Calls for more military spending!!!!

[awayday]

The head of NATO says European countries need to increase military spending in the wake of the United States terror attacks. And he warns that America will expect them to shoulder more responsibility within the alliance in future.

Does anybody (The Chiefs) expect us (The Indians) to supply an even wider demand of our VERY limited assets to an ever-increasing number of worldwide theatres?

I feel an un-presidented increase of military expenditure is necessary to meet the tasks required. We need better kit, more of it and more bums on seats. When will MOD and the purse holders see this for real?

Hopefully when we haven't been caught with our defence assets trousers down.

What do YOU think??? :confused:

[Tourist]

Do you really need to ask the question? Has anybody on the website ever asked for less money and toys? What a vacuous post! :rolleyes:

[awayday]

Are there any very high-up people that read this and can justify NOT investing in our nations defence? Tourist seems to be one of those who knows what he is talking about, but is willing to sit it out and let the ship drift by. If my previous is a vacuous post then whilst it may be vacuous, it does not take away the fact that it is TRUE. Sir Michael Graydon stood his ground, if only for a day, a number of years ago. That is the spirit and conviction that needs to be conveyed to those playing toy soldiers with our nation's defence. :mad:

[Jackonicko]

New Labour maintains that we just need a new chapter to the fiasco that was SDR. The pretence remains that the SDR was a proportionate, properly funded attempt to reconfigure UK armed forces to meet post Cold War requirements (and not a well-argued but ultimately cynical justification for swingeing cuts which dramatically increased overstretch and torpedoed morale).

Thus the attack on the WTC and Pentagon by about 20 terrorists was unpredictable because of its scale.

What is needed is a recognition that SDR talked the talk (that it was necessary to re-configure the armed forces to meet the needs of a new and less predictable world, with increased emphasis on expensive out-of-area and expeditionary capabilities) but didn't walk the walk.

With war against Afghanistan looming, maybe we need to recognise that the Trident nuclear capability is an expensive luxury, and that Special Forces, Para Battalions, transport aircraft and deployable FJs are more relevant than six modernised tank regiments and maintaining infantry numbers.

If we can't repeat a Granby-sized contribution to an air war, and if UK AD isn't significantly strengthened then SDR and its latest incarnation will have failed to address the requirements of the unstable and unpredictable world in which we now live.

Retain the Jags to 2015 (and then replace them with JAS 39), retain three F3 squadrons in the 'Weasel' role, and order more EFs (six/seven squadrons isn't enough).

To restore capabilities to the 1990 level would apparently cost £10 Bn extra per year.

[BEagle]

Even Hoon has announced that a 'review' is required!

Right - let the first thing to go be the ridiculous idea to use a mercenary PPP organisation to provide our next generation tanker transport and the next be the death of MFTS!! Which I've heard even those involved in the project (and who didn't like me 'well poisoning' MFTS) describe as 'a crock of $hit'!!

[1.3VStall]

Hoon? Just where the fcuk is he in the current crisis? All I've seen in the media is our grinning el presidente and Hoon's predecessor across in Brussels. Come out, come out wherever you are, Buff, we'd all like to know where you stand.

[eXtreme]

Some sound arguments here. What it needs is some concerted efforts by civilians (me & others) lobying our local MP's.

Hopefully, this thread will be read by the press so they will report accordingly. We need to spend some money on our National defences before it is too late, if it isn't already.

"The lowest percentage of our GNP is being spent on Defence since the late 19th century" - HELP!

[Suit]

Jacko,

Whilst yet ANOTHER review is hard to swallow, it is equally hard to deny that in the light of recent events it is fully justified.

I think it a litle harsh to describe the SDR cuts as "swingeing." Reconfiguring from an unsustainable and increasingly irrelevant Cod War stance WAS needed.

I agree wholehearted;l about Trident, but surely that expense has long peaked, cutting it now would not save a vast fortune surely, but would remove a vast (if unuseable) capability.

Special Forces will undoubtedly be the recipients of extra funding, as will the likes of the Paras and the RM. But more FJ's, why? They are hardly relevant in a theatre like Afghanistan, certainly not in numbers greater than we have now. How are we going to use more than we have, will we ever NEED to mount a Granby sized operation again?

