Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
Thread Starter
This week's local paper (you might consider it last week's as it gets published on Thursdays) reports an 18 year old member of the TA being called up for service in Iraq.
His unit is NOT an infantry one, yet they are being sent to do infantry tasks. Local TA infantry and already serving in Iraq, and also in Afgahnistan, where one of them got killed.
So it would appear that we've run out of infantry units, including TA ones, so now people trained as tank gunners or loaders are being sent.
Still, Geoff Hoon says there's no overstretch.....
His unit is NOT an infantry one, yet they are being sent to do infantry tasks. Local TA infantry and already serving in Iraq, and also in Afgahnistan, where one of them got killed.
So it would appear that we've run out of infantry units, including TA ones, so now people trained as tank gunners or loaders are being sent.
Still, Geoff Hoon says there's no overstretch.....
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: wales
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC Article today:
Defence plans criticised by MPs:
Troops, regulars and reserves are overstretched, the report said
Serious problems of under-manning and overstretch in the armed forces could put British troops at risk, an all-party committee of MPs has warned. The Commons Defence Committee was reporting after a five month inquiry into the Defence White Paper.
The Ministry of Defence had prioritised hi-tech innovation at the expense of army personnel, the MPs said. The plans could result in troops being sent "unprepared" into "complex and dangerous situations". The MoD's plans are "depressingly short" on details of how to resolve the chronic problem of "excess stretch" in the armed forces, the report continues. "We believe the manpower shortages must be tackled urgently," it added.
With the armed forces "depending" on reserves for "their operational capability" - the role of reserves and "what can be reasonably expected of them" must be reappraised.
The report is also critical of plans to reduce the scale of the armed forces - especially before new hi-tech capabilities and equipment are introduced.
Defence plans criticised by MPs:
Troops, regulars and reserves are overstretched, the report said
Serious problems of under-manning and overstretch in the armed forces could put British troops at risk, an all-party committee of MPs has warned. The Commons Defence Committee was reporting after a five month inquiry into the Defence White Paper.
The Ministry of Defence had prioritised hi-tech innovation at the expense of army personnel, the MPs said. The plans could result in troops being sent "unprepared" into "complex and dangerous situations". The MoD's plans are "depressingly short" on details of how to resolve the chronic problem of "excess stretch" in the armed forces, the report continues. "We believe the manpower shortages must be tackled urgently," it added.
With the armed forces "depending" on reserves for "their operational capability" - the role of reserves and "what can be reasonably expected of them" must be reappraised.
The report is also critical of plans to reduce the scale of the armed forces - especially before new hi-tech capabilities and equipment are introduced.
Thread Starter
Pr00ne
Does that 1% take into account inflation? If not then in real terms....
As for the Reserves....
Reserve forces (by which I mean Volunteer Reserves) are, like their regular counterparts, overstretched. During the Cold War the role of Reservists was to provide extra capabilities and manpower in the event of the Cold War going Hot. Fotunately this never happened.
After the Cold War, changes have been made to achieve closer integration with the regular forces. In the early 90s the squadron of coastal minesweepers that that were operated by the Royal Naval Reserve were removed from service as it was assesed that that they were no longer needed, the threat of Soviet deep water mines being placed in the approaches to Submarine bases on the Clyde died with the USSR. Whilst these vessels were relatively unsophistacated, they had a wide range of people to man them, seamen, communicators, engineering, chefs, etc etc.
Another branch that was disbanded after the Cold War was one called Port Defence or something similar. This branch had the role of protecting ports, achorages and shipping from sabotage, terrorism and the like.
Snce then the RNR has changed, many of the skills that it had still exist, but its role now is different. Several hundred members of the RNR were mobillised for operation in the Gulf last year, they are still calling people up. Funding for training is limited which causes real problems - for example not everyone recieves weapon training. One of the major roles of the RNR is providing teams for protecting RFA vessels and chartered shipping. If the Government were willing (which they're not) to make a small invstment, portable systems (eg ones like this one)could be procured to provide a level of defence greater than that possible with just small arms.
