Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have followed with great interest the views on this thread, the heading at least in part is "Public Ignorance" of which there is plenty. Sadly few of us civvies out there know anyone serving in the military these days. As a teenager I recall travelling on a bus on a Sunday evening when almost the entire vehicle was occupied by military personnel heading for the mainline station to travel back to their base overnight. At school in Cornwall I encountered RAF personnel at every turn from St. Mawgan and St. Eval. Those days are long gone, I know several recently retired military personnel but no one currently serving.
You really ought not to ignore the sad lack of awareness many out there have so far as today's military are concerned. The BBMF with crews performing other daytime tasks seems to be the way forward I'd like to think. The Reds do perhaps have a reputation for a fairly expensive lifestyle - but they are the public face of the RAF. We seem to be able to gain some awareness of thge Fleet Air Arm as they continue to provide air shows at Yeovilton and Culdrose. If The Reds disband, Joe public in the main will know next to nothing about today's military. What's the answer? I wish I knew.
Regards to everyone serving. Come home safely.
You really ought not to ignore the sad lack of awareness many out there have so far as today's military are concerned. The BBMF with crews performing other daytime tasks seems to be the way forward I'd like to think. The Reds do perhaps have a reputation for a fairly expensive lifestyle - but they are the public face of the RAF. We seem to be able to gain some awareness of thge Fleet Air Arm as they continue to provide air shows at Yeovilton and Culdrose. If The Reds disband, Joe public in the main will know next to nothing about today's military. What's the answer? I wish I knew.
Regards to everyone serving. Come home safely.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Invisible tanks could be on battlefield within five years
The Army will probably be pushing for it soon. This is where most of the MOD budget goes, but is it really worth it? More money for kit and defence contractors means less for the troops and their welfare. I have to wonder how much more defence against mines will invisible tanks provide?
The Army will probably be pushing for it soon. This is where most of the MOD budget goes, but is it really worth it? More money for kit and defence contractors means less for the troops and their welfare. I have to wonder how much more defence against mines will invisible tanks provide?
Thread Starter
From the Guardian: UK's top admiral faces world of new demands with an austerity fleet
The daily juggling act sees him pitting his wits against Somali pirates, who can now hijack boats across a million square miles of ocean; evacuating Britons from Libya (and providing support for the Special Boat Service, which is operating there); and preparing for the deployment of 3,500 Royal Marines and other navy personnel who are on their way to Afghanistan.
That country remains the Ministry of Defence's strategic priority, and Libya is the current preoccupation. But neither of these are the issues that keep the 53-year-old admiral awake at night. The Gulf is his special worry, particularly the strait of Hormuz, that narrow, potentially vulnerable channel between the south of Iran and the peninsula of north Oman, through which gas and oil supertankers travel all year round. Between 16m and 17m barrels of oil pass through the strait every day, 40% of the world's supply. At its narrowest point, the passage is only 1.5 miles wide."
The secretary of state made it very clear when he took over that he regarded the Gulf region as the second most important after Afghanistan," Soar says. "I would agree. It's very important. We have been there over 30 years, we have seen the tanker wars [when Iran and Iraq attacked each other's ships in the 1980s] and various other things over that time."
Now there are new threats. If the sea lanes closed, even for a short period, the UK would be hit hard, and quickly.
"It would have such an impact with a 'just enough, just in time UK'," he says. "If we didn't have gas coming into this country we would run out in two weeks, so the lights start going out, or the shelves become empty."
The navy has four mine warfare vessels in the area, and they are prized, especially by the Americans, who have privately made it clear they will not tolerate their decommissioning as part of the MoD's ongoing spending crisis. Though some of them are old – HMS Middleton has been in service for almost 30 years – the ships and their support vessels have special protected status.
"They are the jewels in the crown. We are, as the UK, very dependent on energy trade and energy flow. If the straits of Hormuz were closed, as they could quite easily be, by even one mine, then we provide a capability to be able to remove the risk.
"There are over 200,000 UK nationals in that region so … it's not just about oil and gas. It's about the number of people we have [there] and providing a real capability to protect those energy supply routes." The admiral is tiptoeing through what he knows is a diplomatic snakepit as he weighs up how he describes the risks and dangers, and who poses them.
The region, he says, is unpredictable, and the potential for trade paralysis real, even if caused by accident. The navy has six ships in the area at the moment, involved in different operations and under a variety of commands, and seven more in the Indian Ocean. The submarine HMS Tireless is also east of Suez, having passed through the canal.
