Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
And the bit about the 'senior officer' who claims that the RAF will have 'dozens' of Typhoon squadrons... That news must have come as a nice surprise for CAS as he read that over his morning cup of tea.
Thread Starter
Back to my comments on the maritime side of operations. HMS Bulwark has returned home after her long and varied deployment.
From Defence News
During the deployment, the unique Commando Assault ship has developed an entirely new way of operating to protect the vital oil infrastructure in Iraqi waters and to keep the troubled waters off Somalia safe for the millions of tonnes of shipping that passes through.
The ship’s eight landing craft have also been detached up to 150 miles away from the ship for extended periods enabling ‘Formation Bulwark’ to cover an unprecedented area of sea, forcing terrorists and other maritime criminals to re-assess their intentions in these waters.
At the same time the ship has experimented in deploying training teams of Commandos and sailors to up to six countries at a time in East Africa and Arabia, some times up to 4,000 miles away from the ship, so that they can train regional forces to be better able to take on security duties themselves.
That was before Lebanon.
From Defence News
During the deployment, the unique Commando Assault ship has developed an entirely new way of operating to protect the vital oil infrastructure in Iraqi waters and to keep the troubled waters off Somalia safe for the millions of tonnes of shipping that passes through.
The ship’s eight landing craft have also been detached up to 150 miles away from the ship for extended periods enabling ‘Formation Bulwark’ to cover an unprecedented area of sea, forcing terrorists and other maritime criminals to re-assess their intentions in these waters.
At the same time the ship has experimented in deploying training teams of Commandos and sailors to up to six countries at a time in East Africa and Arabia, some times up to 4,000 miles away from the ship, so that they can train regional forces to be better able to take on security duties themselves.
That was before Lebanon.
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NY
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting posts but . . .
. . . we, the long suffering taxpayers. have £15,000,000 of our money - yes that is fifteen million pounds - every day of the year sent off to those unelected unrepresentative commissioners in Brussels to with what they will. It is squandered, wasted, misappropriated, stolen, lost and otherwise misused and our troops are having to buy some of their own kit! What in heavens name is going on and how much longer will the the senior officers and more to the point the British public, put up with this? 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'public' are more interested in the price of Gas/Fuel/Groceries and Mortgages so I doubt they even think about what the troops need.
I have never known a time when the Armed Forces were so unpopular or, to be more accurate, regarded as such a low priority.
My own personal theory is that the wars/conflicts we are involved in at the moment are not supported by a significant percentage of the population. The Three Armed Forces of the UK were long held in high regard because of the two World wars, when it was the combined efforts of the RAF/RN/Army plus our allies that kept the invading hordes at bay. Even the Cold War saw us in the role of protector. The Falklands conflict then raised us all to new levels of esteem because we went thousands of miles to liberate our own citizens.
Since then, however, we have become embroiled in conflict in the Middle East and the average Joe on the street sees little benefit for the homeland. In fact, he is seeing spiralling fuel costs, increased terror threats, general panic and erosion of freedoms. The Armed Forces are now seen to be part of that negative process. From protecting our shores we are now seen as instrumental in bringing the problem home through our exploits overseas.
Add on to that ineffective leadership from the top, negative media spin, especially towards the Army, and we have gone from hero to zero.
Therefore, I do not think there is much stomach from the public to support us if it comes to the crunch.
Also, like it or not, when we try to send the message that we are overstretched and yet the Army is still changing the guard at Buckingham Palace, the RAF is still providing 49 aircraft for the Queens Birthday Flypast and we can afford to have a minimum of 9 FJ pilots on permanent display duties, is it any wonder that people on the street can't see the problem?
Before you shoot me down, I am postulating on what I believe to be the problems, they do not necessarily reflect my own views.
One view I do firmly hold though is that the constant sniping at Politicians is a waste of time. Politicians are in their business to gain power and then hold on to it. Therefore it should come as no surprise that they are as slippery as hell and unreliable. When it comes to Defence, like any other areas, they will be advised by the 'experts', in our case the highest ranks in the service. This is where the real weakness and disgrace is, The total lack of backbone and the protectionism displayed by our Starred Officers who would rather target their own Knighthood than the welfare and wellbeing of their respective Forces. Any sackings should be from within their ranks.
I have never known a time when the Armed Forces were so unpopular or, to be more accurate, regarded as such a low priority.
