next time i'll do my homework as I have done for RN!


A bit off topic but defence related...

5 of 6 minesweepers to go are from faslane - invalidates the existance of MCM 3 therefore - no surface fleet north of the border???

[Big Cat Handler]

Nice to see the Telegraph mentioning this website when asking CDS if the Chiefs are standing up to the politicians enough, at the Press Conference this afternoon. Would writing to your MP get that much publicity for a complaint? I doubt it.

BCH

[SVK]

Well at least is was nice to see PPRUNE get a mention in the Buffoon / Chiefs press conference.....

[The Burning Bush]

we will need a targeted redundancy scheme. The details, once agreed with Ministers and the Treasury, will be announced towards the end of the year.

Techies, Admin and RAF Regt will be the main takers.

I wouldn't bet on it. There aren't that many Rocks on a GBAD Sqn and the idea is to get the rest of the VHR Field Sqns up to full strength, which will absorb most of the 'sprung' manpower below SNCO. And as Jacks Down mentioned - 10% is what we are looking at.

[Pontius Navigator]

Archimedes said 5 AD sqns the minimum.

43 111 56 17 29 ?

With the reduction from 18 MR2 to 12ish MR4 they could all go to Waddo in 2010 onwards.

With the SK OCU going to Valley why not put the Hawk 128 there too?

The rocks will be at 63% of their 1990 level compared with the RAF at only 45%. Good news for the rocks unless they are well above their 1990 level right now <g>

[arfur-sixpence]

6 Sqn (or whoever) to go to Coningsby for their last year-ish.
well, spending money to relocate them just before chopping them fits wirth the overall standard of common sense applied by Defence Ministers over the years.

[JessTheDog]

So....

We need reductions in manpower but we don't know how many redundancies there will need to be and even what trades they will be in!

We are buying C-17s....after we have leased them...why didn't we buy them in the first place?!?

"Network Enabled Capablilty is a relatively new concept" No s:mad:t Sherlock! I've worked with what can be termed NEC in my time and have attended some high-level meetings and no-one at a senior level has a clue what this is! What I can point out is a network is only as good as the data that goes into it. And the MR2, MRA4, T42 and T23 either are, or have the potential to be, excellent sensor platforms. NEC should be a force multiplier, not a force replacement! Targeting etc is all very well, but the temporary nature of air power is no substiture for boots (or a ship) on the ground (or water)!!

I need to read further, and to peruse the debate, but first glance indicates firmly that this is a short-sighted, cost-driven, back-of-a-fag-packet piece of nonsense that will degrade the operational efficiency of our Armed Forces and is no way to repay the months and years of hard work we have put in. The only way our creaking services have managed is by personnel putting in extra effort and "playing the game". For the sake of us all that has to stop and we must put our hands up and say "we can't do that" when we are short of personnel or equipment - although it may now be too late!

[Tony Chambers]

why not pull out of iraq and afgan and let the yanks sort thier own problems. with the money saved we could build up some pretty good home security and defence. this can only be done when tony blair emerges from hid hide out some where up the bush pass.

[In Tor Wot]

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks chances are it's a duck !! This is not a 'realignment' or an adjustment - it is a defence cut to save money.

If defence spending is rising in ‘real terms’ why are we being told to institute 2.5% year-on-year 'efficiency savings'? BTW, when next year comes around and we are at 97.5% won't the 2.5% of that figure be proportionately more and increase proportionally for the duration of the ‘efficiency’ drive.

I note that the treasury has ‘provided funding for the Iraq operation’. Really? - then why have we been told that flying hours in the Gulf are to be counted in the annual total as, quote, ‘the treasury has refused to accept this as a cost of the operation’ end quote.

Another point on basic maths: The total strength of the RAF is currently 48000 because we can't (or won't) recruit to our actual limit total of 52200. Based on that figure, the RAF will be cut by 11200 personnel not the oft quoted 8000.

Rant over, sadness descending



:confused:

[soddim]

It would appear that under this government, in addition to not being able to get a GP appointment for over a week, not being able to find NHS dental treatment at all and not being able to get a policeman to attend a traffic accident, I will now be able to enjoy my retirement knowing that our armed forces are too depleted to do much more than a Queen's Birthday flypast and the odd airshow.

Thankyou Bliar.

[BATS]

Jess

Have a look at the House of Commons Defence Committee report into the Defence White Paper 2003, the rag that precipitated this particular round of rationalisation. You may find it illuminating reading........ It can be found on the MOD web via Chots if you have access.

To paraphrase for all though, the committee, which is predominantly Labour, cautioned against the very cuts that have been announced today until Effects based operations and NEC are understood. The MPs themselves noted that there was an undue haste to sell the family silver in the name of a concept that is not yet understood on either side of the pond.

Ho hum, the government even ignore their own sort, so what chance do we have........

Rgds

Oh Yes, and I forgot. You will have noticed that some of the FRIs have been dispensed with today as well. No surprises there then.

Q. What do we have too many of in the RAF ?

A. Senior Officer aircrew according to DASA stats.

Does rather suggest that senior officer ME Navigators are on the hit list.....

[pr00ne]

In Tor Wot,

The efficiency savings are to be ploughed back into Defence, the money doesn’t go to the treasury, or anywhere else, it stays within the defence budget.

I think you’ll find that the difference in your RAF manpower figures is because 48500 is the trained and operational figure, it is 400 lower than it should be at 48900. The 52500 figure you quote is the total including those in training.

Soddim,

I think you’ll find the blame for the current Dentistry issue lies with the Tories and what they did to the profession when they were in power.

I can get a GP appointment within 24 hours where I live, and there are asylum seekers nearby!

[BATS]

Proone

But is the 41000 figure trained strength or total strength ? I'll lay good odds on it being total strength......

[BEagle]

prOOne - are you sure you're not 'Comical Ali', the late Iraqi defence spokesman?

Your assertions convince an audience of but one. Yourself.




Now do :mad: back to your day job.

[lasernigel]

I don't know whether or not it's my (Mis ?) interpretation of reading the review or what.BUT if you read the final totals in "Determining the force structure" IMHO I have made the following conclusions.
Helicopters:- 115 Support,these consist of 37 Chinook,18 Merlin,31 Puma and 29 Sea King.
48 Attack presumably the new Apache fleet.
Anyone want to tell me where all the Gazelles and Lynx from the AAC have gone to??
Someone in another thread presumed all 232 Typhoons were safe. Hoon stated he will only sign up for the 2nd tranche if the price is right after negotiations with BAe.
Totals given say Air Defence 20 and Offensive Support aircraft 64.
Finally he says that the current fleet of C130's will be replaced by the A400M in 2011(I thought that option had been scrapped) but again he won't say how many.
Excuse me if my presumptions are wrong but I think the way the report has been worded means we have all had the wool pulled over our eyes and the Air element of H.M. Forces has been hung drawn and quartered.

[SRENNAPS]

As a Trade Group 1 Chief Tech who is due to leave the Air Force on LOS 30 in 2008. Could anybody tell me this:

a. What are my chances to get promoted to Flt Sgt and serve to age 55.

b. Will I be accepted for the "Targeted Redundancy scheme"

c. Or will I just stay on in the air force, being rejected for redundancy and finding out in 2007, month 11 that I just missed out on promotion - THANK YOU - GOOD BYE.

[pr00ne]

BEagle,

WHAT assertions?

and you can :mad: off back to YOUR day job!