Human intelligence assets, SF, para-military and security resources are where we will need to focus in what is a real new world.

Strengthen UK AD, why? All the F3's and Typhoons in the world wouldn't have helped us on Sept 11th if the threat had been coming our way. A fully tooled up AD aircraft is helples against a suitcase bomb or a ballistic missile, and they are what we should be worrying about.

If the free world is serious about a sustained assault on terrorism, and I have my doubts that it is, then the UK forces will need to be substantially different to their present make up, fact!

BEagle,

I think you just may get your wish!
Methinks that FSTA is being looked at in a very different light right now. An already fragile economic justification appears to have REALLY gone off the rails. There will never be a better time to ACQUIRE decent second hand 767 or L1011 frames than now.

1.3VStall,

You obviously didn't hear his speech at the Party conference, then you'd KNOW where he stood.

eXtreme,

Lobby your MP to do what precisely? We currently spend 2.5% of the our GDP on defence, that's £23 Billion this year and a further increase has been announced taking it to £25Billion by 2003/4.
That's a greater per cent of GDP than the NATO average and of a GDP significantly greater than in this nations history.

Apart from the terrorist threat there is NO other real world threat to the UK, we are less at risk now than at any time since the late 19th Century.

Suit

[awayday]

>>Suit wrote>>Whilst yet ANOTHER review is hard to swallow, it is equally hard to deny that in the light of recent events it is fully justified.

Why when we say REVIEW do we think CUTS? It is a trend that has been with us since the end of the Cold War, in that sense I agree with Suit.

>>Suit wrote>>But more FJ's, why? They are hardly relevant in a theatre like Afghanistan, certainly not in numbers greater than we have now. How are we going to use more than we have, will we ever NEED to mount a Granby sized operation again?

A reactive defence will always remain defensive. We need to be prepared, not hang around the international corners with trousers around our ankles. It is opinions like this that will condemn us further from superpower status, and therefore puppets thoughout future conflicts. What would you have said with hind sight in August 1990?

>>Suit wrote>>Strengthen UK AD, why? All the F3's and Typhoons in the world wouldn't have helped us on Sept 11th if the threat had been coming our way. A fully tooled up AD aircraft is helples against a suitcase bomb or a ballistic missile, and they are what we should be worrying about.

Then intel is the way ahead unless we radically change freedom rights in the UK, that is not my bag, I would leave discussions like that to the tree-huggers. Please Suit, tell me that others in your apparent position can see beyond thier own nose, you would be a great guy to have around - the day AFTER a military decision needed to be made.

>>Suit wrote>>We currently spend 2.5% of the our GDP on defence, that's £23 Billion this year and a further increase has been announced taking it to £25Billion by 2003/4.
That's a greater per cent of GDP than the NATO average and of a GDP significantly greater than in this nations history.

BUT IT WILL NOT BE ENOUGH!!!

>>Suit wrote>>Apart from the terrorist threat there is NO other real world threat to the UK, we are less at risk now than at any time since the late 19th Century.

You are not wrong, TODAY. Do I need to go on about being prepared? I was never a Boy Scout but it makes sense.

Disclaimer: I will never be a suit making big decisions, nor will I make a high profile military strategist. (Analogy time)I belond at the coalface for the time-being, and I can only speak my tiny mind from the clutches of that coal face. I DO know that we do not have enough tools, enough people and the coal face is getting bigger. Also those on the surface are making decisions on the premise of a geologist armed only with barometer and a slide rule. :eek: :eek:

[Al Titude]

awayday
Whilst like most I would welcome an increase in the number of FJ assets the UK has, surely a more pressing problem is the forecast severe shortage of pilots in that role. Despite recent events, the force will still be well below current pilot levels, leaving even fewer people to do even more roles.
The Gov't needs to ensure it can fill the shortfalls in manpower across all 3 services before it considers trying to increase the size of any of them!