The TA was cut to shreds during the Strategic Defence Review. In particular, the TA infantry battalions were cut. The role during to Cold War was partly to reinforce UK forces on the continent, but also home defence - providing personnel to defend key points from sabotage, terrorism or Spetsnaz (Soviet special forces) attack. There are hundreds of key points in the UK, each of which could be a terrorist target.
What infantry the TA still has tends to get deployed to Afgahnistan, Iraq, Kosovo - anywhere really, as the regular Army does not have enough troops to do the jobs asked of it. Non infantry TA personnel also get deployed to do infantry jobs.
I haven't mentioned the Royal Marines Reserve or RAF Reservists due to lack of knowledge.
Additionally, hundreds of Reservists (of all types) are one Full Time Reseve Service - without them the Armed Forces could not function - in peacetime!
Whilst it makes sense to deal with terrorism as far from the UK as possible (keeping troops in Iraq and Afgahnistan until both places are fairly stable, using warships and maritime patrol aircraft to make the seaborne movement of terrorists, explosives etc - see here and here - anti terrorist patrols off of Cyprus and Gbraltar, and many other activities, we lack the means to defend key points on land, or ports.
See This from epolitix
Does that 1% take into account inflation? If not then in real terms....
As for the Reserves....
Reserve forces (by which I mean Volunteer Reserves) are, like their regular counterparts, overstretched. During the Cold War the role of Reservists was to provide extra capabilities and manpower in the event of the Cold War going Hot. Fotunately this never happened.
After the Cold War, changes have been made to achieve closer integration with the regular forces. In the early 90s the squadron of coastal minesweepers that that were operated by the Royal Naval Reserve were removed from service as it was assesed that that they were no longer needed, the threat of Soviet deep water mines being placed in the approaches to Submarine bases on the Clyde died with the USSR. Whilst these vessels were relatively unsophistacated, they had a wide range of people to man them, seamen, communicators, engineering, chefs, etc etc.
Another branch that was disbanded after the Cold War was one called Port Defence or something similar. This branch had the role of protecting ports, achorages and shipping from sabotage, terrorism and the like.
Snce then the RNR has changed, many of the skills that it had still exist, but its role now is different. Several hundred members of the RNR were mobillised for operation in the Gulf last year, they are still calling people up. Funding for training is limited which causes real problems - for example not everyone recieves weapon training. One of the major roles of the RNR is providing teams for protecting RFA vessels and chartered shipping. If the Government were willing (which they're not) to make a small invstment, portable systems (eg ones like this one)could be procured to provide a level of defence greater than that possible with just small arms.
The TA was cut to shreds during the Strategic Defence Review. In particular, the TA infantry battalions were cut. The role during to Cold War was partly to reinforce UK forces on the continent, but also home defence - providing personnel to defend key points from sabotage, terrorism or Spetsnaz (Soviet special forces) attack. There are hundreds of key points in the UK, each of which could be a terrorist target.
What infantry the TA still has tends to get deployed to Afgahnistan, Iraq, Kosovo - anywhere really, as the regular Army does not have enough troops to do the jobs asked of it. Non infantry TA personnel also get deployed to do infantry jobs.
I haven't mentioned the Royal Marines Reserve or RAF Reservists due to lack of knowledge.
Additionally, hundreds of Reservists (of all types) are one Full Time Reseve Service - without them the Armed Forces could not function - in peacetime!
Whilst it makes sense to deal with terrorism as far from the UK as possible (keeping troops in Iraq and Afgahnistan until both places are fairly stable, using warships and maritime patrol aircraft to make the seaborne movement of terrorists, explosives etc - see here and here - anti terrorist patrols off of Cyprus and Gbraltar, and many other activities, we lack the means to defend key points on land, or ports.
See This from epolitix
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More bad news for EuroFighter and Defence?
Eurofighter Project May Wind Down, Imperiling Thousands of Jobs
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...=aJDEen36j4A4#
July 18 (Bloomberg) -- Eurofighter GmbH, the venture in charge of Europe's biggest defense project, may start to wind down production, threatening thousands of jobs, unless the U.K. and other countries buy a second group of 236 planes this month.