My own personal theory is that the wars/conflicts we are involved in at the moment are not supported by a significant percentage of the population. The Three Armed Forces of the UK were long held in high regard because of the two World wars, when it was the combined efforts of the RAF/RN/Army plus our allies that kept the invading hordes at bay. Even the Cold War saw us in the role of protector. The Falklands conflict then raised us all to new levels of esteem because we went thousands of miles to liberate our own citizens.
Since then, however, we have become embroiled in conflict in the Middle East and the average Joe on the street sees little benefit for the homeland. In fact, he is seeing spiralling fuel costs, increased terror threats, general panic and erosion of freedoms. The Armed Forces are now seen to be part of that negative process. From protecting our shores we are now seen as instrumental in bringing the problem home through our exploits overseas.
Add on to that ineffective leadership from the top, negative media spin, especially towards the Army, and we have gone from hero to zero.
Therefore, I do not think there is much stomach from the public to support us if it comes to the crunch.
Also, like it or not, when we try to send the message that we are overstretched and yet the Army is still changing the guard at Buckingham Palace, the RAF is still providing 49 aircraft for the Queens Birthday Flypast and we can afford to have a minimum of 9 FJ pilots on permanent display duties, is it any wonder that people on the street can't see the problem?
Before you shoot me down, I am postulating on what I believe to be the problems, they do not necessarily reflect my own views.
One view I do firmly hold though is that the constant sniping at Politicians is a waste of time. Politicians are in their business to gain power and then hold on to it. Therefore it should come as no surprise that they are as slippery as hell and unreliable. When it comes to Defence, like any other areas, they will be advised by the 'experts', in our case the highest ranks in the service. This is where the real weakness and disgrace is, The total lack of backbone and the protectionism displayed by our Starred Officers who would rather target their own Knighthood than the welfare and wellbeing of their respective Forces. Any sackings should be from within their ranks.
I'm suprised it hasn't happened yet but I suspect soon the activities of HM Armed Forces will be targetted by the Green lobby. They'll call for fewer exercises, less live firing, more use of simulation and a generally 'greener' posture. Smaller will be better.
Whilst Range Rovers get noticed by the sandal botherers most military fuel burning activities don't. But they'll get around to it and their marketing/propoganda is very strong.
Utter rubbish I know but then the country is going to the dogs after all.
Cheers
WWW
Whilst Range Rovers get noticed by the sandal botherers most military fuel burning activities don't. But they'll get around to it and their marketing/propoganda is very strong.
Utter rubbish I know but then the country is going to the dogs after all.
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 85
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wee Weasley Welshman
Utter rubbish I know but then the country is going to the dogs after all.
Cheers
WWW
Cheers
WWW
Originally Posted by Wee Weasley Welshman
snip/
Smaller will be better.
WWW
Smaller will be better.
WWW
I know, I know - hat, coat, passport........
Thread Starter
What is to be done? How can the public be educated, the media informed more and defence made more of a hot issue politically? These were the questions I asked in the first post on this thread.
I believe a good start would be dealing with the way service personnel are portrayed by the media. When was the last time you saw a member of HM Forces portrayed as anything other than a bully, idiot, old duffer or drunk on Casualty or the like?
I believe a good start would be dealing with the way service personnel are portrayed by the media. When was the last time you saw a member of HM Forces portrayed as anything other than a bully, idiot, old duffer or drunk on Casualty or the like?
WEBF,
Educate the public to what? Why does anything NEED to be done? Defence cannot be made a hot political issue because it is a sad fact that in today’s world it is NOT a hot political issue!
You need to face some facts, you appear to be a military enthusiast, the majority of the public are not, never have been and never will be. That has always been the case, there is no “Golden age” you can hark back to where it was any different, Kipling’s famous “Tommy this and Tommy that” poem was written in 1892, so this is nothing new! A liberal democracy such as ours will always tend to treat its military with a certain amount of disdain, the alternative is the sort of militaristic society that dictators tend to hide behind, surely not what you would want?
Let’s look at some harsh facts and unpalatable truths. We live in a world where there is no military threat to this country nor to any of our near neighbours. Yet we still spend an enormous sum of money on defence every year, only the USA spends more, 2.2% of our GDP (5.6% of total Govt expenditure if you include such things as military pensions.) Government is notoriously bad at spending money wisely, look at the billions poured into the NHS and education and you will see that it is not just defence in a cash crisis despite increasing budgets. We spend far more than most on defence but seem to get far less out of it compared to some of our allies and friends, so I don’t think there is much of a case for getting the general public all fired up about lack of defence spending.