[Up Very Gently]

Tourist - good call on this being a "vacuous" thread. Absolutely no interest or debate at all!! Nice one. :rolleyes:

[awayday]

Al Titude:
I shal re-quote myself as I obviously agree.
"I feel an un-presidented increase of military expenditure is necessary to meet the tasks required. We need better kit, more of it and more bums on seats.

Up Very Gently:
If you feel that way then either add something constructive to the argument with some base level of sincerity, or waste somebody elses bandwidth with a pointless comment that has very little substance.

[Jackonicko]

Suit

You said: "Apart from the terrorist threat there is NO other real world threat to the UK, we are less at risk now than at any time since the late 19th Century."

The whole point about the Post Cold War world is that it is inherently unpredictable, and threats (whether direct, or merely to our interests) can develop more quickly than we can develop defences against them. The only 'near certainty' is that the Soviet threat from the East has gone, and can never reappear at the same level. But threats remain, whether 'small scale' and assymetric or large scale. Who can safely assume that we won't need to do another 'Granby-sized op'? I'd have thought that that was a reasonable 'high end' threat against which armed forces should be sized.

You also ask "Why more FJ's?" and suggest that they are "hardly relevant in a theatre like Afghanistan, certainly not in numbers greater than we have now."

Afghanistan is a specific case, and in any event, the usefulness of FJs (supported by Special Forces to identify and designate targets) could still be pivotal, if Western foreign policy is not so inept as to rule out basing in neighbouring countries. (Quick rule of thumb - if you can't get nearby basing, your military plan is probably unsupportable morally/politically).

And even if there's never a Granby-sized op again, I believe that a force of that 1990-era size is probably required in order to sustain more modest peacekeeping comitments without the crippling overstretch and plummeting morale we have seen since 1990.

You ask why we should Strengthen UK AD.

Because it's inadequate to meet any threat (even a determined push by the Belgian Air Force) and because F-15s and F-16s based closer to NY and DC, and with NORAD warned sooner could have made some difference on Sept 11th. Equually F3s could possibly make a difference to an attack aimed against London, but perhaps not if they struggle to get two aircraft on the line each day, don't mount permanent QRA and are based in Scotland and North Yorkshire. Yes, a fighter is useless against a suitcase bomb or a ballistic missile, but we must be prepared against the full threat spectrum, and must not concentrate narrowly only on what is considered to be today's most likely threat.

UKAD today seems adequate only to contribute AD assets to expeditionary forces, and not to actually defend UK airspace, should the need ever arise. I believe that's dangerous.

[Suit]

JN,

Fair point about the unpredictability of the post Cold War world, isn't that why we retain a force of it's current size? The UK armed forces are supposed to be sized and structured to meet small scale or asymetric threats up to a Granby sized Op.

I don't doubt the potential usefulness of FJ's, I just query the need for a force larger than it is going to be. Surely 7 Eurothingy squadrons at 16 a time plus a large OEU and OCU, along with 7 GR4 Sqn's, 3 Harrier Sqns with their attendant OCU/OEU's IS going to be sufficient to meet contingencies?

If we had dealt with Saddam properly last time then there would be no need for Northern and Southern air exclusion patrols. If he is targetted this time round and we take it as far as we should then those deployments will be history.

How can 5 F3 Squadrons plus OCU be inadequate (cue electric spaz jet jokes) for UK AD against NO threat, when for years during the Cold War, when there WAS a threat, the same number of Squadrons of short range Lightnings armed with 2 dubious infra red AAM WERE considered adequate?

Like the Belgian quip by the way!

The fact that the RAF struggles to get qty 2 F3's on the line is a condemnation of their logistics and support organisation surely?
I still maintain that having more AD squadrons will count for diddly squat against an attack aimed at London. It also smacks of training and equipping to fight the LAST war, something that the west is unusually good at.

Suit

[1.3VStall]

Suit,

You got the number of Lightning squadrons wrong by about 100%. There were two each at Leuchars, Binbrook, Wattisham and Gutersloh with a ninth at Akrotiri and 65 Sqn (OCU) at Coltishall had a war role. (Not forgetting, of course, 74 Sqn in Singapore).

Now those really were the days!