[VP959]

Lasernigel,

Consider this:

Prior to this review there was about £4.1 Bn in the pot to do the following:

1) Replace the almost life-exed Lynx Mk7 fleet and the Gazelles with a highly capable, network enabled, ISTAR, DofF and light utility helo.

2) Allow Merlin to continue to operate until 2030 via the Capability Sustainment Package.

3) Buy a heap of new Chinnooks to provide the sorely lacking battlefield lift capability (preferably with powered blade fold and marinised for amphibious ops).

4) Replace the Lynx Mk3 & 8 with SCMR.

5) Provide 20 odd military SAR helos.

Following the review that £4.1 Bn for helos has been cut to just over £3 Bn. Future Lynx was going to cost about £1 Bn, to provide both BLUH and SCMR.

Still wondering about the Lynx fleet numbers?

[In Tor Wot]

pr00ne happy to accept you in the current job :D

The 52200 was indeed the total number of personnel - in training included but when the question was posed earlier today the answer of 41000 included untrained as well as trained personnel so there has been an overall cut of 11200.

Whilst I agree that the aim of the 'efficiency' savings is to plough it back into the Defence budget, I have the sneakiest inkling that they will be taken back to the treasury, as they were this year. I know, call me a bluff old cynic but I've found it to be the most accurate source thus far.
:(

[Pontius Navigator]

Deliverance, it was a test to see if anyone was paying attention!

[pr00ne]

In Tor Wot,

Why thankyou!

If you are right about numbers where are they coming from I wonder?

11000 is a large chunk of the current RAF strength, I know you save a good number when you close a main operating base, 10% of the Rocks, between 1 and 4 FJ outfits, a Nimrod Sqn, where are the rest to come from?

[soddim]

Proone,

I can get a GP appointment within 24 hours where I live

But how long does it take you to see the psychiatrist?

[Ali Barber]

What will we do with Colt when she closes. Last I heard, under all the environmental laws, the cost of cleaning up a long-standing station far exceeded its sell off value. Plus, what will the value of the land be when you have just closed what is presumably one of the major employers in the area.

[SRENNAPS]

Pr00ne
Allthough I do not post here often I have read this site for the last 6 years with great enjoyment.

I do not beleive that you are entitled to slag beagle off with the words "b*gger off and get back to your day job etc"

As an old chief in todays air force you sound like somebody that has been no where, seen no where, but knows it all,

Maybe I'm wrong!!!!

[Big Cat Handler]

Just reading through the text, and noticed that "Arms Plotting" - the practice of rebasing whole battalions every couple of years - will be phased out, which will "enable individual Servicemen and their families to plan on being based within a certain geogrpahical area ... and enable Service families to put down roots in the communities in which they are based.

I realise those of us on fleets with only one base already have this luxury to a certain extent, but for everyone bouncing between Benson and NI or Leuchars, Leeming and Coningsby etc, will we get the same opportunity? And as each Army regiment recruits from its local area, and a recruit gets to choose which regiment to apply for, will we be able to choose aircraft type based on location? Completely unworkable I know, but a nice idea.

BCH

PS Having finished the document, and seen that Northern Ireland is now well on the way to normalisation and Tornado ops at Leeming will stop around 2008, maybe it isn't so unworkable after all.

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Fair point, but I for one did not join up to stay in one place all my service career.

Oh - hang on, I've spent most of my life in the desert recently.....:rolleyes:

SBG

[pr00ne]

SRENNAPS,

You are wrong, very wrong, couldn't be more wrong in fact.

I flew the same sort of a/c in the RAF as did BEagle briefly, but I stayed a little longer on type...............................
:)

[HectorusRex]

How much worse could it get?

Cuts reduce RAF to The Few
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent, and Neil Tweedie
(Filed: 22/07/2004)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/22/ndef22.xml
Nearly a quarter of the RAF is to be axed, with the loss of more than 100 front-line aircraft, Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, said yesterday.
Overall, the Armed Forces will be reduced by a tenth in what the Tories described as "a political and moral betrayal". Many ships and tanks will be scrapped.
The RAF is to be cut from 53,800 personnel to 41,000 and will lose all 108 Jaguar ground attack aircraft. A fifth of its Tornado F3 fighter aircraft are to go, plus its base at Coltishall, Norfolk.
It will also lose nine of its Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft and the RAF Regiment's air defence capability.
The Royal Navy will lose 5,000 men and 15 vessels, including the Type 42 destroyers Cardiff, Newcastle and Glasgow, the Type 23 frigates Norfolk, Grafton and Marlborough and the hunter-killer submarines Spartan, Superb and Trafalgar.
The Army is to lose 5,500 men and more than 80 Challenger II tanks as part of a major restructuring in which all 19 single-battalion "famous names" will be subsumed into large regionally-based regiments, with the loss of four named regiments.
Much of the detail of the cuts will not be given until later in the year when military bases and many helicopters will be axed.
The only expansion is in special forces, with a second regular SAS regiment expected to be created to cope with the amount of work the SAS and SBS have been carrying out in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr Hoon told MPs that 10,000 Ministry of Defence civil servants would lose their jobs as part of "improvements to military capabilities".
He said the "rebalancing" was designed to ensure that the Armed Forces were "equipped and trained to continue to perform with success in the future those tasks which they have so admirably undertaken in recent years". The forces had "enthusiastically embraced this process of transformation" which would "see a shift away from an emphasis on numbers of platforms and of people".
But last night there was a deep sense of shock in the RAF and the Royal Navy, the two services hardest hit. A recently retired senior officer said both felt "the top brass have sold them out".
Nicholas Soames, the shadow defence secretary, said the forces would feel "betrayed politically and morally" and the public would be "dismayed" by the "underhand" treatment meted out to those who had fought for their country.
All three services are below their established strengths and the Army and the Royal Navy will need to lose only about 1,500 personnel. But many RAF and MoD civil servants will be made redundant.
Defence sources said the calculations had been very difficult, with the Treasury refusing to pay for the redundancies that were an inevitable result of its failure to fund defence properly.
It is still refusing to pay more than £500 million of the money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Ministry of Defence is in the grip of a major financial crisis, caused in part by its failure to realise the full effect of the Treasury's introduction of resource account budgeting, which penalises it heavily because of the large amount of land it owns. It also over-estimated the amount it could save by making small cuts to large procurement projects such as the Eurofighter and the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers. Both projects will continue but the number of the Navy's new Type 45 destroyers will be cut from 12 to eight.
The angry debate that preceded the announcements had led Mr Hoon to warn the defence chiefs that any sign of dissent "would lead to them being shown the door", defence sources said.
In a personal message to the fleet, Adml Sir Alan West, the First Sea Lord, emphasised the difficulties the Navy now faced.
He said that "clearly a ship can only be in one place at a time" and added: "I do not instinctively welcome the early disposal of good ships."
Gen Sir Michael Walker, the Chief of the Defence Staff, told service personnel in a letter that "tough choices" had been made and that the numbers of personnel being axed were "stark".
Defence sources said he had gone to see Tony Blair three times to curtail the cuts to levels that he and the other defence chiefs believed the forces would accept.
So contentious were some of the cuts that changes were being made up to the last minute. The decision to axe only one of the Scottish famous name infantry regiments was taken this week for purely political reasons to try to contain the angry reaction in Scotland.
The names of the one Scottish and three English regiments to be axed will not be announced until later in the year. The six Scottish infantry line regiments have been told to decide among themselves which regiment is to go, with the Highlanders the most likely.