``A binding commitment for funding'' by the end of July is ``the minimum we need followed by an undertaking that contract signature will follow,'' said Eurofighter Chief Executive Officer Aloysius Rauen, 47, in an interview. ``The Eurofighter partner companies are preparing steps to run down the program.''
The U.K., Germany, Italy and Spain have pledged to buy 620 planes in three batches from Munich-based Eurofighter GmbH. The combat plane, conceived 20 years ago for air defense against Soviet MiGs, is built by BAE Systems Plc, European Aeronautic, Defense & Space Co. and Finmeccanica SpA's Alenia unit.
Eurofighter is at least six years behind schedule already and the cost has tripled to more than 83 billion euros ($103 billion). The program employs about 10,000 people working on the airframe and another 10,000 working on the engine and other equipment.
``You've got the cost of shutting down production lines and then of starting them up again,'' Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace industry analyst with the Teal Group in Fairfax, Virginia. ``It's not just jobs at the four main companies, but across the program's very many subcontractors.''
The U.K. wants to cut the price of the fighter and add the capability to attack ground targets with precision weapons to the planes earlier than planned, according to British government documents seen by Bloomberg News. The U.K.'s demands are under negotiation, Rauen said.
U.K. Position
``The U.K. is not yet where the other countries are'' on funding, said Rauen, who declined to give details. ``Hour-by-hour negotiations are ongoing'' to get a commitment. Britain has said it will purchase 89 second-batch aircraft. Germany this month granted approval to buy 68 further planes.
``The U.K. remains committed to tranche 2 and negotiations are ongoing,'' said Steve Bethel, a spokesman for Britain's Ministry of Defence. Talks between the four nations are ``commercially sensitive,'' he said., declining further comment.
Britain is the primary obstacle to an agreement to pay for the planes, said EADS Co-Chief Executive Rainer Hertrich, 54, and Thomas Enders, 45, head of EADS's military unit, speaking before the tomorrow's start of the Farnborough Air Show in England.
``Hurry up in the U.K.!'' said Hertrich in an interview yesterday in Bath, England. ``If we don't have an agreement by the end of July, it will start having consequences immediately'' with employees at EADS and subcontractors being asked to work part-time or even lose jobs, he said. ``Who pays the bill?''
14,000 Jobs
As many as 14,000, or 70 percent of the Eurofighter workforce, might be lost by November 2005 and 1.5 billion euros added cost because of delays in signing contract for the second group of planes, according to a Nov. 3 letter, seen by Bloomberg News, from Ernst Dintner, deputy general manager of NETMA, the agency managing the four-nation project.
Spokesmen for the defense ministries of Germany, Italy and Spain did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Rauen, Hertrich and Enders did not comment on the exact number of jobs that would be affected. EADS employs 6,000 people on Eurofighter.
``We face the serious threat that we could have a gap here, a disruption of the program which could be very costly,'' said Enders. ``We estimate that could run to between 1 billion and 2 billion euros.''
The companies will have to start talks with unions to reduce shifts and redeploy workers because of a lack of work if the governments do not commit to the second batch of 236 planes, Rauen said in the interview in his Munich office on Thursday.
First Tranche
The four nations agreed to buy 148 planes in a first batch designed for air supremacy. Of that total, 36 have been delivered, 104 are under construction and work remains to begin on eight. Final delivery of the last plane in the batch is set for early 2007. Delivery of the first planes in the second batch is scheduled for the same year, dependent on work beginning soon.
``The four Eurofighter governments had some time ago agreed that by end of July, latest, they wanted to have a tranche 2 contract signed with industry in order to avoid our coming into a production interruption,'' said Enders.
``We have already slowed the manufacture'' of the first-batch planes ``to the maximum'' to prevent a costly gap in production, Rauen said. A gap will hurt smaller suppliers more because of their ``limited flexibility'' to ``take workers out of the production process.''
Representatives from the contractors, NETMA and the four governments will meet this week during the air show to discuss the state of the program.
Ground Targets
The U.K. would like the next batch of planes to have the ability to attack ground targets with precision ordnance including laser-guided bombs, such as Stormshadow and Brimstone missiles, government documents show. In the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, there was little need for air-defense aircraft.