[ 04 October 2001: Message edited by: 1.3VStall ]

[Suit]

1.3vStall,

Not wrong at all, 11 and 23 at Leuchars, 5 at Binbrook, 111 and 29 at Wattisham. The OCU was there but so is the F3 OCU so the comparison is still valid. We were comparing UK AD not the global Lightning fleet!
I know that in 1969 43 came on the scene with surplus FAA Phantom FG1's but my point remains as it was, that UK AD then was mounted by a similar number of squadrons when the threat was real, recognised and there for all to see.

Suit

[Overstretch]

Beags

I think it was in Flight recently that BA are V keen to get rid of their 767s...Fast. prices quoted were £20 - 40M per ac. Don't know if that is a good price or not but I guess the RAF can't afford them anyway. Still if the recession bites a bit more the price might come down!!!! Also saw that Gulf Air are looking at rationalization of their fleet and that they had 6 767s that they might be looking to sell. Looks like the market could be flooded with 767s soon. Perhaps the price will come down enough that even HM Treasury see the logic of buying them rather than PFI-ing them.

On the subject of the Defence budget the Sunday Times ran a very good article a couple of weekends ago that said for the UK to return to a level of Defence expenditure comparable to that of the US (in GDP terms Suit) Gordon Broooooon would have to inject £14 Billion into defence. Anyone see that happening? Anyway I thought the defence budget was up in the 3 - 5% area during the Cold War, not the measly 2 and a bit % of now!!

[awayday]

>>Suit wrote>>I don't doubt the potential usefulness of FJ's, I just query the need for a force larger than it is going to be. Surely 7 Eurothingy squadrons at 16 a time plus a large OEU and OCU, along with 7 GR4 Sqn's, 3 Harrier Sqns with their attendant OCU/OEU's IS going to be sufficient to meet contingencies?

I Disagree. I am not aware of ANY Eurothingy squadrons that are CR at the moment. Also, of the squadrons that we have now, how many of them are; 100% manned, receive the logistics support necessary to have servicable jets on the line, have an acceptable level of dilution across the experience spectrum?

>>Suit wrote>>If we had dealt with Saddam properly last time then there would be no need for Northern and Southern air exclusion patrols. If he is targetted this time round and we take it as far as we should then those deployments will be history.

Agreed. However, without the need for these deployments, it would not necessitate downsizing our AD force based on theweak assumption that they would no longer be needed.

>>Suit wrote>>How can 5 F3 Squadrons plus OCU be inadequate (cue electric spaz jet jokes) for UK AD against NO threat, when for years during the Cold War, when there WAS a threat, the same number of Squadrons of short range Lightnings armed with 2 dubious infra red AAM WERE considered adequate?

When the OCU dilute the front line squadrons by taking crews from <100% manned squadrons. When the OCU no longer participate in the Falklands commitments. When there are 1/3 of a squadron strength always in the Falklands. When there is a squadron always in Op Resinate. When there is a squadron away on exercise getting some REQUIRED training for when the sh!t hits the fan, for real. When some crews actually get some time off with their families. Now, without doing the math, figure it out yourself clever clogs...!!!!!

Do you know the manning on any of the squadrons of the RAF, ME, RW and FJ? If I ever found out that I was under the control of people with your lack of commitment to the defence of our country and the people that we protect, I would feel ashamed to admit I was a member of HMFs. :eek:

[Archimedes]

Sorry, Suit, but have to disagree. The Cold War AD force may have been deemed adequate for public consumption, but wasn't really, despite the best efforts of all involved. The rot set in in 1957 with the Sandys review: AD was to be taken over by missiles. The Frightening was allowed to proceed on the grounds that it had gone too far to cancel, and would not recieve much additional funding (explaining why it took until the Mark 6 to get the larger belly tank and why all the realtively cheap but clever and apparently effective upgrades proposed were never adopted). Of course, the missiles never arrived - apart from Bloodhound, but, oddly enough, the airframes to make up the short fall didn't arrive either.

