Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
Thread Starter
I know it has been said before and not wanting to upset anyone from the thread subject not being exactly Military Aircrew, but again we have another retired man from the top (General Sir Michael Rose), speaking out in the interview with TB about the state of the forces caused by the government. Then we have the high flier who still evidently has career prospects (Brigadier Andy Salmon) who appears to think that at least the marines have no problems at all, plenty of suplies, not stretched with great moral, go figure.
Thread Starter
More from the Telegraph:
We need to spend more on armed forces - Blair
And today:
Taliban vs British Army vs Whitehall
A lack of political direction, a shortage of soldiers and "complete disconnection" between the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence combined to hinder progress in the war in Afghanistan, a report by military chiefs has concluded.
We need to spend more on armed forces - Blair
And today:
Taliban vs British Army vs Whitehall
A lack of political direction, a shortage of soldiers and "complete disconnection" between the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence combined to hinder progress in the war in Afghanistan, a report by military chiefs has concluded.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
To me it speaks volumes that the Government does not consider it worthwhile to celebrate the 300th anniversary (today) of England and Scotland coming together to form Great Britain.
Happy Birthday Britain.
The distaste for our history and the achievements of our nation can be seen in the way the services are treated by elements of the establishment. For example, Blair couldn't be bothered to attend the ceremony in Moscow that marked the 60th anniversary of World War Two ending.
I surprised that we're allowed to remember this.
Happy Birthday Britain.
The distaste for our history and the achievements of our nation can be seen in the way the services are treated by elements of the establishment. For example, Blair couldn't be bothered to attend the ceremony in Moscow that marked the 60th anniversary of World War Two ending.
I surprised that we're allowed to remember this.
Unfortunately with Mr Chuckles about to get his shot at being PM (and no doubt one of his equally humourless chums as Chancellor), it could well be a case of I like this argument, don't confuse me with facts......
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rather appropriately, the chap who is most likely to take over the unenviable role boss of the UK economy would be Mr Ed Balls...
Rather fitting for this government....
Thread Starter
So what happens when we find ourselves facing an enemy who can fight back by conventional means, or does have an Air Force and/or Navy?
"We were planning to fight yesterday's war............"
"We were planning to fight yesterday's war............"
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
Question for you, when was the last time the British Armed Forces took on a numerically and technically superior foe all by themselves?
There is always going to be a call for more spending on defence than whatever the current amount is.
Take a look around the world and conjure us up a threat to UK security so severe that it would require your dream fleet to defeat it yet so minor that it would not be threat to the US or anyone else.
The only one that can I can come up with is a 2nd Falklands War. I would say that with current tech available to the UK armed forces the plan to retake an occupied FIs would be strikingly different from that in 1982. That is even if you have access to your dream fleet.
It would not be a matter of steaming down there again in battleline and doing the same assault but with modern kit.
Cheers
BHR
Question for you, when was the last time the British Armed Forces took on a numerically and technically superior foe all by themselves?
There is always going to be a call for more spending on defence than whatever the current amount is.
Take a look around the world and conjure us up a threat to UK security so severe that it would require your dream fleet to defeat it yet so minor that it would not be threat to the US or anyone else.
The only one that can I can come up with is a 2nd Falklands War. I would say that with current tech available to the UK armed forces the plan to retake an occupied FIs would be strikingly different from that in 1982. That is even if you have access to your dream fleet.
It would not be a matter of steaming down there again in battleline and doing the same assault but with modern kit.
Cheers
BHR
Last edited by BillHicksRules; 26th Jan 2007 at 17:14.
Question for you, when was the last time the British Armed Forces took on a numerically and technically superior foe all by themselves?
The real question is not when the last time the BAF took on a superior foe by themselves, but are they ready to do so in the future? Whilst we may be in bed with the US now, that will not always be the case - when it suites them they will drop us like a hot brick. Barring the behind the scenes AIM-9 stuff, I don't recall the US bending over backwards to help us with the Falklands, or being in any great hurry to stop Republican fund rasing organisations operating on its soil.