:mad:

[Archimedes]

Where did he get 108 Jags from? 3 x front line squadrons plus an OCU - Telegraph clearly believes that each has a UE of 27 aircraft... (Yes, I know about reserves/ airframes in storage, etc, but still...)

He also seems to have added a submarine to the list - Buff thinks he's only getting rid of two.


On top of that, CNS seems to be under the impression that he's not losing any personnel.

The idea of a second SF rgt is interesting as well - not least since the press (and I think it was the Torygraph) has been busy reporting that members of said forces are leaving in droves.

It's all very well the Torygraph coming out with a hostile reaction to the cuts (no bad thing), but to do it in such a way that the misleading facts can easily be rebuffed (no pun intended) and used to discredit the entire story. But then this is the Torygraph defence 'expert' we're talking about, I suppose. :rolleyes:

[Regie Mental]

HMS Grafton to go? Isn't that the Frigate used a 'HMS Suffolk' in the ITV series 'Making Waves'. Some coincidence surely?

[Groundbased]

As a civvy taxpayer this whole episode depresses me.

We need to spend money on defence, more than on many of the harebrained schemes that this, and to be honest many previous, governments seem so wedded to. People need to wake up.

In today's global security environment can anybody tell me that the USA are also seeing a "shift away from emphasis on numbers of platforms and people" and implementing similar "improvements to military capabilities".

I doubt it.

[MReyn24050]

Lasernigel

"Anyone want to tell me where all the Gazelles and Lynx from the AAC have gone to??"

I agree the figures given in the Force Structure and Overall Force Levels are confusing. As as well as Lynx/Gazelles there in no mention of Merlin Mk1s or other Mark Sea Kings.

Excerpt from the Review Paper

"Over the next ten years, we plan to invest some £3bn
in helicopter platforms to replace and enhance our existing capability. In light of the improved security situation in
Northern Ireland we plan to make some reductions in overall helicopter numbers.

2.24 This substantial investment within a relatively condensed timeframe offers an opportunity to maximise efficiencies and coherence across our future helicopter fleet in the key
capability areas of lift, reconnaissance and attack, which will be central to future expeditionary operations. We have accordingly been working with industry, to review thoroughly both our
capability requirements and our forward plans. This work continues, and we aim to report on progress in the next few
months."

More to come!!

[Jacks Down]

Archimedes,

Remember this is Micheal Smith, the same ace Telegraph defence reporter who has spent the last few weeks confidently predicting the loss of the Harrier and Puma fleets as well as the Jags, the entire Regt and Cranwell. Do you think the guy just uses a dartboard?

[Archimedes]

Yes. While blindfolded and in a darkened room....

[FCK1]

What the press are missing in all this crap is that although spending is increasing the entire increase and more from the existing budget will be swallowed up by a Trident upgrade, hence the hammering of conventional forces.

Who exactly are we fighting with nuclear cruise missiles this century?

Every conflict and commitment in recent times has needed well-equipped air, sea and land forces. Erm...so where should the money be spent?

Sorry I forgot - on the big expensive weapons with no targets.

Can't remember the last time a nuke provided air support, protected people's feet in the desert or camoflaged them from the enemy.

Rant over.

[Anita Bush]

Well, the death bell tolls for the South West.

The Sea King OCU and the SAR Force HQ will be moving to Valley within 2 years. The idea, it seem will be to cut down on the number of aircraft used by the OCU by combining with the SAR Flt at Valley. I wonder if there is enough room for the OCU flying amongst the Hawks and Griffins there?
The other reason it seems is to give the stude pilots some different terrain to fly over (over water is the same no matter where you go!).

As the only flying unit in St M it can only be a matter of time before it closes.

[whowhenwhy]

Sorry chaps, realize that we're going back a few pages but as far as 6 is concerned, yes I'd heard it was going to Cgy too. Don't think it'll be the Sqn's last year though. Can't imagine their airships getting rid of the Service's only sqn with continuous service since its inception. Could it not be that they'll close as a Jag sqn on day x and stand up as as a tiffy sqn on day y? Course, then they'll probably be found surplus to requirements on day z, so that'll be that idea shot!:mad: :mad:

[PIElotMAN]

Surely they can not be stupid enough to close Colt in 2006, pay another huge lump of cash to relocate 6 Sqn jags to Cgy and then get rid of 6 in 2007??

Watch for 6 Sqn Jags also being finished in 2006 along with Colt!!

Personally I cant wait to hear the "airfield review" results next year:(

[Scud-U-Like]

It wasn't only Michael Smith who was wide of the mark in the reporting of these cuts. Evidently, his dartboard is shared by most defence correspondents. Radio 4 news bulletins were predicting, amongst other things, the disbanding of the RAF Regt, right up to Hoon getting up on his hind legs to give us the authorised version.

[haltonapp]

If the number of officers above the rank of Gp Capt is not reduced by the same proportion as all other ranks will we get to a position that service numbers are not reqd? We'll all know each other anyway!

[teeteringhead]

Must say I am pleased that the RAF Regt was not lost in its force protection/ground defence role.

I was recently involved with an Army unit's search for a "local training area", in which they could do blank firing, schermuly firing and other roughy-toughy stuff. They found an "ideal" area, landowner was content to rent it to them etc etc......

....slight problem. It was under the approach path of an international airport...... and less than 2Km from the threshold! They'd been recceing it for a coupla weeks, oblivious to the stream of jets going overhead at about 500ft. Probably not the best unit to defend an airfield...

"Air Aware" or what!!

[Jacks Down]

Sorry to say their GBAD is no better. In fact, it's a blue-on-blue waiting to happen. For example, during a recent deployment around Marham the Army Rapier battery was quite content to operate at Weapons Free (ie engage anything not positively ID'd as friendly) with no IFF loaded into their kit. Complete lack of air-mindedness is the nub of the problem. Still, before the Regt's GBAD sqns disband one of their tasks is to bring up the Army to the standards required. Figure out the logic behind that one!

[November4]

Driving home this evening listening - well it was on - to Radio 4 PM programme. There was an MP suggesting sending British Forces to Sudan to help with peace keeping / disaster relief there.

Good job we still have some forces not doing anything, ready to be sent at a moments notice on a politicians wim.

But then I could have been imagining it - surely they wouldn't think of finding another place to send the forces - not the day after.....

[the_grand_dad]

just read this link chaps. looks like a warning shot of things to come and i don't think its just the Army personnel that will be subject to this

http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/messageview.mv?view+brownenvelope+420+index

thoughts::confused:

[ppf]

Not actually managed to get through the posts so far so apologies if what I am saying has already been mentioned. Is there any word on VGS's etc........how much money do they use up? Would it be worth while binning them to save money or are they deemed too good to bin as they are good on the recruiting aspect etc etc etc??

Think they should bin the Vikings at least due to the costs of the winches etc but then how could they be called VGS's as the Vigilant ain't exactly used as a glider!

ppf :rolleyes:

[HectorusRex]

From the other side of Fleet Street, for those who object to the Daily Telegraph viewpoint.