The heavy commitment reflects the anxiety he has, and he chooses his words carefully. "We have got Iran … my worry is, really, 'events' that may happen in that region. We are all concerned by [this]. We can provide reassurance to the Gulf states because there is a nervousness. What we don't want to see is an over-reaction because of a single event. The MCMVs [mine countermeasure vessels] have a unique capability, which I am happy to say is the best in the world. The US will tell you that."
The threat posed by Somali pirates has made the task of keeping the peace in the region even more complex. The pirates are spreading further afield for their attacks, getting closer and closer to the strait of Hormuz, encouraged by enormous ransom payments and their classification in law as criminals, rather than terrorists. This means the navy cannot blow them out of the water indiscriminately, and many pirates are released even if they are caught on their way to a likely attack.
The navy has growing suspicions that Somali pirates are linking with al-Qaida terrorists in Yemen, which, if true, would completely change the way the problem is approached. Until then, the pirates are unlikely to be deterred. At the moment they have 29 vessels and 653 hostages; there has been a big escalation in attacks this year, including an audacious attempt to seize a 300,000-tonne supertanker.
Soar says: "This is about legitimate use of trade across all oceans, and with piracy we will start to see costs increase, and that will be reflected eventually on the shelf in how much we pay for our goods. We know [shipping] insurance premiums have gone up. We know that [companies] are having to use more fuel because of the way they are diverting round there. Potentially, if they wanted to avoid that region and go all the way around South Africa, then that is going to increase cost and time significantly. So this is about UK interests worldwide, and I think my message here is that we do have global interests and we are a nation that depends upon trade."
Part of the job of keeping the area secure will shortly fall to the Iraqi navy, which has been trained by British forces over the past three years. Out of the spotlight, the Royal Navy has had people in the port of Umm Qasar, and Iraqi naval officers have been trained in the UK at Dartmouth. The handover will take place within weeks.
"The only forces left in Iraq are navy," says Soar. "We have been doing the Iraq maritime training mission … helping [it] to provide protection of two oil platforms. Well over 65% of their GDP flows through them. That mission comes to an end this spring, when we effectively hand over security to the Iraqis. They have been given or sold various patrol boats and we have trained them to use them. This is about Iraq standing on its own two feet."
The navy will not withdraw from the northern gulf – it is too sensitive and volatile an area to leave to a fledgling force – but Soar has not yet decided what will come next. Before then, he has Afghanistan on his mind.
It obviously irritates him that the navy's role in the country has not been recognised, and that the army has taken most of the credit for the decade-long operation there.
He says he blames the media, partly. "Because you tend to talk about soldiers and troops. Royal Marines suddenly becomes army so, yes, there is a level of frustration. We are clearly not getting the message over how much the Royal Navy is involved with defence's main effort.
"For instance, we are now deploying 3 commando brigade to Afghanistan. They are deploying as we speak, so that will mean in the summer of this year we will have 3,500 naval service people in Afghanistan – 40% of UK forces will be navy. It's not just about the brigade; we are also running the joint force support headquarters and the joint medical HQ, as well as helicopter pilots, medics, truck drivers, etc."
This is the nub of the navy's problem. Soar does not say it directly, but it hangs in the air around every sentence he speaks – the feeling that the navy has been taken for granted.
Reeling from cuts in last year's strategic defence and security review (SDSR), he is trying to keep the show on the road, keep morale high, and remind people that the navy is not an optional requirement for the UK. For him, it's a must.
Soar's task, he says, is to ensure "in a very uncertain world – that has been proved quite clearly over the last few months – the navy has the ability to deliver. That means that the navy has to operate globally and it has to have the capability to meet that very uncertain world.
"The navy's relevance in today's world is not always obvious to the public; we call it sea blindness. I firmly believe that we are relevant, we have a part to play."
He acknowledges the SDSR has made his life more difficult, and there is now "no spare capacity" in his fleet. HMS Cumberland, which has been off the coast of Libya for the past fortnight and has won praise from ministers for its work, is due to be scrapped next month. Another vessel, the Royal Fleet Auxillary Largs Bay, is this week the subject of conversation between the defence secretary, Liam Fox, and the Australian government, which wants to buy it.
The daily juggling act sees him pitting his wits against Somali pirates, who can now hijack boats across a million square miles of ocean; evacuating Britons from Libya (and providing support for the Special Boat Service, which is operating there); and preparing for the deployment of 3,500 Royal Marines and other navy personnel who are on their way to Afghanistan.
That country remains the Ministry of Defence's strategic priority, and Libya is the current preoccupation. But neither of these are the issues that keep the 53-year-old admiral awake at night. The Gulf is his special worry, particularly the strait of Hormuz, that narrow, potentially vulnerable channel between the south of Iran and the peninsula of north Oman, through which gas and oil supertankers travel all year round. Between 16m and 17m barrels of oil pass through the strait every day, 40% of the world's supply. At its narrowest point, the passage is only 1.5 miles wide."