BAE in April said it plans to cut 1,000 jobs between now and 2005 at plants making Eurofighter and Nimrod planes as the air- systems division reorganizes to handle less work. BAE Chief Executive Mike Turner said in February a production contract for the second-batch planes may be delayed until the end of 2004.
Eurofighter reduced the cost of the second batch of planes by 200 million euros and agreed to sell 18 aircraft earmarked for the U.K. to Austria, easing Britain's defense budget, Hertrich said in April. The U.K. will take delivery of an equal amount at a later date, he said.
``Three parties have largely done their homework, one party hasn't,'' said Enders. ``That is posing a problem.''
Eurofighter Project May Wind Down, Imperiling Thousands of Jobs
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...=aJDEen36j4A4#
July 18 (Bloomberg) -- Eurofighter GmbH, the venture in charge of Europe's biggest defense project, may start to wind down production, threatening thousands of jobs, unless the U.K. and other countries buy a second group of 236 planes this month.
``A binding commitment for funding'' by the end of July is ``the minimum we need followed by an undertaking that contract signature will follow,'' said Eurofighter Chief Executive Officer Aloysius Rauen, 47, in an interview. ``The Eurofighter partner companies are preparing steps to run down the program.''
The U.K., Germany, Italy and Spain have pledged to buy 620 planes in three batches from Munich-based Eurofighter GmbH. The combat plane, conceived 20 years ago for air defense against Soviet MiGs, is built by BAE Systems Plc, European Aeronautic, Defense & Space Co. and Finmeccanica SpA's Alenia unit.
Eurofighter is at least six years behind schedule already and the cost has tripled to more than 83 billion euros ($103 billion). The program employs about 10,000 people working on the airframe and another 10,000 working on the engine and other equipment.
``You've got the cost of shutting down production lines and then of starting them up again,'' Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace industry analyst with the Teal Group in Fairfax, Virginia. ``It's not just jobs at the four main companies, but across the program's very many subcontractors.''
The U.K. wants to cut the price of the fighter and add the capability to attack ground targets with precision weapons to the planes earlier than planned, according to British government documents seen by Bloomberg News. The U.K.'s demands are under negotiation, Rauen said.
U.K. Position
``The U.K. is not yet where the other countries are'' on funding, said Rauen, who declined to give details. ``Hour-by-hour negotiations are ongoing'' to get a commitment. Britain has said it will purchase 89 second-batch aircraft. Germany this month granted approval to buy 68 further planes.
``The U.K. remains committed to tranche 2 and negotiations are ongoing,'' said Steve Bethel, a spokesman for Britain's Ministry of Defence. Talks between the four nations are ``commercially sensitive,'' he said., declining further comment.
Britain is the primary obstacle to an agreement to pay for the planes, said EADS Co-Chief Executive Rainer Hertrich, 54, and Thomas Enders, 45, head of EADS's military unit, speaking before the tomorrow's start of the Farnborough Air Show in England.
``Hurry up in the U.K.!'' said Hertrich in an interview yesterday in Bath, England. ``If we don't have an agreement by the end of July, it will start having consequences immediately'' with employees at EADS and subcontractors being asked to work part-time or even lose jobs, he said. ``Who pays the bill?''
14,000 Jobs
As many as 14,000, or 70 percent of the Eurofighter workforce, might be lost by November 2005 and 1.5 billion euros added cost because of delays in signing contract for the second group of planes, according to a Nov. 3 letter, seen by Bloomberg News, from Ernst Dintner, deputy general manager of NETMA, the agency managing the four-nation project.
Spokesmen for the defense ministries of Germany, Italy and Spain did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Rauen, Hertrich and Enders did not comment on the exact number of jobs that would be affected. EADS employs 6,000 people on Eurofighter.
``We face the serious threat that we could have a gap here, a disruption of the program which could be very costly,'' said Enders. ``We estimate that could run to between 1 billion and 2 billion euros.''
The companies will have to start talks with unions to reduce shifts and redeploy workers because of a lack of work if the governments do not commit to the second batch of 236 planes, Rauen said in the interview in his Munich office on Thursday.