The threats we face today are not military in nature, so we cannot utilise the military to defeat them. It is a sad but true fact that today it is not the fighter pilot at QRA or the operator hunched over a radar screen that enables us to sleep soundly in our beds at night, it is the Police forces, the intelligence services and the whole host of security operatives who do that. They are currently doing that in Walthamstow, High Wycombe and Birmingham and prevention is far better than cure here.
You can try all you like to energise the public to the plight of the forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they are nor perceived as fighting to defend us, in fact there is a very plausible argument that we are under threat precisely BECAUSE our armed forces invaded Iraq, would there have been a 7/7 if that hadn’t happened?
Face facts WEBF, you are trying to do the impossible.
Educate the public to what? Why does anything NEED to be done? Defence cannot be made a hot political issue because it is a sad fact that in today’s world it is NOT a hot political issue!
You need to face some facts, you appear to be a military enthusiast, the majority of the public are not, never have been and never will be. That has always been the case, there is no “Golden age” you can hark back to where it was any different, Kipling’s famous “Tommy this and Tommy that” poem was written in 1892, so this is nothing new! A liberal democracy such as ours will always tend to treat its military with a certain amount of disdain, the alternative is the sort of militaristic society that dictators tend to hide behind, surely not what you would want?
Let’s look at some harsh facts and unpalatable truths. We live in a world where there is no military threat to this country nor to any of our near neighbours. Yet we still spend an enormous sum of money on defence every year, only the USA spends more, 2.2% of our GDP (5.6% of total Govt expenditure if you include such things as military pensions.) Government is notoriously bad at spending money wisely, look at the billions poured into the NHS and education and you will see that it is not just defence in a cash crisis despite increasing budgets. We spend far more than most on defence but seem to get far less out of it compared to some of our allies and friends, so I don’t think there is much of a case for getting the general public all fired up about lack of defence spending.
The threats we face today are not military in nature, so we cannot utilise the military to defeat them. It is a sad but true fact that today it is not the fighter pilot at QRA or the operator hunched over a radar screen that enables us to sleep soundly in our beds at night, it is the Police forces, the intelligence services and the whole host of security operatives who do that. They are currently doing that in Walthamstow, High Wycombe and Birmingham and prevention is far better than cure here.
You can try all you like to energise the public to the plight of the forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, but they are nor perceived as fighting to defend us, in fact there is a very plausible argument that we are under threat precisely BECAUSE our armed forces invaded Iraq, would there have been a 7/7 if that hadn’t happened?
Face facts WEBF, you are trying to do the impossible.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My liberal democracy treats our military with a great deal of respect and we happily fund them appropriately.
But then again we don't have a bunch of silly t*ssers running around saying we're not under threat when it's fecking obvious we are.
1% of anything is not an enormous amount of money. Wanna tell me you spend less than 1% of your personal income on insurance for yourself and your possessions?? Why don't you stop buying insurance and instead rely on burglars not picking your house or car because you are so lovey dovey?
What's the difference between you and those idiots in the 1930's that said the facists weren't a threat because they are only concerned with their own countries? Go on, tell me that a nuclear armed Iran will be satisfied with wiping Israel off the map and will stop right there.
But then again we don't have a bunch of silly t*ssers running around saying we're not under threat when it's fecking obvious we are.
1% of anything is not an enormous amount of money. Wanna tell me you spend less than 1% of your personal income on insurance for yourself and your possessions?? Why don't you stop buying insurance and instead rely on burglars not picking your house or car because you are so lovey dovey?
What's the difference between you and those idiots in the 1930's that said the facists weren't a threat because they are only concerned with their own countries? Go on, tell me that a nuclear armed Iran will be satisfied with wiping Israel off the map and will stop right there.
Ron0,
"Your" liberal democracy didn't exactly treat it's Vietnam vets with a great deal of respect and "your" Generals are complaining about a lack of boots on the ground in Iraq and "your" Govt is in the process of putting the likes of the USAF through a rather painful down sizing and multi billion dollar spending reduction.
I do concede that your overall attitude to your military is rather healthier as a nation than that in Europe though, and your funding of defence and homeland security is certainly on a level that no-one else can compete with, though you do have a rather alarming national budget deficit as a result.
We are all under threat but not from an organised military, if you think that Bush is currently making the world safer for Americans to wander the planet then you are dafter than I thought.
Just how are you going to stop a nuclear armed Iran, you going to invade there as well? That'll produce a nice safe world, thanks!