Pre-Sandys, there were twenty odd RAuxAF fighter units, which although equipped with the Meteor and Vampire (arguably still just adequate against the bomber threat)at the time of the review, were intended to get the Swift (oops) and the Hunter (which certainly was). In addition, the AD force was far larger. It wasn't reduced because there were too many aircraft but beacuse they cost too much in comparison to the wundermissiles that never actually arrived (which their airships had tried to explain).

To slip into the golf bag cliche - we don't have the full bag of clubs.

In addition, there are serious manning problems, which even a deskbound civvy at the Purple Learning Centre can spot, although fellow PPruners are better qualified to run with this arguement than I.

We are at least two and probably four squadrons down for AD. 56 and 74 were initially meant to be flying the F-4 until about now, (getting replaced by the FEFA as it was called when this plan was first mooted). 19 and 92 were, according to some sources, meant to come back from Germany to reinforce UK AD. Instead, of course, they all went.

We tried this - 'ooh don't need this capability now' in the 1930s. This is why we just got away with the Battle of Britain; why the U-boat threat was far greater than it should have been since it took until 1937 for the threat to shipping to be fully recognised; partly why we didn't have effective tanks; etc, etc.

To throw in my second cliche of the evening, those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. We may not see the threat ('the wildcard'), but just because we don't see it doesn't mean we shouldn't take reasonable precautions. There's a near-earth objects committee, for heaven's [pun not intended] sake, so surely thinking about possible AD threats and the need for a slightly larger force - both manpower and machinery-wise isn't beyond the wit of our leaders.

It is beyond it, though, isn't it? :eek:

[edited to slightly improve clarity, believe it or not]

[ 04 October 2001: Message edited by: Archimedes ]

[Follow Me Through]

Overstretch

Funny old thing - the TTSC bid for FSTA utilises second-hand 767s from BA! Beags knows his stuff on this and is generally close to the mark.
The present PPP sounds like the Emperors Clothes to me. The top solution would be a mixed fleet of Strat and Tac capability AAR(much like now) although with multi-point dispensing on both fleets. How about 6 A330s(Air Tanker Bid) and 15 A310s(Luftwaffe MRTT). However, the military should own them.
It has been interesting to read comment on my initial AD Q about London although on a different thread! Wide divergence of opinions. Apologies if Sangiovese is offended by any of this.

[RubiC Cube]

Suit,

In the mid 80s the defence budget equated to 5% of GDP and it gradually declined to 2.5% today. Yes the Government announced an increase to £25bn by FY2004/5, but on their assumptions it will have fallen to less than 2.4% of GDP and we still have to make annual efficiency savings, create income from the disposal of defence assets and expect "smart acquisition" to make substantial savings on new equipment.

Yes we do need more money, but it needs to be properly focused and so we also need to take a radical look at the "empire builders" who appear to have free rein at the moment. How did we manage in the old days without training officers and RAFIO to mention a few?

[Suit]

Awayday,

Please note the use of the word Is when I mentioned the Eurothingy, I am more than aware of the timescale of this programme thanks!

I do not see how the fact that Squadrons are not 100% manned, receive the optimium level of logs support, or contain the "acceptable level of dilution across the expereince spectrum" (I'd love to see what staff college would make of THAT statement!) can have any affect on the argument for more of them. If you can't man and equip the current number of Squadron's, what on earth is the point of trying to argue for more?

Oh, and by the way, how do you know that your NOT under the command of people with my percieved lack of commitment to Defence?

Archimedes,

I agree with your historical recollection of UK AD since 1957. Your point re public consumption of defence capability is a very valid insight into what I beleive has been the REAL driver behind force levels since 1957.

I am not advocating disarmament, I am not advocating any decrease in the defence budget. I just think that the world has changed for ever and we are trainig equipping and utilising doctrine that is way out of date.

Finally, for all those dispariging remarks re GDP. No-one comes anywhere near the US for GDP spent on defence. The only country ever to do so was the Soviet Union and it broke them.
It is pointless to compare the GDP of the UK now with what it was in the 70's and 80's and try to make a case that there is a masive reduction is defence expenditure. £25 Billion is a lot of OUR money to spend on anything. It is like an insurance premium, an aparent waste of money until you REALLY need it. If it is mispent on outdated concepts then it is an equal waste.