Routed by the Eurofighter: the pride of Britain's army

A cold war folly is at the heart of the forces' worst cash crisis since the 70s

Max Hastings
Tuesday June 29, 2004
The Guardian

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/comment/0,11026,1249569,00.html

On Sunday, the government rushed to deny a newspaper story that a major defence budget crisis was on hand. This is like denying that it rained last week. I suggested on this page some months ago that the armed forces were heading for a ghastly cash crunch. Now it has arrived.
Three months into the new financial year, no defence budget settlement has been reached with the Treasury. Ferocious argument continues, around a broad-brush issue of how the services can save £1bn on a £25bn annual spend - 4%. When Gordon Brown announces his decision, it is likely to concede Geoff Hoon's department a 1% real increase each year for the next three. The chancellor will say tersely that this is generous, seeing as what he will be doing elsewhere in Whitehall.
Yet the consequences for those at the sharp end will be grave. Here is the army, smaller than for centuries and yet stretched to the limits in Iraq and all the other crusades Tony fancied at the time. It now faces losing up to four infantry battalions - 10% of its strength (perhaps marginally less, so the government can claim that the soldiers have been granted a reprieve) - and a reduction in its overall establishment.
The RAF will lose some 8,000 personnel and the navy several ships - exact numbers are still the subject of bitter wrangling. This is less serious, since critics (including me) have argued the case for rebalancing the armed forces to strengthen the army and reduce the Royal Navy and RAF.
But as usual, it is all being done in the wrong way, and for the worst reasons. The defence overspend is caused by gross mismanagement in procurement and logistics. Cost overruns on big programmes are of a magnitude that should cause heads to roll. Yet because procurement commitments are made years ahead, there is little or no scope to achieve quick savings.
Instead, the soldiers and sailors and airmen of the "teeth arms" fall victim. They are miserably unhappy about what is going on, and so they should be. No prime minister in recent memory has been so eager to use the armed forces abroad. Yet Tony Blair seems unable to give them the support they need when facing the sort of trouble they are in today.
The disaster at the heart of the budgetary problem is, of course, the Eurofighter. This is the ultimate madness of European defence, manna for Eurosceptics, representing a shameful abdication by all the governments concerned. Designed and contracted for the days of the cold war, to shoot down attacking Russians, it is not even a good aircraft. Today it is no more relevant to European defence than Boudicca's chariot, and will cost an awful lot more.
Britain is committed to purchase 232 of them. Even the Royal Air Force does not want that many. Most people not wearing blue uniform do not want to see Britain buy any at all. But this country is locked into contracts so tight that, in the government's opinion, it would cost as much to scrap it as to fly it. Thus this country is to spend almost £20bn, a huge sum even in 2004, to buy this redundant triumph of strategic bungling.
Circumstances change, and have changed. Surely it should be possible to abandon a cold war arms procurement policy 14 years after the wall came down? In a rational world, Britain would be getting together with our partners - Italy, Germany and Spain - to agree that all of us would be well out of it. But there are hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake, some in key marginals across Europe. A friend whom I regard as one of the most sensible MPs in the Commons agrees that the Eurofighter is a disaster, but adds apologetically: "I'm afraid I haven't said a lot about it, because it means jobs in my constituency."
By now, some Guardian readers will be muttering: "Why should any of this matter? Who needs soldiers these days anyway? When Gordon is prime minister, he won't go in for all these ridiculous adventures abroad."
Yes, well, maybe. Gordon Brown himself may be thinking in such terms, as he sits in 11 Downing Street. But if he moves next door, he will soon discover that he has much less choice than he imagines about military commitments.
Again and again, British governments of all complexions have been forced to fight overseas, strongly against their inclinations. Clement Attlee had no desire to join the war in Korea. John Major was determined not to commit British troops in the Balkans. Margaret Thatcher, contrary to later mythology, was scarcely eager to fight a colonial war in the south Atlantic until her survival required it.
However strongly global sentiment is running against military adventures abroad, and especially American-led adventures, it would be madness to run defence policy on the assumption that we can or should avoid further entanglements. For instance, if Saudi Arabia implodes, as it well might, it would be difficult for even the French and the Germans to argue that the west can simply sit on its hands.
We have to have armed forces equipped and funded to fight. Instead we have what a very senior friend of mine calls "the worst defence budget crisis since the 1970s". And in those days, the armed forces were vastly larger than they are today.
The Treasury axe is poised over an army already reduced to perilously low manpower levels. So great is the shortage of key specialists such as intelligence personnel, engineers and electronic information processors, that some men have to be taken from infantry to plug the gaps.
The fashionable alibi for cutting strengths is to say: "Oh, these days numbers don't matter - it's all about capabilities, and a modern company can do what a battalion once could." There is just enough truth in this to hold together a tacky Whitehall argument, but in truth numbers matter a great deal on the ground in Iraq or the Balkans or Sierra Leone. There have to be humans behind all the hi-tech kit, and the humans are in desperately short supply.
The Treasury is entitled to be angry about the defence procurement scandal, and a scandal it is. But the right remedies are to appoint a competent defence secretary; to reform drastically the procurement and logistics process; and to find some way out of the Eurofighter nightmare, whose consequences will be with us for a generation. What must not be done is what now is being done: carve into the "teeth" forces, to compensate for the follies of 81,000 civil servants employed by the Ministry of Defence. How many of them will be axed in the great savings drive? But that is the sort of question servicemen are never allowed to ask ministers or permanent undersecretaries.
[email protected]

[Archimedes]

Unfortunately, Lord Hastings of Port Stanley is as bad as the Torygraph (of which, of course, he was once editor).

He outlined his proposals for rebalaincing the forces in the Spectator a while ago. In essence, they involved equipping the RN with aircraft carriers and almost nothing else; disbanding all the RAF FJ units and leaving it with C-130s and spending lots and lots and lots of money on a very large army dominated by infantry. The tone of the piece suggested that he'd have liked to have advocated horsed cavalry as being relevant on the modern battlefield, but he resisted that temptation...

His problem is a very Torygraph-centred one, which is that because 'Eurofighter' has the word 'Euro' in it, it must be bad; from that stems the point of view that it was designed in the Cold War to shoot down Russians and nothing else and is therefore irrelevant - just like the F-22 and F-15C, then...

And Margaret Thatcher... was scarcely eager to fight a colonial war in the south Atlantic until her survival required it. ??

What is he on about? As soon as Admiral Leach told her that a) it could be done and b) it must be done, she was on board like a shot. Some of her ministers weren't, admittedly, but she was and took them with her. Of course she didn't want to fight one before the Argentines invaded, but then again I can't think of many PMs who would have said 'lets go and fight in the South Atlantic for no good reason.'

So as well as demonstrating that he's out of touch with some of the basic principles that apply at the strategic and operational levels of war, he's also losing touch with reality. Oh dear.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Read One Hundred Days by Admiral Sandy Woodward to find out what he thought of Max Hastings's understanding of things.....

[Radar Muppet]

Bye :( .

[micksmith]

Archimedes and Jacks Down

Archimedes first

Re the 108 Jags. That was the figure given out by the RAF at the press briefing. I know that 62 are for attrition but if the RAF is saying that is how many they are going to lose I am not going to play down the scale of the cuts. The subs will go down from 11 to 8. As for RN personnel numbers it is explained in the paragraph of the piece you were referring to where it said: "All three services are below their established strengths and the Army and the Royal Navy will need to lose only about 1,500 personnel." It was also explained in a graphic that ran alongside that piece on the front of the paper and there was a detailed rundown of the RAF cuts inside, but this may not have been so immediately apparent if you were reading the Telegraph on the internet.

Jacks Down's post is not so easy to understand.

Michael Smith has never said that the RAF Regiment was to close. I have never mentioned it in relation to cuts, in fact the last time I mentioned it was in relation to the SA80 well over a year ago. My only mention of the Harriers was in the context that this was one of the f***-wit proposals made by the work strands. I first reported it on April 2nd, when I added: "Defence chiefs are certain to try to block some of the more controversial moves. Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, Chief of Air Staff, in particular is likely to argue strongly against the loss of the GR7 Harriers. The aircraft are due to be upgraded and scrapping them would also mean a loss of experience in short take-off and landing that would hamper the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) that are due to replace them."