First Tranche
The four nations agreed to buy 148 planes in a first batch designed for air supremacy. Of that total, 36 have been delivered, 104 are under construction and work remains to begin on eight. Final delivery of the last plane in the batch is set for early 2007. Delivery of the first planes in the second batch is scheduled for the same year, dependent on work beginning soon.
``The four Eurofighter governments had some time ago agreed that by end of July, latest, they wanted to have a tranche 2 contract signed with industry in order to avoid our coming into a production interruption,'' said Enders.
``We have already slowed the manufacture'' of the first-batch planes ``to the maximum'' to prevent a costly gap in production, Rauen said. A gap will hurt smaller suppliers more because of their ``limited flexibility'' to ``take workers out of the production process.''
Representatives from the contractors, NETMA and the four governments will meet this week during the air show to discuss the state of the program.
Ground Targets
The U.K. would like the next batch of planes to have the ability to attack ground targets with precision ordnance including laser-guided bombs, such as Stormshadow and Brimstone missiles, government documents show. In the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, there was little need for air-defense aircraft.
BAE in April said it plans to cut 1,000 jobs between now and 2005 at plants making Eurofighter and Nimrod planes as the air- systems division reorganizes to handle less work. BAE Chief Executive Mike Turner said in February a production contract for the second-batch planes may be delayed until the end of 2004.
Eurofighter reduced the cost of the second batch of planes by 200 million euros and agreed to sell 18 aircraft earmarked for the U.K. to Austria, easing Britain's defense budget, Hertrich said in April. The U.K. will take delivery of an equal amount at a later date, he said.
``Three parties have largely done their homework, one party hasn't,'' said Enders. ``That is posing a problem.''
Thread Starter
Examples of bending the truth
Having read the document on the cuts......... I mean reforms again (see here) I note the following........
The importance of those capabilities which can rapidly come together to achieve specific military effect and then rapidly adapt with other capabilities to achieve what is required by the next operation. By doing so decisive military effect may be achieved through a smaller number of more capable, linked assets acting quickly and precisely to achieve a desired outcome.
OK but what about peacekeeping/peace support etc?
During the Vietnam War over 800 sorties were flown against the Thanh Hoa bridge before it was destroyed by aircraft using precision weapons. Today we would aim to destroy a similar target with a single formation of 6 Tornado aircraft with Enhanced Precision guided bombs.
Apart from the fact North Vietnamese airspace was heavily defended by MiGs, SAMs and AAA, with an integrated air defence network the US rules of engagement left largely intact...
Surely that numbers of sorties (800) includes not just the aicraft dropping the bombs but also escorting fighters, defence suppression and EW types, tanker support and AWACS type aircraft. Surely we would sent some support for our six Tornadoes? So more than six aircraft then.....
From Chaptor two....
NEC scenario
Autumn 2010, UK maritime, land and air forces are engaged in a focused intervention somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa.
Nice choice of theatre, with no opposing submarine or air assets and only terrorists on the ground.
The whole paper put great emphasis on operation in future being at times and places of our choosing. Err- what about unpredictable events? Can't be predicted therefore can't happen?
The importance of those capabilities which can rapidly come together to achieve specific military effect and then rapidly adapt with other capabilities to achieve what is required by the next operation. By doing so decisive military effect may be achieved through a smaller number of more capable, linked assets acting quickly and precisely to achieve a desired outcome.
OK but what about peacekeeping/peace support etc?
During the Vietnam War over 800 sorties were flown against the Thanh Hoa bridge before it was destroyed by aircraft using precision weapons. Today we would aim to destroy a similar target with a single formation of 6 Tornado aircraft with Enhanced Precision guided bombs.
Apart from the fact North Vietnamese airspace was heavily defended by MiGs, SAMs and AAA, with an integrated air defence network the US rules of engagement left largely intact...
Surely that numbers of sorties (800) includes not just the aicraft dropping the bombs but also escorting fighters, defence suppression and EW types, tanker support and AWACS type aircraft. Surely we would sent some support for our six Tornadoes? So more than six aircraft then.....
From Chaptor two....