Suit

[Jackonicko]

Suity-tooty!

The UK's armed forces may be supposed to be sized to meet threats up to a Granby sized Op, but plainly couldn't. Granby itself was a stretch, and we have lost at least a dozen fast jet units since then (XV, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 27, 29, 56, 74, 92, and 208 Squadrons). The unpredictability of the post Cold War world means that Granby-sized op should represent the bare minimum 'upper limit' driving force size and structure, and retention/recruitment/training must be fixed in order to re-attain that level ASAP. Unless a larger force size is factored into the equation, there will never be adequate training/recruitment/retention initiatives to support it. Just because squadrons are undermanned now doesn't mean that we shouldn't be working on both making up the existing shortfall and expanding to regain an adequate force size.

I also think you're being over-optimistic in your count of future forces. They've already started talking about six EF squadrons, while there are insufficient GR4s to sustain seven squadrons to OSD. At least one unit will HAVE to fold soon, or the current GR1 training aircraft will have to undergo conversion to GR$ or an interim 'GR4 emulator' standard. Furthermore with the introduction of JSF (or whatever else is selected as FCBA) the existing five frontline squadrons will be reduced to four, with a smaller training establishment. That's a good reason for retaining Jag for as long as fatigue allows (2015, I'm told, or longer if the low-houred GI airframes at Cosford were to be given a major and the £500K GR3A upgrade). Two Jag recce/TIALD/rapid/cheap deployment squadrons would allow a reduction in the GR4 fleet which would allow that type to serve on until its scheduled OSD, and would give the RAF the continued use of a proven deployable (cheap and dependable) asset while EF's inevitable air-to-ground bugs are sorted out. You'll never fix Jag's pathetic payload range capability, admittedly, but with ASRAAM (easy), Maverick or 500-lb LGB (ditto), Adour 106, helmet sight, IDM, TIALD, EO-Vicon (the latter alll already done or being done) tell me that the aircraft isn't still a very useful post Cold War type for certain types of deployment. Perhaps more importantly, you keep two squadrons active until they can re-equip with JSF, or Gripen, or FOAS, or whatever.

"How can 5 F3 Squadrons plus OCU be inadequate (cue electric spaz jet jokes) for UK AD against NO threat, when for years during the Cold War, when there WAS a threat, the same number of Squadrons of short range Lightnings armed with 2 dubious infra red AAM WERE considered adequate?" You ask.

1) Five home-based Lightning squadrons was never adequate to meet the threat, and was barely adequate to meet even the peacetime Q requirement using a proportion of the tanker force that would not have been avaialable in time of crisis (when the call of the V-force and theatre reinforcement would have taken away most of the Victors). Read an interesting snippet that showed that without tanker support, a single intrusion by a 'Bear' could tie up an astonishing 23 Lightning sorties!

2) PARTLY because of the Lightning's pathetic lack of range, RAF AD assets were forward deployed in Germany and Cyprus (and even Singapore). These assets could have been recalled to the UK if required, whereas if Cyprus (or the Falklands, or wherever) now needs AD, aircraft must be deployed from the tiny UK pot.

3) There was no Falklands AD requirement.

4) Dedicated UK AD units were heavily augmented by first and second-line units with a genuine home defence/point defence capability mostly using Hunters.

5) You pick a low-point snapshot to support your argument. A force of five home-based Lightning units was not representative, and indeed was deemed so inadequate that it gave way to a force of eight Phantom units (19, 23, 29, 43, 56, 74, 92, and 111), multiple Bloodhound batteries, and two Lightning squadrons (5 and 11). Before the five-Lightning force which you describe, there was a larger number of Hunter/Lightning/Javelin units.

That probably was adequate to meet even a fairly determined affort by the Force Aerienne Belge!