"Your" liberal democracy didn't exactly treat it's Vietnam vets with a great deal of respect and "your" Generals are complaining about a lack of boots on the ground in Iraq and "your" Govt is in the process of putting the likes of the USAF through a rather painful down sizing and multi billion dollar spending reduction.
I do concede that your overall attitude to your military is rather healthier as a nation than that in Europe though, and your funding of defence and homeland security is certainly on a level that no-one else can compete with, though you do have a rather alarming national budget deficit as a result.
We are all under threat but not from an organised military, if you think that Bush is currently making the world safer for Americans to wander the planet then you are dafter than I thought.
Just how are you going to stop a nuclear armed Iran, you going to invade there as well? That'll produce a nice safe world, thanks!
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the higher-ups should start promoting the fuel efficiency of newer equipment as a way of justifying capital spend. Comparing the load/range per tonne fuel burn between VC10/Tri* and an A330 would be a good start.
MarkD
“Perhaps the higher-ups should start promoting the fuel efficiency….”
I agree. But one has to appreciate that in the MoD, if you make a suggestion on how to save money, you take an enormous risk. If you are lucky, someone with influence and who agrees with you will read your suggestion. You are more likely to encounter severe resistance.
DPA and DLO, and their predecessor organisations, have taken formal disciplinary action against juniors who, in good faith, suggested savings or challenged waste. To my certain and personal knowledge, these actions have extended to threats of sacking. The system is purely arbitrary but it would seem the higher the potential (or actual) savings, the greater the resistance and the more senior the rank/grade they will wheel out to apply pressure to withdraw.
Confirmation of above obtained under FOI.
“Perhaps the higher-ups should start promoting the fuel efficiency….”
I agree. But one has to appreciate that in the MoD, if you make a suggestion on how to save money, you take an enormous risk. If you are lucky, someone with influence and who agrees with you will read your suggestion. You are more likely to encounter severe resistance.
DPA and DLO, and their predecessor organisations, have taken formal disciplinary action against juniors who, in good faith, suggested savings or challenged waste. To my certain and personal knowledge, these actions have extended to threats of sacking. The system is purely arbitrary but it would seem the higher the potential (or actual) savings, the greater the resistance and the more senior the rank/grade they will wheel out to apply pressure to withdraw.
Confirmation of above obtained under FOI.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pr00ne, WTF do you know about Vietnam vets or the way the US treats its military? Read all about it in the Guardian eh? Your pinups Blair & Brown haven't even got the balls to go visit brits wounded in Iraq. Liberal democracy my asss.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: inside the train looking onto the platform.
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence Cuts
Media: The Observer
Byline: Mark Townsend and Richard Brooks
Date: 20 August 2006
The full extent of the financial crisis affecting the British army has been revealed in a leaked Whitehall document obtained by The Observer. The memo, written by the MoD's second most senior civil servant, has sparked fears that requests by commanders for vital equipment to save the lives of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq may not be met.Ian Andrews admits that the budget for the acquisition of new equipment for soldiers is among the worst affected and that 'painful measures are required'. He has even ordered MoD staff to cut travel expenses as the department attempts to cope with the cost of an army which is enduring its busiest period of operations since the end of the Second World War.
Union officials yesterday warned ministers that more troops will be killed in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the budgetary crisis. 'These cuts could eventually see more body bags returning to Britain as a result of inadequate equipment,' said an official who specialises in defence logistics from the Public and Commercial Services Union. He added: 'The cuts and plans to move logistics and procurement work pose serious risks to the effective provision of battle-winning equipment to troops on the front line'.
In the memo, dated 1 August, Andrews reveals he has imposed an immediate moratorium on hiring, to halt 'increases in military manpower... including temporary posts, or by the employment of full-time reserve service individuals'. The drastic decision comes at a time when the army is accused of lacking the manpower to cope with its responsibilities in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Andrews, writing to senior defence officials in charge of funding for procurement and logistics, also calls for 'existing contracts for agency and casual staff '[to] be terminated after the requisite period of notice'. Defence staff are told to avoid air travel and use email or telephone. Overspend in the procurement and logistics departments is now running at £100m over budget every three months, the document reveals. 'Equipment, support, fuel and utilities costs are causing real pressures across the department and all [budgets] are having to take painful measures... ,' it states.