The secretary of state made it very clear when he took over that he regarded the Gulf region as the second most important after Afghanistan," Soar says. "I would agree. It's very important. We have been there over 30 years, we have seen the tanker wars [when Iran and Iraq attacked each other's ships in the 1980s] and various other things over that time."
Now there are new threats. If the sea lanes closed, even for a short period, the UK would be hit hard, and quickly.
"It would have such an impact with a 'just enough, just in time UK'," he says. "If we didn't have gas coming into this country we would run out in two weeks, so the lights start going out, or the shelves become empty."
The navy has four mine warfare vessels in the area, and they are prized, especially by the Americans, who have privately made it clear they will not tolerate their decommissioning as part of the MoD's ongoing spending crisis. Though some of them are old – HMS Middleton has been in service for almost 30 years – the ships and their support vessels have special protected status.
"They are the jewels in the crown. We are, as the UK, very dependent on energy trade and energy flow. If the straits of Hormuz were closed, as they could quite easily be, by even one mine, then we provide a capability to be able to remove the risk.
"There are over 200,000 UK nationals in that region so … it's not just about oil and gas. It's about the number of people we have [there] and providing a real capability to protect those energy supply routes." The admiral is tiptoeing through what he knows is a diplomatic snakepit as he weighs up how he describes the risks and dangers, and who poses them.
The region, he says, is unpredictable, and the potential for trade paralysis real, even if caused by accident. The navy has six ships in the area at the moment, involved in different operations and under a variety of commands, and seven more in the Indian Ocean. The submarine HMS Tireless is also east of Suez, having passed through the canal.
The heavy commitment reflects the anxiety he has, and he chooses his words carefully. "We have got Iran … my worry is, really, 'events' that may happen in that region. We are all concerned by [this]. We can provide reassurance to the Gulf states because there is a nervousness. What we don't want to see is an over-reaction because of a single event. The MCMVs [mine countermeasure vessels] have a unique capability, which I am happy to say is the best in the world. The US will tell you that."
The threat posed by Somali pirates has made the task of keeping the peace in the region even more complex. The pirates are spreading further afield for their attacks, getting closer and closer to the strait of Hormuz, encouraged by enormous ransom payments and their classification in law as criminals, rather than terrorists. This means the navy cannot blow them out of the water indiscriminately, and many pirates are released even if they are caught on their way to a likely attack.
The navy has growing suspicions that Somali pirates are linking with al-Qaida terrorists in Yemen, which, if true, would completely change the way the problem is approached. Until then, the pirates are unlikely to be deterred. At the moment they have 29 vessels and 653 hostages; there has been a big escalation in attacks this year, including an audacious attempt to seize a 300,000-tonne supertanker.
Soar says: "This is about legitimate use of trade across all oceans, and with piracy we will start to see costs increase, and that will be reflected eventually on the shelf in how much we pay for our goods. We know [shipping] insurance premiums have gone up. We know that [companies] are having to use more fuel because of the way they are diverting round there. Potentially, if they wanted to avoid that region and go all the way around South Africa, then that is going to increase cost and time significantly. So this is about UK interests worldwide, and I think my message here is that we do have global interests and we are a nation that depends upon trade."
Part of the job of keeping the area secure will shortly fall to the Iraqi navy, which has been trained by British forces over the past three years. Out of the spotlight, the Royal Navy has had people in the port of Umm Qasar, and Iraqi naval officers have been trained in the UK at Dartmouth. The handover will take place within weeks.
"The only forces left in Iraq are navy," says Soar. "We have been doing the Iraq maritime training mission … helping [it] to provide protection of two oil platforms. Well over 65% of their GDP flows through them. That mission comes to an end this spring, when we effectively hand over security to the Iraqis. They have been given or sold various patrol boats and we have trained them to use them. This is about Iraq standing on its own two feet."
The navy will not withdraw from the northern gulf – it is too sensitive and volatile an area to leave to a fledgling force – but Soar has not yet decided what will come next. Before then, he has Afghanistan on his mind.
It obviously irritates him that the navy's role in the country has not been recognised, and that the army has taken most of the credit for the decade-long operation there.
He says he blames the media, partly. "Because you tend to talk about soldiers and troops. Royal Marines suddenly becomes army so, yes, there is a level of frustration. We are clearly not getting the message over how much the Royal Navy is involved with defence's main effort.