We were, apparently, spending just under 4.7% GDP on defence in 1989-90, and it is now about 2.2%. It didn't seem so very painful in '89-90, did it? It hadn't driven us to the edge of collapse, had it? We did have a higher PSBR and the PM couldn't afford legions of 'advisors', and the Govt didn't spend millions on promotion, PR and spin. Moreover, so much more could be achieved with the money that is available, were it not for the slavish adoption of inappropriate civilian practises and 'disciplines' typified by PFIs and PPPs. Name me one that has not soon escalated in price so that it does not now cost more than the internal solution did? Just one, and I'm not going to be fussy and demand that you also pick one which demonstrates improved 'operational output'.

I sometimes wonder, Suit, whether you aren't Geoff Hoon 'in mufti', such seems your eagerness to defend the atrocious record and absurd policies of this Government on defence matters.

You say that: "I am not advocating disarmament, I am not advocating any decrease in the defence budget."

But if you're not pushing for increased spending and rearmament, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution

You're right - the world has changed for ever, but that means that we can no longer rely on the relatively inexpensive and asset-efficient defence policy of nuclear deterrence. Today we need a genuine expeditionary and conventional war-fighting capability, which would infer a larger force, more versatile and equipped and trained to meet a broader spectrum of threats. The Granby level of forces was just sufficient to carry out that op. Was that really sufficient for all eventualities, let alone excessive? To pretend that the unstable post Cold War world was ever going to allow meaningful cost savings in defence was disingenuous, dishonest, cynical and shabby, and to do so now, in the light of Gulf War and other experience, is wilfully stupid.

We owe it to the forces to provide adequate manpower and resources to banish over-stretch for ever, and we owe it to the British people to defend them adequately. Maybe we also owe it to the world to be capable of being a 'force for good', and of fully meeting our obligations and responsibilities when organisations like the Taliban or OBL do what they do.

[Suit]

Dear Unscroopulous!

I disagree with very little of what you write but does not your argument help a case for a budget restructuring rather than a short sighted focus on "more FJ units"
and a bigger Air Force.

I would also be hard pushed to refute a need for a modest increase in the defence budget in the light of recent events, and your right, with our recent fiscal record we COULD afford it with out damaging the economy.

But, what to do with it? I believe the Jag will be with us till 2015 come what may. Retaining the CURRENT force structure rather than the planned reduction of one equivalent Jag Sqn and a Harrir Sqn must be fiscally sustainable. Either by an increase in JSF or Eurothingy numbers or an additional and direct Jag replacement. Gripen would be an attractive and very flexible asset, but maybe not economically or logistically seeing as it would be a fourth FJ type.

I cannot dispute the "low-point snapshot" accusation JN, lies bloody lies and statistics eh? But I can dispute your Phantom numbers. There were NEVER 8 UK based Phantom Squadron's, you list the entire F-4 AD community including the 2 RAFG units. There was also no V-Force tanker commitment in time of war, they were an AD assett or deployable support in TTW or out of theatre. We never have had enough tanker resources to support the great detergent.

No JN, I am not Hoon in disguise, nor am I an apologist for new Labour. But their "atrocious record and absurd policies" are no worse than the Tories and far better than most of us ever believed we would have see from a Labour administration. Remember it was Thatcher who axed the third Lightning Squadron and Skyflash Mk2 in 1980/1, surely a time when UK AD DID need a boost!

I just enjoy taking an opposite view and playing Devils advocate, schadenfrude I think BEagle once called it.

Suit

[Megaton]

This is a fascinating discussion and well above my payband, experience and knowldege. I agree wholeheartedly with JN; however, I would take slight issue with his comments regarding Granby. Whilst we may have had the force levels for that particular op the ac themselves were barely equipped for the task. To support this argument you only need to look at the raft of mods, STFs and UORs that crop up everytime we have a shooting match. If it had not been for the venerable Buccaneer and the rapid introduction to service of TIALD the RAF's contribution to DESERT STORM would have been much less useful. In Kosovo, the lack of precision guided munitions was highlighted as a particular weakness. The Jaguar fleet has benefited from these conflicts and grasped the opportunity to bring the avionics into the 1890s..1990s if not the airframe or engines.

I don't think talking about raw numbers of airframes gives the whole picture and can be intensely misleading. When Eurothingy enters "service" I'll be interested to see how long it takes to make the platform truly operational.