I also reported that, as regards the RAF, the work strand proposals also included a threat to close five RAF bases and to scrap the Jags and the Pumas. At the time, everyone thought it was mad, indeed only last week it was being described on this forum as hysterical nonsense. But the bulk of the headlined cuts proposed have been made. As for the Pumas and Cranwell. the helicopters and bases are part of the "detail" that won't be announced until later this year. It's a bit early to start saying they aren't going to happen. The guy who told me about the pressure to close Dartmouth and Cranwell was the same guy who told me about the work strands and a number of other stories that subsequently turned out to be true. He was right about them so I am not about to call him a liar now without a bit better evidence than you have managed to produce.

There is an unfortunate tendency among some of the contributors to this forum to have a go at journalists and the Torygraph in particular. We didn't implement the cuts, we just warned you they were coming, and how big they were going to be, before anyone else did. The Daily Telegraph is and always has been very firmly on your side. I thought it was the Yanks who specialised in blue-on-blues but perhaps I got that wrong too.

[Instrument Ranting]

Don't worry michael - whatever subject is being discussed here - it will always be your fault!

Like you I'm sure, I have nothing but a very positive, informative and enjoyable two way relationship with members of the armed forces at all levels.

I suspect the regular anti-media views expressed here come from those people who have had the least contact with us.

IR

[Spotted Dog]

Just read some of the Q&A briefing material:

"... the airfield at RAF Coltishall will close...."

I seem to remember the same words being used when they "closed" Wattisham. And look who's there now.

[Archimedes]

Well, IR, I have had just a bit of experience of being misquoted and misrepresented (although in the latter case, the journalist got my name just a little wrong, so I suppose he could say that it wasn't actually me that he was quoting...)

In any event, welcome to Mick. I can see your point now you've laid it out, but it did seem odd to this reader (internet as you suspected).

My concern/irritation/whatever, stemmed from the fact that it appeared as though the figure had been chosen to make it appear that the RAF was losing 108 Jags from the front line (to bring its holdings closer to those of the Deputy PM, and then below them), and thus overstating the cuts (if that's possible), giving the bunch of charlatans, fools and incompetents (plus John Reid) currently running the country the opportunity to discredit such claims by something along the lines of 'Hah! the RAF has only 3 front line units, each with... so far less than 108.'

However, it's clear now!

[Jacks Down]

Mike Smith,

Thanks for the reply, I wasn't expecting to be able to debate with the horse's mouth, but I appreciate you have a professional reputation to defend. Sorry everyone, this is going to be a long one.

Firstly, you are right, you have never mentioned the disbandment of the RAF Regt. Checking on the DT website, this was mentioned on 11 Jul in a story by Patrick Henessey and Sean Rayment, as "Under the shake-up, almost the entire RAF Regiment, which is responsible for security at bases, will be disbanded."

As a defence story in the DT my recollection was that it carried your byline, which it clearly didn't - my apologies. It is worth noting nevertheless that: a) subsequent events have shown that it was incorrect (the RAF Regt will loose around 10% of its strength as a result of the White Paper); b) the report was presented as fact with no 'health warnings', ie that it was a planning option, an unconfirmed report etc etc; and c) Henessey and Rayment also reported the loss of the Harrier fleet, 'the remaining' 2 sqns of Jaguars and the Puma fleet.

The other criticisms I levelled at you in my post break down as follows.
- On 19 Jul you reported the closure of Cranwell, without caveats.
- On 2 Apr you wrote on the "scrapping of all the RAF's 62 ground-attack Jaguars, all its 79 ground-attack GR7 Harriers and all its 39 Puma helicopters."
- On 14 May, an editorial piece again mentioned "...the RAF losing all its Harriers and Jaguars...". Fair enough, not your byeline.
- On 19 Jul: "...most of the 62 Jaguar ground attack aircraft, and [the RAF's] 39 Puma helicopters."

None of these stories are presented as anything other than fact. The DT's internet archive of your Apr 2nd story does not include any reference to opposition by the service chiefs. It may be an abridged version of your story, but if so this is not mentioned on the site.

I therefore believe that my statement in an earlier post that you had "spent the last few weeks confidently predicting the loss of the Harrier and Puma fleets as well as the Jags, the entire Regt and Cranwell", with the clear inference that this was inaccurate, has a considerable amount going for it. OK, so the bit about the dartboard may have been unfair, but hey - it's called banter :ok:

Now, it may be the case that the Harriers, Pumas and Cranwell are part of a follow on package of cuts (damn, I meant 'restructuring') yet to be announced. However, it ain't happened yet. I received a personal brief from a very senior RAF officer on the ramifications of the White Paper, and he did not intimate a word of it. If there were further cuts coming on that scale I belive he would have done so, however opaquely. Of course that doesn't prove it won't happen (incidentally, no criticism meant of the officer in question, in case anyone knows who I am talking about - he deserves only credit for what he did/said, and gained the upmost respect of his audience). The sentiment expressed in my post, that you had repeatedly overstated the extent of the cuts, stands correct until proven otherwise.

I obviously have no idea about the nature of the relationship between you and your source. He could be passing on information he believes to be correct in good faith, he could be deliberately releasing 'worst case' information in order to make us think we've got off lightly when the actual cuts come, his information may have gone out of date... or it could be completely accurate, and although I don't think this is the case, enough of that for now. I certainly have no intention whatsoever of branding him/her/them a liar, I just think the information has limits. In your point about my 'evidence' remember: I am expressing my opinions on an internet 'rumour' forum for a target audience of fellow RAF professionals, you are writing in a respected broadsheet newspaper. My standard of 'proof' doesn't have to be the same!

I'm sorry that you feel the DT is treated badly on this forum. I honestly wouldn't take it to heart. You deserve much credit for the way you try to keep defence stories in the public eye. Your coverage is certainly sympathetic to us - for exmaple your editorial on the White Paper yesterday was excellent - and you are generally well respected. However, I believe it is because we expect high standards of the Telegraph we feel let down when you get things wrong. We couldn't really care less what the Sun writes about us, hence less 'having a go' in their direction. And as I said earlier, we aren't a bunch of particularly sensitive souls in this line of work, so you have to expect a bit of rough-and-tumble from time to time.

OK, so to round off a pretty long post for a Friday evening, I don't feel like starting some kind of long running argument over this so I suggest settling it like honourable men. IF, by let's say 31 Dec, there has been an announcement of the loss of the Harrier and Puma fleets, and Cranwell, I'll either:

a) start a 'Grovelling Apology to the Daily Telegraph' thread, or
b) send you a bottle of bubbly (I guess 'Michael Smith, c/o Daily Telegraph, big pointy tower, London, would get through?)

Your choice. Of course, if the cuts haven't come, you'll return the favour a la Jacks Down!

Feel free to PM :) , otherwise, good night!

JD

[edited for typos]

[Front Seater]

Mr Smith,

Thank you for having the honour to openly debate on this forum. Undoubtedly you have earned respect, even if some on the forum continue to disagree. However, I will add that the average Serviceman views the Daily Telegraph as an authoritive source and I agree that the Mail and Sun can print what they like. To that end my only plea is to ensure that there is no doubt in the reader's mind as to exactly how confident you are with your information.