"For instance, we are now deploying 3 commando brigade to Afghanistan. They are deploying as we speak, so that will mean in the summer of this year we will have 3,500 naval service people in Afghanistan – 40% of UK forces will be navy. It's not just about the brigade; we are also running the joint force support headquarters and the joint medical HQ, as well as helicopter pilots, medics, truck drivers, etc."
This is the nub of the navy's problem. Soar does not say it directly, but it hangs in the air around every sentence he speaks – the feeling that the navy has been taken for granted.
Reeling from cuts in last year's strategic defence and security review (SDSR), he is trying to keep the show on the road, keep morale high, and remind people that the navy is not an optional requirement for the UK. For him, it's a must.
Soar's task, he says, is to ensure "in a very uncertain world – that has been proved quite clearly over the last few months – the navy has the ability to deliver. That means that the navy has to operate globally and it has to have the capability to meet that very uncertain world.
"The navy's relevance in today's world is not always obvious to the public; we call it sea blindness. I firmly believe that we are relevant, we have a part to play."
He acknowledges the SDSR has made his life more difficult, and there is now "no spare capacity" in his fleet. HMS Cumberland, which has been off the coast of Libya for the past fortnight and has won praise from ministers for its work, is due to be scrapped next month. Another vessel, the Royal Fleet Auxillary Largs Bay, is this week the subject of conversation between the defence secretary, Liam Fox, and the Australian government, which wants to buy it.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 16th Apr 2011 at 09:43.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sugest next time a politician knocks on your door asking for your vote test his/her knowledge on the size of the armed forces and its current deployments.
The situation in North Africa could make the process a whole lot more complicated if Libya could become another Lebanon with piracy into the med, Yemen is disintegrating. We'll need to deploy more assets in this region.
The situation in North Africa could make the process a whole lot more complicated if Libya could become another Lebanon with piracy into the med, Yemen is disintegrating. We'll need to deploy more assets in this region.
I notice that every time the Guardian carrys a story about military people, they can't help themselves from lacing their words with contempt and scepticism. What was it the reported said of the Admiral; "British Interests, as he calls them" as if the reporter regards this as a meaningless expression. Which, being a Guardian reporter, it no doubt is!
FB
FB
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bedford
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lack of public perception started in the seventies when the wearing of uniform in public was restricted due to N Ireland threat. I take an active interest in the services particularly as my father was an RAF pilot and I grew up on RAF stations. I do miss the lack of flying these days it was more prolific in the sixties/seventies.
Half of the British population seem to have a problem with a basic understanding of Geography. Ask them where Kinloss is and look at the empty stares. The use of maps and atlas need to be taught in schools not relying on sat navs....
The use of the services Yearbooks would be good in schools either paper or online version to spread the word.
Half of the British population seem to have a problem with a basic understanding of Geography. Ask them where Kinloss is and look at the empty stares. The use of maps and atlas need to be taught in schools not relying on sat navs....
The use of the services Yearbooks would be good in schools either paper or online version to spread the word.
Ask them where Kinloss is and look at the empty stares
But then some Canadian cousins of mine were camping in Wyoming a few years back and got chatting to some Americans who asked where they were from.
Cousins: "We're from Canada"
Yanks: "Oh, where's that?"
I notice that every time the Guardian carrys a story about military people, they can't help themselves from lacing their words with contempt and scepticism. What was it the reported said of the Admiral; "British Interests, as he calls them" as if the reporter regards this as a meaningless expression. Which, being a Guardian reporter, it no doubt is!
Quote:
I notice that every time the Guardian carrys a story about military people, they can't help themselves from lacing their words with contempt and scepticism. What was it the reported said of the Admiral; "British Interests, as he calls them" as if the reporter regards this as a meaningless expression. Which, being a Guardian reporter, it no doubt is!
So you bothered to read as far as the third paragraph, but apparently not the whole article?
I notice that every time the Guardian carrys a story about military people, they can't help themselves from lacing their words with contempt and scepticism. What was it the reported said of the Admiral; "British Interests, as he calls them" as if the reporter regards this as a meaningless expression. Which, being a Guardian reporter, it no doubt is!
So you bothered to read as far as the third paragraph, but apparently not the whole article?
FB
Thread Starter
Just a quick thought: will their be lessons learnt and ammendments to SDSR after the operations in Libya?
NURSE
It does look like Libya is heading for fragmentation, will Al Qaeda taking advantage. Likewise Yemen is going downhill fast. Can anyone see the very real dangers in the coming months/years?
Not sure what additional assets we could deploy.
Going back to CINCFLEET's comments, it would appear that practical concerns have been ignored by the professional politicians. The idea of having no fixed wing carrier flying for a decade and then suddenly picking up the baton is perhaps the best example of a decision being made by people who are not very practical.