The concerns come at a sensitive time for the MoD with British commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq requesting more helicopters and tougher armoured vehicles to reduce fatalities. A recent report by an all-party parliamentary committee concluded that British troops are having their safety compromised by ageing or inadequate equipment which urgently needs replacing. In particular, it identified the failure to replace lightly armoured Land-Rovers, leaving soldiers vulnerable to roadside bombs which have killed more than 20 in recent months. The committee concluded: 'Our forces cannot wait for long-term procurement projects to come to fruition; they need the kit now.'
MoD officials are told to sign no new contracts costing more than £100,000 a year and not to employ any consultants. Andrews admits 'these measures will be very disruptive and in many cases will have a disproportionate impact on outputs for the savings achieved'. In one passage his memo identifies the causes of the financial difficulties. Major programmes, including plans to set up a £19bn defence training base in the UK as well as two IT systems, are 'all bringing additional costs beyond our control'. An MoD spokesman said: 'Our over-arching priority is to ensure that the front line is properly supported'.
________________________________________________
So there it is then, "our over arching priority is to......'Blah Blah Blah, sold out again by those at the the top is the reality. Does that mean RAF Stns will stop wasting money on fat overpaid consultants who are preaching LEAN principles that only apply on MOB eng and Supply organisations!! I thought not
Byline: Mark Townsend and Richard Brooks
Date: 20 August 2006
The full extent of the financial crisis affecting the British army has been revealed in a leaked Whitehall document obtained by The Observer. The memo, written by the MoD's second most senior civil servant, has sparked fears that requests by commanders for vital equipment to save the lives of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq may not be met.Ian Andrews admits that the budget for the acquisition of new equipment for soldiers is among the worst affected and that 'painful measures are required'. He has even ordered MoD staff to cut travel expenses as the department attempts to cope with the cost of an army which is enduring its busiest period of operations since the end of the Second World War.
Union officials yesterday warned ministers that more troops will be killed in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the budgetary crisis. 'These cuts could eventually see more body bags returning to Britain as a result of inadequate equipment,' said an official who specialises in defence logistics from the Public and Commercial Services Union. He added: 'The cuts and plans to move logistics and procurement work pose serious risks to the effective provision of battle-winning equipment to troops on the front line'.
In the memo, dated 1 August, Andrews reveals he has imposed an immediate moratorium on hiring, to halt 'increases in military manpower... including temporary posts, or by the employment of full-time reserve service individuals'. The drastic decision comes at a time when the army is accused of lacking the manpower to cope with its responsibilities in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Andrews, writing to senior defence officials in charge of funding for procurement and logistics, also calls for 'existing contracts for agency and casual staff '[to] be terminated after the requisite period of notice'. Defence staff are told to avoid air travel and use email or telephone. Overspend in the procurement and logistics departments is now running at £100m over budget every three months, the document reveals. 'Equipment, support, fuel and utilities costs are causing real pressures across the department and all [budgets] are having to take painful measures... ,' it states.
The concerns come at a sensitive time for the MoD with British commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq requesting more helicopters and tougher armoured vehicles to reduce fatalities. A recent report by an all-party parliamentary committee concluded that British troops are having their safety compromised by ageing or inadequate equipment which urgently needs replacing. In particular, it identified the failure to replace lightly armoured Land-Rovers, leaving soldiers vulnerable to roadside bombs which have killed more than 20 in recent months. The committee concluded: 'Our forces cannot wait for long-term procurement projects to come to fruition; they need the kit now.'
MoD officials are told to sign no new contracts costing more than £100,000 a year and not to employ any consultants. Andrews admits 'these measures will be very disruptive and in many cases will have a disproportionate impact on outputs for the savings achieved'. In one passage his memo identifies the causes of the financial difficulties. Major programmes, including plans to set up a £19bn defence training base in the UK as well as two IT systems, are 'all bringing additional costs beyond our control'. An MoD spokesman said: 'Our over-arching priority is to ensure that the front line is properly supported'.
________________________________________________
So there it is then, "our over arching priority is to......'Blah Blah Blah, sold out again by those at the the top is the reality. Does that mean RAF Stns will stop wasting money on fat overpaid consultants who are preaching LEAN principles that only apply on MOB eng and Supply organisations!! I thought not
Thread Starter
Recently there was discussion on other threads of limits on flying hours being placed on aircraft in Afghanistan, largely due to the cost and limited stocks of spares. This makes me suspect that there is some truth in this story from the Telegraph:
Troops use up ammo as war with Taliban claims 14th life
Troops use up ammo as war with Taliban claims 14th life