We need to be able to stand on our own 2 feet, not stick our head in the sand and hope everything will be fine in the future.
I could have sworn that the idea was to fight people numerically and technically inferior, thereby making sure if it comes to unpleasantness, more of their lads get hurt than ours. In order to make sure that we don't end up being the most numerically and technologically inferior country on the list, we need to up the defence budget, sharpish.......
There seem to be a lot of folk with their fingers in their ears, shouting "la la la, I'm not listening, I can't hear you" very loudly.
BHR makes the point that the massive investment in carriers will not give the UK a meaningful ability to conduct anything but the smallest scale operation autonomously - and that we will still rely on coalition partners for most conceivable ops, while we would be able to undertake most small autonomous ops without carriers.
We have never NEEDED to use carriers since 1982 - host nation support has always been available (and if ever it is not, then the proposed op is probably politically unsustainable) land based assets could have always done the job - and could have done so better, cheaper, quicker (eg Sierra Leone).
Now that we have a standing AD det and a reinforceable airfield on the Falklands, even the Falklands no longer represents a scenario in which only a carrier task force could 'do the job' - even if we still had the political will to retake the islands if we withdrew forces and they were invaded again.
Moreover, the other side of the coin is that the massive investment in carriers is distorting the EP, and is ensuring that force structure will continue to erode, and that we will not be able to make the kind of contribution to coalition ops that make us a valued partner, and that allow us to operate for sustained periods without over-stretch.
Carriers or sufficient FJs to be able to sustain ops, or to be able to make a meaningful (Granby type) contribution to another Desert Storm?
Carriers or adequate funding for the kit that the soldiers on the ground really need?
Carriers or adequate helicopter lift?
Carriers or a Trident replacement?
Given a 5% GDP investment in Defence, there might be enough in the pot to be able to do everything, but increased taxation to pay for everything is unlikely, so tough choices must be made.
BHR makes the point that the massive investment in carriers will not give the UK a meaningful ability to conduct anything but the smallest scale operation autonomously - and that we will still rely on coalition partners for most conceivable ops, while we would be able to undertake most small autonomous ops without carriers.
We have never NEEDED to use carriers since 1982 - host nation support has always been available (and if ever it is not, then the proposed op is probably politically unsustainable) land based assets could have always done the job - and could have done so better, cheaper, quicker (eg Sierra Leone).
Now that we have a standing AD det and a reinforceable airfield on the Falklands, even the Falklands no longer represents a scenario in which only a carrier task force could 'do the job' - even if we still had the political will to retake the islands if we withdrew forces and they were invaded again.
Moreover, the other side of the coin is that the massive investment in carriers is distorting the EP, and is ensuring that force structure will continue to erode, and that we will not be able to make the kind of contribution to coalition ops that make us a valued partner, and that allow us to operate for sustained periods without over-stretch.
Carriers or sufficient FJs to be able to sustain ops, or to be able to make a meaningful (Granby type) contribution to another Desert Storm?
Carriers or adequate funding for the kit that the soldiers on the ground really need?
Carriers or adequate helicopter lift?
Carriers or a Trident replacement?
Given a 5% GDP investment in Defence, there might be enough in the pot to be able to do everything, but increased taxation to pay for everything is unlikely, so tough choices must be made.
MPA is only reinforceable if we have sufficient AAR and AT assets to enable us to get people on land early, have we got these to hand?.
At least with a carrier, you don't need any AAR and can get the pointy end of the forces into the active zone PDQ.
But with proper carriers, you can even have credible AAR.
I seem to recall that the twilight time of the Supermarine Scimitar included a 'tanker' role with big jugs (we like big jugs....
)
I seem to recall that the twilight time of the Supermarine Scimitar included a 'tanker' role with big jugs (we like big jugs....
)