See the Harrier axed - bonkers thread.
Or perhaps this explains it: Rethinking defence cuts: the more things change, the more they stay the same…
So any reversal on cuts would have to be balanced with savings elsewhere. In other words, new cuts. And where would those cuts fall? Well, as analysts including Andrew Dorman point out, the Army would have to be prime candidate. Largely shielded from cuts in the SDSR, surely the Army could lose a few more thousand posts to free up some cash for the RAF and Navy? For much of the SDSR process, that was the MoD’s plan, but the Army cuts were scaled back by the PM.
That last-minute decision skewed the rest of the review and its outcomes, with negative consequences for the other services that are still becoming clear. Awareness of that problem is spreading across Whitehall.
Indeed, the annoyingly well-informed Alex Barker of the FT reports today that even the generals now accept that argument. But Mr Cameron, wary of more bad headlines about sacking Our Boys while they fight in Afghanistan, has said No.
And from Andrew Dorman: Lessons from Libya
The assumption of conflict avoidance for the next decade allowed the government to announce unprecedented cutbacks to the defence budget which have been exacerbated by earlier mismanagement within the MoD and the previous government’s failure to budget for the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent in the defence budget.
It was therefore to be expected that when the current situation in Libya emerged the government would follow the assumptions of the NSS and keep a low profile (like Germany), evacuating entitled personnel when it could and leaving the rest of the international community to take a lead in confronting the Gaddafi regime.
The government seems to have forgotten its own working assumptions with David Cameron leading calls for a no-fly zone and subsequently committing British forces to support the no-fly zone and engage in attacks on Libyan ground forces.
Therefore the SDSR is out of date. Yes?
Firstly, it needs to reflect on what costs it should now rescind as a result of this experience. The cuts to the FCO are obvious examples. In terms of defence, retaining the four Type-22s and the RAF’s Sentinel force would be beneficial. Whether the Harriers can be returned and at what price is another matter.
Secondly, and perhaps most obviously, bring forward the reductions to the proposed 2020 Force Structure. For example, the planned future army will consist of six brigades of 6,500 personnel each, i.e. 39,000 personnel in total. This is enough to continue the planned Afghanistan rotation of forces until 2015.
Under current planning the army is supposed to be reduced to 95,000 by 2015 which raises the question of what the other 56,000 personnel do.
With a generous allowance for training establishment, headquarters and MoD posts etc, a ratio of one-for-one would suggest we only need an army of 78,000 and that assumes that there are no territorial or reserve forces in these brigades.
Interestingly, a Policy Exchange paper by Lieutenant-General Graeme Lamb and Lieutenant-Colonel Richards Williams produced for the SDSR advocated a smaller army of 75,000 with a much larger and more integrated reserve component. The added benefit would be that this would make free bases for forces returning from Germany and thus reduce the infrastructure costs associated with the withdrawal of the army from Germany.
NURSE
It does look like Libya is heading for fragmentation, will Al Qaeda taking advantage. Likewise Yemen is going downhill fast. Can anyone see the very real dangers in the coming months/years?
Not sure what additional assets we could deploy.
Going back to CINCFLEET's comments, it would appear that practical concerns have been ignored by the professional politicians. The idea of having no fixed wing carrier flying for a decade and then suddenly picking up the baton is perhaps the best example of a decision being made by people who are not very practical.
See the Harrier axed - bonkers thread.
Or perhaps this explains it: Rethinking defence cuts: the more things change, the more they stay the same…
So any reversal on cuts would have to be balanced with savings elsewhere. In other words, new cuts. And where would those cuts fall? Well, as analysts including Andrew Dorman point out, the Army would have to be prime candidate. Largely shielded from cuts in the SDSR, surely the Army could lose a few more thousand posts to free up some cash for the RAF and Navy? For much of the SDSR process, that was the MoD’s plan, but the Army cuts were scaled back by the PM.
That last-minute decision skewed the rest of the review and its outcomes, with negative consequences for the other services that are still becoming clear. Awareness of that problem is spreading across Whitehall.
Indeed, the annoyingly well-informed Alex Barker of the FT reports today that even the generals now accept that argument. But Mr Cameron, wary of more bad headlines about sacking Our Boys while they fight in Afghanistan, has said No.
And from Andrew Dorman: Lessons from Libya
The assumption of conflict avoidance for the next decade allowed the government to announce unprecedented cutbacks to the defence budget which have been exacerbated by earlier mismanagement within the MoD and the previous government’s failure to budget for the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent in the defence budget.