NEC scenario
Autumn 2010, UK maritime, land and air forces are engaged in a focused intervention somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa.
Nice choice of theatre, with no opposing submarine or air assets and only terrorists on the ground.
The whole paper put great emphasis on operation in future being at times and places of our choosing. Err- what about unpredictable events? Can't be predicted therefore can't happen?
Thread Starter
Less assets? Ok then, reduce the commitments
CINCFLEET speaks out
A very interesting quote....
"The Armed Forces' 'can do' attitude is our greatest asset and our greatest weakness," he said.
A very interesting quote....
"The Armed Forces' 'can do' attitude is our greatest asset and our greatest weakness," he said.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We now know how much UK defence has been given .
However, does anyone know how much UK defence actually asked for ?
And what the difference between what we asked for and what we actually got!
However, does anyone know how much UK defence actually asked for ?
And what the difference between what we asked for and what we actually got!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the site gets a mention on Channel 4 news tonight at 19:00
http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/mess...lope+462+index
http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/mess...lope+462+index
Jessthedog,
That's not how the Defence vote works!
There is a whole series of alternative assumptions going on all the time, future expenditure is dependent on a whole range of scenarios, at no stage does UK Defence (who ARE they?) actually ASK for anything.
National archives have published similar rantings and ravings, otherwise known as 'alternative assumptions' for the 1970 to 1972 period where planned defence expenditure (by the Tories note!) was to fall year on year from 1971 until 1982. The proposed reductions in the forward equipment programme by the Chiefs of Staff make fascinating reading!
Of course none of this actually happened as the 1973 Arab-Israeli war broke out, the fuel embargo hit, there was a General election and both parties planned massive defence cuts as a consequence. When Labour eventually got in and were confirmed in power they then hit the forces with a HUGE cut in Defence expenditure, which limped on until 1976!
That's not how the Defence vote works!
There is a whole series of alternative assumptions going on all the time, future expenditure is dependent on a whole range of scenarios, at no stage does UK Defence (who ARE they?) actually ASK for anything.
National archives have published similar rantings and ravings, otherwise known as 'alternative assumptions' for the 1970 to 1972 period where planned defence expenditure (by the Tories note!) was to fall year on year from 1971 until 1982. The proposed reductions in the forward equipment programme by the Chiefs of Staff make fascinating reading!
Of course none of this actually happened as the 1973 Arab-Israeli war broke out, the fuel embargo hit, there was a General election and both parties planned massive defence cuts as a consequence. When Labour eventually got in and were confirmed in power they then hit the forces with a HUGE cut in Defence expenditure, which limped on until 1976!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ANYWHERE
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a totally pointless arguement as our present government and the opposition haven't a clue about the UKs defence needs.
As a observer I have read over the years that the initial new Nimrod requirement was 25, 21 were ordered which was reduced to 18 and now stands at 12.
A report stated our helicopter support capability was 34% below requirements and about £4bn was to allocated to buy 100 replacement helicopters but now the budget is cut so how many will you actually receive?
They were going to buy 150 JSF a/c to replace the Harriers and Sea Harriers but with the SHARs fate already sealed and have you ever known a government in recent history creating more fighter squadrons you will be lucky to get 75!
2 years ago they wanted to increase the RAF regiment by 10% but that is now to be cut.
Type 45 destroyer ordere cut from 12 to 8, 12 fishery protection cut from 12 to 7 leased vessels.
Both our main political parties want to seen as agressive supporters of the war on terrorism but are unwilling to pay for the means to combat it.
It is wrong there is total apathy towards the military I am a civilian and know there are major problems and the forces are over stretched, do not have the equipment for the jobs given to them but until a 767 full of innocent people is aimed at the Houses of Parliament or Canary Wharf our politicians will not change as unfortunately the majority have only one interest and that is themselves.
As a observer I have read over the years that the initial new Nimrod requirement was 25, 21 were ordered which was reduced to 18 and now stands at 12.
A report stated our helicopter support capability was 34% below requirements and about £4bn was to allocated to buy 100 replacement helicopters but now the budget is cut so how many will you actually receive?