We are use to crew room gossip and 'snippets' and also to 'well informed information that provides the 'heads up', so please if you personally believe that you do have a trustworthy and reliable source then tell us that, if it is Mr Smith (I've been in the game for a while) hunch to inform the debate or get your readers thinking, then again tell us. Both Mr Hastings and Mr Keegan appear to be able to merge hard fact with thought provoking ideas and still be able able to articulate their cases.

Your challenge now is to see exactly where 'the further work' not announced this week is going. The devil is always in the detail, and although the quake has been felt throughout all three Services, I believe that there are numerous 'after shocks' that will be appearing in the autumn, ranging from Estate rationalisation through to the equipment projects that do not attract so much attention as Typhoon.

[micksmith]

Jacks Down

Thanks for the post. There are a few journalistic realities here which mean that I will have to take some of your criticism on the chin. Sorry lads another long post but might be worth reading for an insight into the way newspapers work.

Re the RAF Regt.
Patrick Hennesey and Sean Rayment write for the Sunday Telegraph. This is another of those internet telegraph things. The Sunday Telegraph and the Daily Telegraph are two completely different and separate papers but they merge into one on the internet Telegraph. We have no control over what they write and they have no control over what we write.

Re the Harriers. There were two articles in the Daily Telegraph on 2 April. The first was the one that you referred to and was a front-page “write-off” of the second inside article on Page 10 which made it clear that these were proposals put forward by the “work strands” and with regard to the Harriers included the quote in my previous post. This is it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/
2004/04/02/ncuts102.xml[/url]

Re the Pumas. Fully accept it has been unequivocal throughout. Worth pointing out the quotes from the civil servant involved and the senior officer.

Re Cranwell, and this is the take it on the chin bit, I have gone back to my notes and the source was talking originally about an ongoing review of shore-based naval establishments, which was considering the possibility of closing Dartmouth and leasing out parts of Devonport to commercial companies. When I focused on Dartmouth, he said there were in fact proposals to move all RN and RAF officer training to Shrivenham.

Ah you say, proposals you say, but the Torygraph said Cranwell “will” close.

I’m going to plead guilty as charged here but with mitigation, using what might be called the MI6 defence.

Say a careful journalist, not me obviously, files a carefully caveated piece that might hypothetically say:

“THE MOD is trying to force the PPRUNE website to close down its military forum and to identify all the serving RAF officers who have posted comments on it.

“If the MoD has its way, the army’s ARRSE military forums will also be closed down…”

People above his pay grade might think, wrongly in my opinion: Well that’s not a bad story but it would read better if it said:

“THE PPRUNE website’s military forum faces closure with the identity of all the serving RAF officers who have posted comments on it handed over to the MoD.

“The army’s ARRSE military forums will also be closed down…”

There is an inference that both the PPRUNE and ARRSE military forums only “face” closure but the ordinary reader is entitled to read it as a done deal, certainly in the ARRSE case. I should emphasise this is only a hypothetical case. I’ve never written about the ARRSE military forums.

So, to recap:

RAF Regt: Not guilty (although I believe the prosecution has dropped charges).

Harriers: Not guilty. I said Jock Stirrup wasn’t going to let it happen. I’m not sure now why I was so confident but I was right.

Pumas and Cranwell: Guilty as charged. I was unequivocal and, despite my plea in mitigation on the second charge, I will take it on the chin if I am wrong.

The key word is “if”. As Front Seater says, estate rationalisation and helicopters are still to come, along with a whole range of other things. The cuts are already bad but they are only going to get worse and yes Front Seater we will keep on top of that.

As for Jacks Down’s challenge. No deal with the Harriers in it. But without them, game on.

[Tigs2]

Just returned from the middle east - utterly dismayed!

A study was conducted amongst senior commanders to ascertain what skills and qualities they deemed essential for a good Officer. High up on their list of essentials (in the top 3) was 'Moral Courage'.
How sad it is that none of the current chiefs seems to possess a nanogram of this 'essential quality'. They are a bunch of spinless so and so's (being v careful to watch my language!) who have sold out the military and the hard working, selfless, servicemen and women who have given so much, all to ensure that they secure their knighthoods and peerages. Another quality they deemed essential was 'Loyalty'. Clearly our lordships consider that this is a quality that must only be delivered one-way - from our people to the service. Regardless of our peoples efforts the management(and service) clearly reserve the right to withdraw their obligation to return unquestionable loyalty.

One thing they(our lords and masters) must have are kuhooners the size of jupiter. Lets face it they have those, for Gen Jackson to announce the cuts on one day, and the next announce that we may be sending 5000 troops to Sudan(but we are not over- stretched!), his wotsits must be made of Tungsten. Either that or he is the love child of General Hague and Gen Melchitt.


Sleep easy at night your lordships, and when on your rocking chairs in 20 years time you can reflect on what you did for the services when you were put in the privilaged position of 'being in command' - you shafted them! Good pension though eh!

And bye the way don't worry about all the seperation for the families. The military will not have a divorce problem, because no-one has time to see a solicitor!

rant over!:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Oggin Aviator]

How sad it is that none of the current chiefs seems to possess a nanogram of this 'essential quality'.
Tigs 2 - Reading between the lines I think the current First Sea Lord was against these cuts - I do not instinctively welcome the early disposal of good ships ...
Quote here. (http://www.mod.uk/issues/security/cm6269/cns.htm)

As the captain of a frigate in the Falklands he came under sustained air attack. With his ship badly damaged and probably on its last legs (metaphorically) and facing yet another air attack, he bravely ordered his crew to bring the ship's weapons arcs to bear and once more face the enemy.

IMHO that is Moral Courage.

If the chiefs had stood up and really argued these cuts, they would have been sacked and replaced by someone who would agree. Why do you think the last CDS ( a naval officer) left his post a year early - not happy at servicemen being used to fight fires per chance ?
I think they are in a catch 22 situation - agree and be damned by the boys, disagree and be sacked.

I dont know what the answer is.

Yes we are getting smaller, concentrating on capability effects from less people but better equipment (?) but in my very humble opinion quantity has a quality all of its own. (and I bet someone else said that at some point).

[flipster]

Tigs2

Please be careful about what you say about their Lordships on a public forum, especially in the current climate.

3 reasons

1. It could be construed as going against QRs etc and 'They' are keen to stamp out such dissent - apparently.

2. They are also human beings with families and (big) mortgages. There are some 'good uns' but Og Av has alluded their dillema - speak up and get the order of the boot or keep schtum to keep the pay and get the knighthood. A difficult decision for anyone at any level.

3. They also believe they are the 'best men for the job' and those below them will never be quite as good as they are. Resignation has probably crossed the minds of a few but remember what happened to Adm Boyce, AM Gaydon and an F3 Sqn Cdr (emulating Sir Douglas Bader) when he said "this Sqn is non-operational"? They fell on their swords and someone more able to say "Yessir, No sir, 3 bags full sir" stepped over their 'dead bodies' to take over. So, individuals saying "Up yours Buff" is unlikely.

However, imagine the political statement if the Def Council/AFB resigned en masse. The result of their collective strength would emphasise the difference of opinion and lack of trust between the Services and their political 'masters'. I wouldn't mind betting that a few Airships with active consciences have thought about this. Sadly, this won't happen either and I can understand why.

Notwithstanding Reason 2, I suspect it would change nothing in the short term but it MIGHT just tip the balance in favour of another political party in the Gen Election as New Labour flounder with numerous cOck-ups in other arenas. Their Lordships may have been able to play this card but its too late now.