It was therefore to be expected that when the current situation in Libya emerged the government would follow the assumptions of the NSS and keep a low profile (like Germany), evacuating entitled personnel when it could and leaving the rest of the international community to take a lead in confronting the Gaddafi regime.
The government seems to have forgotten its own working assumptions with David Cameron leading calls for a no-fly zone and subsequently committing British forces to support the no-fly zone and engage in attacks on Libyan ground forces.
Therefore the SDSR is out of date. Yes?
Firstly, it needs to reflect on what costs it should now rescind as a result of this experience. The cuts to the FCO are obvious examples. In terms of defence, retaining the four Type-22s and the RAF’s Sentinel force would be beneficial. Whether the Harriers can be returned and at what price is another matter.
Secondly, and perhaps most obviously, bring forward the reductions to the proposed 2020 Force Structure. For example, the planned future army will consist of six brigades of 6,500 personnel each, i.e. 39,000 personnel in total. This is enough to continue the planned Afghanistan rotation of forces until 2015.
Under current planning the army is supposed to be reduced to 95,000 by 2015 which raises the question of what the other 56,000 personnel do.
With a generous allowance for training establishment, headquarters and MoD posts etc, a ratio of one-for-one would suggest we only need an army of 78,000 and that assumes that there are no territorial or reserve forces in these brigades.
Interestingly, a Policy Exchange paper by Lieutenant-General Graeme Lamb and Lieutenant-Colonel Richards Williams produced for the SDSR advocated a smaller army of 75,000 with a much larger and more integrated reserve component. The added benefit would be that this would make free bases for forces returning from Germany and thus reduce the infrastructure costs associated with the withdrawal of the army from Germany.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 16th Apr 2011 at 11:43.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancing, Sussex
Age: 92
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence cuts, public ignorance.
With a rational government (how do we get one) "defence of the realm" would come first, after deciding what is necessary, vote the required funding.
All other expenditure comes out of what is left.
Wouldn't that be marvellous.
All other expenditure comes out of what is left.
Wouldn't that be marvellous.
Thread Starter
Last weekend Telegraph reported another unpredicted development that presumably was unexpected by the politicians...
Libya: Nato intercepts boats laying mines outside Misurata
Misurata has been under siege by forces loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi for several weeks and though rebels have managed to expel regime forces from the city itself, the enclave is isolated and remains dependent for much of its food and supplies on the sea link with the rebel capital Benghazi.
It appeared to be the first time sea mines have been used in the Libyan conflict.
“We have just seen Gaddafi forces floating anti-ship mines outside Misurata harbour today,” said British Brig. Rob Weighill, director of Nato operations in Libya.
“It again shows his complete disregard for international law and his willingness to attack humanitarian delivery efforts.
He added that Nato crews were disposing of the mines.
Yes Mr Cameron, we DO need a Navy!
Update (4/5/11): The News from Pompey is reporting Royal Navy involvement in dealing with these mines.
Plus there's talk of bombarding Libyan Government forces from the sea....
SDSR said nothing about this....
Update: 14/5/11.
SDSR also never predicated that NGS would be needed.....
The words ‘Four-five, engage’ were issued after a salvo of rockets was launched at Liverpool as she and Allied warships tried to stop Colonel Gaddafi’s forces mining the waters off the port.
The destroyer’s main 4.5in gun responded with a series of withering blows which silenced the pro-government battery.
It’s the first time the main guns of the Royal Navy have been fired in anger since they plastered Saddam Hussein’s defences in the opening moments of the 2003 Iraq campaign.
After a break in Crete, Liverpool returned to waters off Libya for her second patrol to continue enforcing UN Security Council resolutions – preventing arms and munitions reaching Col Gaddafi and ensuring aid reaches the free peoples of Libya.
Pro-government forces have made sustained attempts to block the approaches to Misrata port with mines, including one thwarted by HMS Brocklesby a fortnight ago when the Portsmouth-based minehunter blew up a mine laid a mile or so off the harbour.
Last night Liverpool and other NATO warships were sent in to intercept inflatable boats seen approaching Misrata; the small fast craft are used to lay and anchor the mines to the seabed.
As the force moved in, one of the regime’s coastal batteries fired a salvo at Liverpool – which missed – and the destroyer immediately sent a response of steel and fire in the direction of the rocket launchers which promptly ceased firing.
The sweep by the Allied warships also caused the pro-Gaddafi boats to abandon their mining operation before laying their deadly ‘eggs’.
This action was also mentioned here.
HMS Liverpool’s tangle with Libyan forces was the Royal Navy’s most-significant war action since the First Gulf War, a leading historian said.