They were going to buy 150 JSF a/c to replace the Harriers and Sea Harriers but with the SHARs fate already sealed and have you ever known a government in recent history creating more fighter squadrons you will be lucky to get 75!
2 years ago they wanted to increase the RAF regiment by 10% but that is now to be cut.
Type 45 destroyer ordere cut from 12 to 8, 12 fishery protection cut from 12 to 7 leased vessels.
Both our main political parties want to seen as agressive supporters of the war on terrorism but are unwilling to pay for the means to combat it.
It is wrong there is total apathy towards the military I am a civilian and know there are major problems and the forces are over stretched, do not have the equipment for the jobs given to them but until a 767 full of innocent people is aimed at the Houses of Parliament or Canary Wharf our politicians will not change as unfortunately the majority have only one interest and that is themselves.
ROLLERSKATE
Just how is ANY of that equipment you list going to even interfere with your 767 let alone stop it?
We have to deal with the reasons and the causes of all this, fleets of jet fighters, Nimrods and Destroyers are not going to do it.
Just how is ANY of that equipment you list going to even interfere with your 767 let alone stop it?
We have to deal with the reasons and the causes of all this, fleets of jet fighters, Nimrods and Destroyers are not going to do it.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ANYWHERE
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prOOne
I agree that huge fleets of a/c and ships will not stop terrorists but my point is the inconsistency by politicians when it comes to making decisions about defence requirements.
Personally I feel there is little need of hundreds of fast jets when the threat to the UK by aircraft or ships is small and when we do deploy fast jets to conflicts outside Europe this is done in very small numbers.
I know we have a limited defence budget and technology is expensive but lets have some consistency so everyone knows where we stand - stop moving the goalposts.
Mr. Blair and co. must learn as bad as some the worlds problems are the UK can not get involved in every conflict, it is time for some others with large armies to pull there wait.
I agree that huge fleets of a/c and ships will not stop terrorists but my point is the inconsistency by politicians when it comes to making decisions about defence requirements.
Personally I feel there is little need of hundreds of fast jets when the threat to the UK by aircraft or ships is small and when we do deploy fast jets to conflicts outside Europe this is done in very small numbers.
I know we have a limited defence budget and technology is expensive but lets have some consistency so everyone knows where we stand - stop moving the goalposts.
Mr. Blair and co. must learn as bad as some the worlds problems are the UK can not get involved in every conflict, it is time for some others with large armies to pull there wait.
Last edited by ROLLERSKATE; 10th Aug 2004 at 11:03.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's not how the Defence vote works!
This is purely a cost cutting exercise, based around the coincidence of a number of expensive, overspent and overdue equipment programmes. It takes years to generate skilled personnel, and this is what is being lost. These cuts will be regretted, the trouble is it will only be those left in the services that will be around to regret them!
I am fed up to my back teeth, and I will be off at the next opportunity, quite shortly.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
I personally find it a disgustingly political piece of work. I am shocked that someone I had held in such high regard from his scholarly works has stooped to the level of fairground barker for the Tory party. I was aware of his affiliations however in the past he has managed to maintain a tight rein on his horses in this respect. Personally I will be unlikely to read anymore of his publications as a result of this article.
Cheers
BHR
I personally find it a disgustingly political piece of work. I am shocked that someone I had held in such high regard from his scholarly works has stooped to the level of fairground barker for the Tory party. I was aware of his affiliations however in the past he has managed to maintain a tight rein on his horses in this respect. Personally I will be unlikely to read anymore of his publications as a result of this article.
Cheers
BHR
Suspicion breeds confidence
I'm with Webf on this. "Political correctness" these days seems to be an excuse for not publishing the truth in this nanny state. Mr Keegan has clearly hit several nails on the head with his article.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Keegan speaks for every thinking person in this country when he criticises the recent defence cuts - and don't you dare, Pr00ne, call them anything else!
If new labour waste the money instead I hope they realise what a risk they take with the security of us all and I hope they realise that now they must stop playing on the World stage.
If new labour waste the money instead I hope they realise what a risk they take with the security of us all and I hope they realise that now they must stop playing on the World stage.