But even if NL fell as a result of such a dramatic event, who would replace 'Tony's Cronies' - Lib Dems?.....lordy no! Tories?....yuk and look what they did to the military between 1982 -1997!!! Frankly, there is no difference between all of them and NL. 'Our Tone', however, wants to be 'world player' and he needs some clout. If he didn't, do you think we would be getting 2 new carriers, Typhoon, JSF, C17, UAVs etc??? I think we would be in a whole lot deeper doo-doo than we are at the moment. So our Lordships might argue that 'better the devil we know......etc'

Bottom Line..... THERE ARE NO VOTES IN DEFENCE and our Lordships know that - they are staving off repeated attacks on our budget by Big Bad Gordon. To fall on their swords would only leave the way open to him taking more and more or ultimately, someone even worse getting into govt.

Jees - what a mess?! One day, most regrettably, I guarantee this saga will end with our illustrious Forces losing to some tin-pot country whose people are not fit to lick the boots of our soldiers, sailors and airmen whom deserve better kit and support. Even if it is predictable, it will be unforgiveable.

I think it was Sun Tzsu who said

"He who fails to learn from history is condemned to repeat it"

[Tigs2]

Og Av, Flipster

Fair points chaps, as I said just returned from hot and sunny places, disillusioned, tired and emotional!

Flipster, it is my understanding that the F3 sqn commander recently got promoted - excellent news!

[Radar Muppet]

.....to Air Cdre no less! A great bloke and inspirational leader he is too, if just a little mad!

[Jacks Down]

Mike Smith,

Game on. Bet is that there will not be an annoucement of the loss/closure/move of the Puma fleet AND Cranwell (the Initial Officer Training part thereof, not another unit based there) by 31 Dec 04.

Quietly confident!

JD

[flipster]

Okay fair hit - in fact, I am very glad to be wrong - said fella is a rarity - good on him!

At the higher echelons, however, I doubt if anyone is likely to fall on aforementioned Wilkinsons' hardware for stated reasons - sadly, its too late this time but I will happy to be proved wrong again.

I am sure those who were around then remember the positive vibes felt across the Services when Michael Portaloo was told "Hands off my Air Force!". Inevitably, the gloom and despair returned after CAS was 'told' to apologise. Even at that level, the 'mandarins and ministers' can always get one over on the top military brass.

C'est la guerre!

[solotk]

Very latest via BBC tonight

BBMF faces the chop too.

I think we're agreed this has gone far enough.

Where's that ballot box :mad:

[Scud-U-Like]

I think flipster has very accurately summed up the reality of the situation.

[insty66]

Flipster

I agree with your words but by no one standing up and saying the right thing, does that not just further highlight a lack of moral courage?
Sometime you have to state your beliefs regardless of whom you might upset or what ever the personal consequences, especially if it is the right thing to do. That is IMHO the beginning of moral courage and leadership.

As for cuts a v.brief exchange with a 1* seems to confirm to me that we haven't finished yet. As the real estate is sold off we will need even fewer personell to support us all (admin & security were mentioned) but I'm quite happy to wait and see

[flipster]

I didn't say I agreed with the moral or ethos of high level politics - its just the way it is - very, very sadly!

History will repeat itself - it always does.

BU**ER - I hate being on the losing side!

[TheBeeKeeper]

Just received on internal mail....

STAFF GUIDANCE ON DEFENCE RESTRUCTURING


1. This guidance is being issued to remedy a perceived difficulty experienced by Staff at all levels in understanding the rationale behind recent Defence re-structuring. In particular many Staff Officers seem not to understand how reducing the numbers of aircraft, ships, tanks, artillery and soldiers results in a more flexible, robust and effective fighting force.

2. In particular it seems that much of the confusion stems from a systemic misunderstanding of the correct use of military terminology. A list of common terms and actual meanings follows.

3. In addition there follows an explanation of the key assumptions embedded within the Defence Review. All Staff Officers are encouraged to seek clarification through their Chain of Command if they still have any questions.

4. Staff Terminology used in the new Defence Plan;

Term MOD meaning

Flexible- a. Smaller
b. Unable to operate unless under US protection

Robust- a. Smaller
b. Lacking reserves or regeneration capability

Networked- Smaller, but still unable to talk to each other

Capable- Smaller

Agile- Really, really small

Deployability- Method of making the Forces, primarily the Army, able to send higher percentages of their manpower to a distant location. This is achieved by reducing the overall numbers involved, i.e. “In future the Army will be able to send 50% of it’s manpower to Africa in the back of a Cessna, thus achieving greater deployability”.

Reach- The distance the American’s are willing to fly us

Efficient- Much, much smaller

Streamlined- Just unbelievably small

Just in time- For the funeral.

Integrated- Process by which all three services get to brief against each other in public leaks, attempting to justify and defend their own budget against cuts, thereby doing the Treasury’s work for them. Taken to extremes by the Army in which Corps and Regiments fight each other, and perfected within the Infantry.

Technically ambitious- a. Slang, as in “He was being a bit technically ambitious when he tried to drive that car through the wall” (cf, “To propose a Bowman”)

b. Description of the far future

Reserves- Integral part of current Operational Manning.

Rationalisation- a. Cuts
b. Psychological term, meaning to use complicated arguments to avoid facing unpalatable truths, i.e. , “we don’t need to pay for both expensive servicemen and equipment, because we will be networked, agile, and technically ambitious” .

Rapid- Used in a comparative sense, as in “The rapid erosion of the Himalayan Mountains…”

Modernisation- Cuts

Radical- Deep Cuts

Transformation- Really Deep Cuts

Sustainable- Assuming zero casualties, no leave and no emergencies.

Sentences such as “these proposals capture our aim for a speedy deployable, agile, joint and integrated, technically ambitious defence capability” will make more logical sense to the experienced Staff Officer once the above definitions are applied.

4. It will also help if Staff Officer’s bear in mind the following Planning Principles. Point C will be of particular relevance in explaining the rationale behind restructuring to Junior Staff.

a. Use of Special Forces. No one in the general Public has a clue how many there are, so they can be announced as deploying to every country in the world.

b. Aggressive use of terminology can compensate for lack of actual forces. For example in the past effective deterrence of a reasonably capable Maritime threat would require the despatch of a task force, consisting of destroyers, frigates, submarines and possibly even a carrier. In the future this task will still be achieved by a task force; but task-force will be the new description for a mine-sweeper.

c. The new Defence Plan was not resource driven. A comprehensive strategic estimate was conducted, from first principles, identifying the current and potential threats to the UK and it’s interests, allowing a reserve for the unexpected, and also allowing for recurrent non-warfighting tasks such as Fire Strike cover and Foot and Mouth disease. Against the tasks identified an ideal manpower establishment and Task Org was then identified. By an amazing coincidence it happened to fit almost exactly within current Treasury MOD expenditure plans, and even allow the MOD to carry half the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan.

d. Much of the current crisis in Defence Spending can be directly traced to the high costs of legacy equipments. These were ordered at a time of ignorance in the past when Planners naively seemed to believe that the threat they identified as imminent would remain the same for the 20-30 year service life of the equipment they were ordering. The assumption in the 1980’s and 90’s that tanks, artillery, and aircraft would be needed in the future was ridiculous, as none of these equipments have been used by the British Armed forces to any degree since the Falklands war.
However, current planners possess better foresight and are able to predict future threats for at least the next 40 years. We are therefore able to be certain that Britain is unlikely to need any tanks, aircraft, submarines etc. past about 2015.