Top naval historian Professor Andrew Lambert, of King’s College London, said: ‘In 1991, a silkworm missile was fired at a US warship and HMS Gloucester intercepted it with a Sea Dart missile. That was the last big thing until now.’
Prof Lambert argues yesterday’s attack demonstrates the increasing desperation of the Libyan regime.
He said: ‘It’s a highly unusual thing to happen. I sense Gaddafi is feeling the pressure and lashed out.
‘The role navies are playing is destroying Gaddafi’s Libya. Libya exports oil and the blockade has meant he has lost his ability to make money from the sea. This would not have been a random attack. These ships are squeezing the life out of Gaddafi’s regime and he’s fighting back.’
Nor did it predict the use of SSNs for both TLAM firing and other activities (Sun article here) in the Med...
Libya: Nato intercepts boats laying mines outside Misurata
Misurata has been under siege by forces loyal to Col Muammar Gaddafi for several weeks and though rebels have managed to expel regime forces from the city itself, the enclave is isolated and remains dependent for much of its food and supplies on the sea link with the rebel capital Benghazi.
It appeared to be the first time sea mines have been used in the Libyan conflict.
“We have just seen Gaddafi forces floating anti-ship mines outside Misurata harbour today,” said British Brig. Rob Weighill, director of Nato operations in Libya.
“It again shows his complete disregard for international law and his willingness to attack humanitarian delivery efforts.
He added that Nato crews were disposing of the mines.
Yes Mr Cameron, we DO need a Navy!
Update (4/5/11): The News from Pompey is reporting Royal Navy involvement in dealing with these mines.
Plus there's talk of bombarding Libyan Government forces from the sea....
SDSR said nothing about this....
Update: 14/5/11.
SDSR also never predicated that NGS would be needed.....
The words ‘Four-five, engage’ were issued after a salvo of rockets was launched at Liverpool as she and Allied warships tried to stop Colonel Gaddafi’s forces mining the waters off the port.
The destroyer’s main 4.5in gun responded with a series of withering blows which silenced the pro-government battery.
It’s the first time the main guns of the Royal Navy have been fired in anger since they plastered Saddam Hussein’s defences in the opening moments of the 2003 Iraq campaign.
After a break in Crete, Liverpool returned to waters off Libya for her second patrol to continue enforcing UN Security Council resolutions – preventing arms and munitions reaching Col Gaddafi and ensuring aid reaches the free peoples of Libya.
Pro-government forces have made sustained attempts to block the approaches to Misrata port with mines, including one thwarted by HMS Brocklesby a fortnight ago when the Portsmouth-based minehunter blew up a mine laid a mile or so off the harbour.
Last night Liverpool and other NATO warships were sent in to intercept inflatable boats seen approaching Misrata; the small fast craft are used to lay and anchor the mines to the seabed.
As the force moved in, one of the regime’s coastal batteries fired a salvo at Liverpool – which missed – and the destroyer immediately sent a response of steel and fire in the direction of the rocket launchers which promptly ceased firing.
The sweep by the Allied warships also caused the pro-Gaddafi boats to abandon their mining operation before laying their deadly ‘eggs’.
This action was also mentioned here.
HMS Liverpool’s tangle with Libyan forces was the Royal Navy’s most-significant war action since the First Gulf War, a leading historian said.
Top naval historian Professor Andrew Lambert, of King’s College London, said: ‘In 1991, a silkworm missile was fired at a US warship and HMS Gloucester intercepted it with a Sea Dart missile. That was the last big thing until now.’
Prof Lambert argues yesterday’s attack demonstrates the increasing desperation of the Libyan regime.
He said: ‘It’s a highly unusual thing to happen. I sense Gaddafi is feeling the pressure and lashed out.
‘The role navies are playing is destroying Gaddafi’s Libya. Libya exports oil and the blockade has meant he has lost his ability to make money from the sea. This would not have been a random attack. These ships are squeezing the life out of Gaddafi’s regime and he’s fighting back.’
Nor did it predict the use of SSNs for both TLAM firing and other activities (Sun article here) in the Med...
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 18th May 2011 at 20:36.
Thread Starter
It now appears that the Libyan regime has resorted to using other asymmetric methods of trying to fight both the rebels and NATO - as reported by Eaglespeak...
A tonne of explosives in a boat borne IED suggests an attempt to sink a ship.
About 18 months ago, I prepared a short presentation on asymmetric maritime threats, from terrorists, pirates, and the link, and possible methods of attack. This was very much from a maritime force protection viewpoint, and in addition to discussing terrorist attacks (successful or otherwise) against maritime targets, I tried to make the following points:
1. Terrorists will use any weapon they can. This has included light aircraft (Tamil Tigers), stealthy suicide craft (Tamil Tigers), improvised mines, suicide torpedoes and mini submarines (various groups), and the use of all sorts of vehicles or vessels as weapon platforms or for suicide attacks.
2. Countering these threats demands technology and people. The attack methods may be fairly low tech, but out countermeasures cannot.
3. Asymmetric activities may be done by the armed forces (eg Iranian small boats attacking tankers with machine guns and rockets during the tanker war) or intelligence services or hostile nations, or on their behalf (eg the Argentine plot to attack UK vessels in Gibraltar during the Falklands War).
Thus far, the Libyan regime has used converted light aircraft to mount an air raid, used small boats for minelaying, and now attempted to use a large boat IED.
We should pay attention.
Meanwhile, operations in Iraq are over: From the MOD:
Operations in Iraq finish with completion of Royal Navy training mission
A tonne of explosives in a boat borne IED suggests an attempt to sink a ship.
About 18 months ago, I prepared a short presentation on asymmetric maritime threats, from terrorists, pirates, and the link, and possible methods of attack. This was very much from a maritime force protection viewpoint, and in addition to discussing terrorist attacks (successful or otherwise) against maritime targets, I tried to make the following points:
1. Terrorists will use any weapon they can. This has included light aircraft (Tamil Tigers), stealthy suicide craft (Tamil Tigers), improvised mines, suicide torpedoes and mini submarines (various groups), and the use of all sorts of vehicles or vessels as weapon platforms or for suicide attacks.
2. Countering these threats demands technology and people. The attack methods may be fairly low tech, but out countermeasures cannot.
3. Asymmetric activities may be done by the armed forces (eg Iranian small boats attacking tankers with machine guns and rockets during the tanker war) or intelligence services or hostile nations, or on their behalf (eg the Argentine plot to attack UK vessels in Gibraltar during the Falklands War).
Thus far, the Libyan regime has used converted light aircraft to mount an air raid, used small boats for minelaying, and now attempted to use a large boat IED.
We should pay attention.
Meanwhile, operations in Iraq are over: From the MOD:
Operations in Iraq finish with completion of Royal Navy training mission
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 18th May 2011 at 20:37.
Thread Starter
When I started this thread, I had doubts about whether the Prime Minister would be capable of taking advice from the Service Chiefs. Under a different Government I have the same doubts. Was the public criticism of the First Sea Lord this week acceptable?
We know for a fact that the First Sea Lord's advice was ignored before the SDSR, with respect to the Harrier and the issue of preparing for CVF in the future, and over Nimrod. Of course, some might argue that a career politician who has never worked outside of the Conservative party (he was unable to actually win the election though) is better placed to make judgements about these issues than an experienced naval officer with a background in Submarines who later commanded a carrier during periods of intense operational flying....
There are suggestions the professional advice was ignored when making an open commitment to Libya. Is Call Me Dave really well placed to make judgements - his experience of the real world is rather limited.
Why is the decision making process so flawed?
To really put the cat amongst the pigeons have a look at this ARRSE thread:
UK Armed Forces: Plummeting International Reputation Deserved? Does it Matter?
We know for a fact that the First Sea Lord's advice was ignored before the SDSR, with respect to the Harrier and the issue of preparing for CVF in the future, and over Nimrod. Of course, some might argue that a career politician who has never worked outside of the Conservative party (he was unable to actually win the election though) is better placed to make judgements about these issues than an experienced naval officer with a background in Submarines who later commanded a carrier during periods of intense operational flying....
There are suggestions the professional advice was ignored when making an open commitment to Libya. Is Call Me Dave really well placed to make judgements - his experience of the real world is rather limited.
Why is the decision making process so flawed?
To really put the cat amongst the pigeons have a look at this ARRSE thread:
UK Armed Forces: Plummeting International Reputation Deserved? Does it Matter?
Thread Starter
Whilst we're on the subject of flawed decision making, I've the following article about current operations in Libya:
Opinion: Libya Stalemate Looms for NATO as Gaddafi Holds His Ground
Opinion: Libya Stalemate Looms for NATO as Gaddafi Holds His Ground
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why is the decision making process so flawed?"
because since the war the politicians have shoveled money into a bottomless pit which has no effective controls on budgeting, expenditure or planning
there comes a time when you just ignore what the military say as you've given up believing them
because since the war the politicians have shoveled money into a bottomless pit which has no effective controls on budgeting, expenditure or planning
there comes a time when you just ignore what the military say as you've given up believing them
I had assumed, when he was talking about bottomless pits with no effective controls, that Heathrow Harry had been referring to the NHS and Social Security...