e. Britain no longer needs a significant anti-submarine capability. No other nation possesses submarines in any numbers, submarine technology is unlikely to advance at all over the next few 30 years, and should anti-submarine technology or skills be required at any point in the future they can be reconstituted overnight from the reserves. (Once the reserves have been reconstituted). In any case by 2020 the UK will be fully integrated into mainland Europe, and will therefore no longer have a coastline to defend or be reliant upon sea-supply.

f. Similar arguments apply to air defence.

g. The Regimental System. In the past the Regimental System has been seen as the corner-stone of British Military success, creating a system in which the individual is made to feel part of a greater family, often stretching back hundreds of years, in which he is nurtured and developed, and to which he feels such great loyalty that he is inspired to sacrifice himself if need be for his Regimental comrades. However, the British youth of today are so naturally self-sacrificing and community spirited that additional incentives are now unnecessary, and in any case the threat to soldiers on the ground has been assumed away. There is therefore no further need for a system whose main purpose is to generate fighting spirit, and it can be safely emasculated to achieve administrative efficiency (see “Efficient” above).

h. High divorce rates within the Services will solve manpower crises, by ensuring all service personnel will be happy to conduct back-to-back tours forever, as no one will have any families or friends to miss.

i. Savings will be ploughed into the purchase of large numbers of hats. This will be essential as in future everyone will be at least treble or quadruple hatted. Wars will be fought in rotation on a strict “first come, first served” basis.

k. Future savings will be made by abolishing all training for the Chiefs of Staff. After all they haven’t proven remotely as effective at manoeuvre warfare, disruption, dislocation or divide-and-rule as the Treasury.

l. Successive efficiency measures can be made to reinforce each other. For example, each time troop numbers are cut, a unit can then be tasked to conduct the same jobs as before. Provided there are no actual massacres of Friendly Forces, the new troop numbers can be seen to have been fully as effective as the previous numbers, and so can form a baseline for achieving efficiency cuts to new troop numbers. Savings can then be invested in new equipment, in the same way that British Airways fires half its pilots every time it needs to buy a new plane. The ultimate aim is to have one man, but equipped like Dr Octopus. He will sleep with one eye open at all times to replicate full manning.
m. Key Assumptions: Current levels of operations are an aberration, will never be repeated, and should form no guide to current manning requirements, let alone future ones. Gerry Adams has embraced peace, there is no more requirement for crowd control in Northern Ireland, the FBU have forsworn strikes along with all other key public workers, Osama Bin Laden is about to hand himself in and the Easter Bunny will be providing Area Air Defence for London.

5. More detailed guidance can be found in JSP 4708- “Magic Mushrooms, their consumption, effects and results in the MOD” and Minister Hoon’s Autobiography “What Colour is the Sky in My World?”




I M Promoted
SO2 Spin
Ministry of Truth

[Jackonicko]

It's not an accurate transcript. Its SO1 Spin, not SO2......

[twenty2fifty]

beekeeper,

you need a medal for that!

trouble is, how true it is!

1/2 glad I deal with a different military now.

[TheBeeKeeper]

twenty2fifty,

Wish I could take credit for it, however sadly as stated right at the top....... Just received on internal mail, doubt anyone would actually be owning up to it, unless their PVR was in the post already!

TheBeeKeeper
(DH82b)

As a point to note.... any aircrew visiting CAM for a course in near future that would like to share the costs for 1/2 hour in a Tiger Moth, more than willing to oblige! PM if interested, you will be shocked how cheap it is, as I am not allowed to make money out of it....... looking to hours build for Display Auth and CPL etc!

[Gingerbread Man]

How about a new approach to cost cutting - instead of closing bases and getting rid of aircraft, a simple role change might save a few pounds. This one is called 'Search Or Rescue'. This will save money because it will eliminate either the hovering part, or the looking part, from the mission. I'm fairly confident it would work.

Ginge :rolleyes:

[JessTheDog]

The Staff Guidance is excellent! It could almost have sprung from a "study day!" :D

BTW, has anyone seen the expensive-looking A3 book on "effects-based-warfare" foreworded by VCDS? My, that must have cost a bit, we must have money to burn.

However, it does not have the frisbee utility of the "Air Power" CD!

Plea to our Airships - can any future publicity freebies be distributed using USB memory sticks, so we can wipe the blurb and use them for our own devices? Thank you! I have the honour etc..

[ZH875]

BeeKeeper (DH82b) wrote:
As a point to note.... any aircrew visiting CAM for a course in near future that would like to share the costs for 1/2 hour in a Tiger Moth, more than willing to oblige! PM if interested, you will be shocked how cheap it is, as I am not allowed to make money out of it....... looking to hours build for Display Auth and CPL etc!
And I thought the Tiger Moth was a DH82a.

---DH Moth Club Ground Handler @ Woburn for many years---

[Yeller_Gait]

ZH875,

and your comments have exactly what to do with this thread ???

Just to follow on with Gingerbread Man's train of thought, what about AWOCS ? If (Buff) Hoon decided to re-role the a/c in the AW role only, within a few months I am sure he could justify scrapping the aircraft altogether. :cool:

[JessTheDog]

How about ditching all the corporate comms bulls:mad: t?

If the money thus saved was reinvested in kit then highly embarrassing headlines like the HCDC report today would be avoided and there would be no need to attempt to generate positive publicity!

No, that will never catch on!:yuk:

[BATCO]

Jess the dog

I too got the Effects Based Warfare $h*te.

As a former plans officer where did the forewrod writer get the idea that you could 'build a new barrack block for a million or whatever' (sorry mates I'm in Baghdad at the mo and haven't got my copy to hand for an accurate quotation).

How in touch was he then when he wrote that?... how in touch has he ever been? I seem to remember in the TACEVAL days at LEUZ that following a number of false alarm air raids called by the Rapier bods he announced personally on the tannoy that 'this was not an air raid, take off your respirators and get on with your jobs'. Small problem: this one was a 24 x F111 air raid supported by the EF111. Doh! But I digress.

Bee: thanks for taking my Dad for a 'Moth ride on his birthday. He still talks about it! Recommend it to anyone (do I get a recruiting bonus for the endorsement?)

Byeeee from the big sandpit

[TheBeeKeeper]

ZH875

Sorry, guilty as charged, DH82b is the de Havilland Queen Bee, anyone heard of it? Ah, just as I thought, easier to say you fly a Moth.... looks almost identical, but the Bee is the last flying example in the world!

BATCO

Did I? When was that, have taken one or two people flying recently.

TheMothBeeKeeper
(DH82b)

[Anton Meyer]

BATCO

Without giving too much away, have you noticed any effects from defence cuts on the, ahem, front line?:ugh:

[BATCO]

Bee

The old man went for a Tiger ride at Henlow about a year ago ('cos it's nearly birthday time for him again - case of wine this year from Wine Direct). Just thought your ref to CAM put you at Henlow.

AM

Despite my handle mate, I can't crack your code!

PPRuNe posts don't come from UK (as stated in the footer)..I couldn't be ARRSEd to change the email stuff.

Scores on the doors from the 'front' (Corps HQ I know but still north of ........ ): probably hear GR4 daily, see CH47 and Lynx from time to time (great flypast over the lake No 7), C130 daily and that must be a Tristar flashing its way south at about ****D over to the east.

Effect on the front line? Quelle front? I bought the stuff about non-linear warfare from another pamphlet!!

I just hope there are enough Tristars left to get me home later this month.

Good luck to the next shift! (and Happy Christmas in case I'm too busy)

BATCO:ok: