Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
More of Keegan's tired, ill-informed anti-Eurofighter prejudice and some new nonsense about the 'inevitability' of retiring 'worn out' Jaguars. The Jaguars that could go on longer, cheaper than GR7/GR9, and which don't need a new back end to do so.
More backward looking carping about sensible reductions to Cold War armour and to unfortunate but essential changes to 'cap badges'.
But what does anyone expect from an Army historian? The tragedy is that the Telegraph give this tired windbag such credence.
More backward looking carping about sensible reductions to Cold War armour and to unfortunate but essential changes to 'cap badges'.
But what does anyone expect from an Army historian? The tragedy is that the Telegraph give this tired windbag such credence.
Soddim,
I think there are far more “thinking” people in this country that would strongly disagree with Keegan’s clapped out, old, inaccurate rhetoric than you would like to think.
How can you define a £3.7billion increase in funding in real terms as a cut? How can you define £2.8billion in efficiency savings reinvested in the Defence budget as a cut?
Take a look around you at what’s happening in the world. The busiest and most employed Air Force on the planet , the United States Air Force, is cutting 22,000 people and has admitted that it is going to drastically reduce it’s number of tactical fast jets, not that they use that ridiculous phrase, as they are using less than half of them to fulfil their global commitments.
The Swedish Air Force is also reducing to a fraction of their 1990’s fast jet numbers.
Increasing defence budgets in the major players in the so-called War against terror such as the US, the UK and Australia are being used to fight a very different campaign against a very different enemy.
We no longer face fleets of combat aircraft, surface ships and submarines contesting the worlds oceans or skies, or hundreds of tanks rolling across Europe.
I do agree that some of the decisions do not seem to make sense, why on earth, for example, are we apparently reducing the future Support Helicopter budget by a billion after the damming report on SH shortfalls by the NAO. This is an area that I thought would be substantially boosted, instead it seems it is to be further reduced.
We still retain 7 Tornado GR4 squadrons yet only ever seem to need less than three, surely funds here could be found for a more robust SH force?
Have to agree with BillHicksRules and Jackonicko on both the Tories and the Telegraph.
I am afraid as a substantial taxpayer I agree that it is the duty of ANY Government to spend the very minimum required on Defence, a penny more is a waste of taxpayers money. That minimum of course has to ensure an adequate defence.
We appear to be spending the correct amount, but on the wrong things.
I think there are far more “thinking” people in this country that would strongly disagree with Keegan’s clapped out, old, inaccurate rhetoric than you would like to think.
How can you define a £3.7billion increase in funding in real terms as a cut? How can you define £2.8billion in efficiency savings reinvested in the Defence budget as a cut?
Take a look around you at what’s happening in the world. The busiest and most employed Air Force on the planet , the United States Air Force, is cutting 22,000 people and has admitted that it is going to drastically reduce it’s number of tactical fast jets, not that they use that ridiculous phrase, as they are using less than half of them to fulfil their global commitments.
The Swedish Air Force is also reducing to a fraction of their 1990’s fast jet numbers.
Increasing defence budgets in the major players in the so-called War against terror such as the US, the UK and Australia are being used to fight a very different campaign against a very different enemy.
We no longer face fleets of combat aircraft, surface ships and submarines contesting the worlds oceans or skies, or hundreds of tanks rolling across Europe.
I do agree that some of the decisions do not seem to make sense, why on earth, for example, are we apparently reducing the future Support Helicopter budget by a billion after the damming report on SH shortfalls by the NAO. This is an area that I thought would be substantially boosted, instead it seems it is to be further reduced.
We still retain 7 Tornado GR4 squadrons yet only ever seem to need less than three, surely funds here could be found for a more robust SH force?
Have to agree with BillHicksRules and Jackonicko on both the Tories and the Telegraph.
I am afraid as a substantial taxpayer I agree that it is the duty of ANY Government to spend the very minimum required on Defence, a penny more is a waste of taxpayers money. That minimum of course has to ensure an adequate defence.
We appear to be spending the correct amount, but on the wrong things.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with pr00ne and Jackonicko,
The Cold War is over (Even ASACS worked that out) let go, we're not facing hoards of Backfires over the Cape, nor will the Russians be sweeping through the Fulda gap.
Much as it pains us, the realignment of equipment and forces to meet the new dangers is necessary. Lets not play the old ‘I don’t like Tony Blair so it must be wrong’ card. Do you seriously think the Conservatives would have done any different?
-Nick
The Cold War is over (Even ASACS worked that out) let go, we're not facing hoards of Backfires over the Cape, nor will the Russians be sweeping through the Fulda gap.
Much as it pains us, the realignment of equipment and forces to meet the new dangers is necessary. Lets not play the old ‘I don’t like Tony Blair so it must be wrong’ card. Do you seriously think the Conservatives would have done any different?
-Nick
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Preston
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet again on this site.....
"How can you define a £3.7billion increase in funding in real terms as a cut? How can you define £2.8billion in efficiency savings reinvested in the Defence budget as a cut?" How many times do you want telling that There Is Not A £3.7 billion increase. Read the paper on defence - the rise was £2.8 billion in savings plus a bit more to add up to £3.7billion. How were these savings made? Sacking Buffoon would have saved a wodge of money and not inconvenienced the forces at all. However how have the "efficiency savings" affected the squaddie in Basra?
By the way I am not an old fashioned Tory coming out of the woodwork - just someone who is fed up with Bliar and his incompetent croneys and apologists.
"How can you define a £3.7billion increase in funding in real terms as a cut? How can you define £2.8billion in efficiency savings reinvested in the Defence budget as a cut?" How many times do you want telling that There Is Not A £3.7 billion increase. Read the paper on defence - the rise was £2.8 billion in savings plus a bit more to add up to £3.7billion. How were these savings made? Sacking Buffoon would have saved a wodge of money and not inconvenienced the forces at all. However how have the "efficiency savings" affected the squaddie in Basra?
By the way I am not an old fashioned Tory coming out of the woodwork - just someone who is fed up with Bliar and his incompetent croneys and apologists.
stuk
1.4% increase in REAL terms plus £2.8billion in effeciency savings REINVESTED in the Defence budget plus a Defence technology fund plus Iraq costs met from the Treasury.
It's all there in the statement.
1.4% increase in REAL terms plus £2.8billion in effeciency savings REINVESTED in the Defence budget plus a Defence technology fund plus Iraq costs met from the Treasury.
It's all there in the statement.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pr00ne,
Spin it any way you wish but less aircraft ships and troops in the front line is a reduction in my security - and yours. I call that a cut.
Bill HicksRules,
I agree - I don't like this lot but any other lot would try for budget reductions too so it's no use playing politics over defense - it's far too serious anyway.
Spin it any way you wish but less aircraft ships and troops in the front line is a reduction in my security - and yours. I call that a cut.
Bill HicksRules,
I agree - I don't like this lot but any other lot would try for budget reductions too so it's no use playing politics over defense - it's far too serious anyway.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proone,
I have to take issue with your point. What good is a 1.4% increase in money when op tempos are up by at least 10 times that? Our armed forces are committed to a degree probably only exceeded during WW2. A 1.4% increase in at best an offensive political sop to the Treasury and at worst endangering the lives of service personnel everywhere. My only annoyance is all those who think that the other mob would not do exactly the same or worse.
We as a nation have to realise the levels of spending we can afford and then commit ourselves within those limits. It will be hard. We will not be able to be the player on the world stage that Blair would like. Those days are gone. They were gone 50 years ago really. I have no problem with the size and make up of our armed forces that are proposed (except the CVF’s, what a huge white elephant boondoggle they are) but we need to stop sending troops everywhere the US does. We do not need vast numbers of MBT’s, we do not need SSBN’s. We need reliable comms for the Army. We need a decent rifle for the Army as well. We need more Air Transport capability. We need more SH capability. In short cut the Cold War c**p and lets live in the now.
Please excuse the less than eloquent phrasing but I am doing this on a mobile phone.
Cheers
BHR
I have to take issue with your point. What good is a 1.4% increase in money when op tempos are up by at least 10 times that? Our armed forces are committed to a degree probably only exceeded during WW2. A 1.4% increase in at best an offensive political sop to the Treasury and at worst endangering the lives of service personnel everywhere. My only annoyance is all those who think that the other mob would not do exactly the same or worse.
We as a nation have to realise the levels of spending we can afford and then commit ourselves within those limits. It will be hard. We will not be able to be the player on the world stage that Blair would like. Those days are gone. They were gone 50 years ago really. I have no problem with the size and make up of our armed forces that are proposed (except the CVF’s, what a huge white elephant boondoggle they are) but we need to stop sending troops everywhere the US does. We do not need vast numbers of MBT’s, we do not need SSBN’s. We need reliable comms for the Army. We need a decent rifle for the Army as well. We need more Air Transport capability. We need more SH capability. In short cut the Cold War c**p and lets live in the now.
Please excuse the less than eloquent phrasing but I am doing this on a mobile phone.
Cheers
BHR
BillHicksRules,
Pretty impressive stuff from a mobile, and not a trace of yoof speak to be seen!
Let me clarify one thing about the Defence White paper, I only took umbrage at the biased and inaccurate reporting of "Labour cuts in defence expenditure" when that is the exact opposite of what was happening. It was the political opportunism and hypocrsy of Tory supporters that riled me.
I thought the whole point of the white paper WAS to bring about a rebalancing precisely because OP tempos are up and are also of a very different type.
If these cuts in numbers are to enable the forces to be reshaped then they have to be a good thing, if they are merely to cover up procurement mismanagement then they are very bad. The forces are, by their very nature, very resistant to change and quite genuinely conservative (with a small c) in habit and outlook. This makes any radical reshaping very hard to achieve.
If the Support Helicopter situation is as bad as rumour has it, then this white paper has indeed been very very BAD. Only time will tell.
Pretty impressive stuff from a mobile, and not a trace of yoof speak to be seen!
Let me clarify one thing about the Defence White paper, I only took umbrage at the biased and inaccurate reporting of "Labour cuts in defence expenditure" when that is the exact opposite of what was happening. It was the political opportunism and hypocrsy of Tory supporters that riled me.
I thought the whole point of the white paper WAS to bring about a rebalancing precisely because OP tempos are up and are also of a very different type.
If these cuts in numbers are to enable the forces to be reshaped then they have to be a good thing, if they are merely to cover up procurement mismanagement then they are very bad. The forces are, by their very nature, very resistant to change and quite genuinely conservative (with a small c) in habit and outlook. This makes any radical reshaping very hard to achieve.
If the Support Helicopter situation is as bad as rumour has it, then this white paper has indeed been very very BAD. Only time will tell.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have been 're-shaped' (as you put it) too many times - not least when our esteemed Pry Minister (sic) ordered the Strategic Defence Review. So, either the SDR was a flawed, incomplete and thoroughly bungled effort or the latest round was in fact A CUT. Hmmm....maybe I'm right on both counts.....
SBG
SBG
Spotting Bad Guys,
Oh come on! I cannot believe that you are that naive!
….”when our esteemed Pry Minister (sic) ordered the Strategic Defence Review..”
“….So, either the SDR was a flawed, incomplete and thoroughly bungled effort or the latest round was in fact A CUT….”
Now, let’s see, what major event of world shattering importance has happened between 1998 and July 21st 2004?
WHERE WERE YOU ON SEPTEMBER THE ELEVENTH TWO THOUSAND AND ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Between the SDR and July 2004 we have, in addition, had the removal of Iraq as a threat, the emergence of a global terrorist phenomenon, the radicalisation of the Palestinian situation and Libya and Iran lowering their nuclear and other WMD profile.
You can knock New Labour for what they are doing to the defence capability of this country, knock the Chiefs of Staff for their silence and acquiescence, but please do not try and claim that the world has not changed out of all recognition since SDR.
Oh come on! I cannot believe that you are that naive!
….”when our esteemed Pry Minister (sic) ordered the Strategic Defence Review..”
“….So, either the SDR was a flawed, incomplete and thoroughly bungled effort or the latest round was in fact A CUT….”
Now, let’s see, what major event of world shattering importance has happened between 1998 and July 21st 2004?
WHERE WERE YOU ON SEPTEMBER THE ELEVENTH TWO THOUSAND AND ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Between the SDR and July 2004 we have, in addition, had the removal of Iraq as a threat, the emergence of a global terrorist phenomenon, the radicalisation of the Palestinian situation and Libya and Iran lowering their nuclear and other WMD profile.
You can knock New Labour for what they are doing to the defence capability of this country, knock the Chiefs of Staff for their silence and acquiescence, but please do not try and claim that the world has not changed out of all recognition since SDR.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sep 11: 3,000 dead in an event that was without doubt a massive tragedy. However, it was not the first terrorist atrocity and arguably an aberration waiting to happen, more to do with lax airport and airline security. The world was arguably a more dangeous place in the 70s with the threat from Palestininan and Communist inspired terrorism.
Iraq - never a threat to the UK or US unless you are insane enough to believe Mr Blair. Until now, that is, now that we have put ourselves in harm's way....
Libya - what nuclear profile was lowered? Gadaffi giving away something he never had, in a cunning move.
Iran - the nuclear profile is down, then up, then down. Also, with over 100,000 troops tied down in Iraq, the Iranians know that threats are empty rhetoric.
Most of the changes are down to a lack of Western vigilance and an excess of Wester vigilante behaviour!
Iraq - never a threat to the UK or US unless you are insane enough to believe Mr Blair. Until now, that is, now that we have put ourselves in harm's way....
Libya - what nuclear profile was lowered? Gadaffi giving away something he never had, in a cunning move.
Iran - the nuclear profile is down, then up, then down. Also, with over 100,000 troops tied down in Iraq, the Iranians know that threats are empty rhetoric.
Most of the changes are down to a lack of Western vigilance and an excess of Wester vigilante behaviour!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where was I? I was at work, watched the whole thing unfold, then deployed to VERITAS with the first UK aircraft type to take part (less than 4 weeks later). Came home four months later then re-deployed to another location in the AOR in March. Where were you, Proone?
In answer to your question - no, I'm not that naive. SDR was supposed to re-focus warfighting abilities in the light of the end of the Cold War, taking into account the changed world situation, and the increased threat of international terrorism. Funny how, as SDR was supposed to be 'capability led', every single item had to be approved by the Treasury.....but that's another story.
So, by 1998 Iraq had been a problem for ourselves and the US for some eight years, we were about to launch Op Desert Fox and take some punitive action - but it was clear even then that there had to be an end-game at some point. The US were not going to walk away from that one.
Op Allied Force was on the horizon, and started some four months into 1999. I was there, too.
Terrorism i.e. Al-Qaeda? I was at Khobar Towers four weeks before it was bombed. Where were you? Yes, the scale of 9/11 was astonishing, but are you trying to tell me that there weren't predictions of an attack on such a grand scale prior to that date?
Dress up the CUTS any way you like - it's merely proving that under the current climate the desire to spin and failure to acknowledge the evidence is more important than truth, honesty and integrity.
But then I get paid to defend democracy rather than practice it.
SBG.
In answer to your question - no, I'm not that naive. SDR was supposed to re-focus warfighting abilities in the light of the end of the Cold War, taking into account the changed world situation, and the increased threat of international terrorism. Funny how, as SDR was supposed to be 'capability led', every single item had to be approved by the Treasury.....but that's another story.
So, by 1998 Iraq had been a problem for ourselves and the US for some eight years, we were about to launch Op Desert Fox and take some punitive action - but it was clear even then that there had to be an end-game at some point. The US were not going to walk away from that one.
Op Allied Force was on the horizon, and started some four months into 1999. I was there, too.
Terrorism i.e. Al-Qaeda? I was at Khobar Towers four weeks before it was bombed. Where were you? Yes, the scale of 9/11 was astonishing, but are you trying to tell me that there weren't predictions of an attack on such a grand scale prior to that date?
Dress up the CUTS any way you like - it's merely proving that under the current climate the desire to spin and failure to acknowledge the evidence is more important than truth, honesty and integrity.
But then I get paid to defend democracy rather than practice it.
SBG.
Thread Starter
More interesting (sic) links
Here
And here
And here
And here
Shame about the anti Eurofighter nonsense - worthy of something written by Max Hastings, described by Private Eye as "The World's Worst Columnist"....
What if terrorists attempt to attack targets in the UK using light aircraft? Anti hijacking stuff will offer no defence then....
And here
And here
And here
Shame about the anti Eurofighter nonsense - worthy of something written by Max Hastings, described by Private Eye as "The World's Worst Columnist"....
What if terrorists attempt to attack targets in the UK using light aircraft? Anti hijacking stuff will offer no defence then....
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 24th Aug 2004 at 20:31.
Oh dear. That last link has touches of green crayon in it. 'Cancel Eurofighter NOW' - and see almost all of the money go in penalty clauses...
Also on the point of the Eurofighter, and now that Mick Smith is known to visit these hallowed portals, I note that the Telegraph's leader yesterday described the Typhoon (or Euro-fighter as printed) as 'preposterous'. I'd be very interested to learn:
a) Why the Typhoon is 'preposterous'
and
b) What the Telegraph would have the govt (or successors) replace it with?
Also, if the Eurofighter is an outdated Cold War project, why is the Telegraph not similarly critical of the F/A-22, Gripen, JSF (granted that just squeezes in to Cold War era planning), F-16, F-15E and, in fact, just about every combat aircraft available?
Also on the point of the Eurofighter, and now that Mick Smith is known to visit these hallowed portals, I note that the Telegraph's leader yesterday described the Typhoon (or Euro-fighter as printed) as 'preposterous'. I'd be very interested to learn:
a) Why the Typhoon is 'preposterous'
and
b) What the Telegraph would have the govt (or successors) replace it with?
Also, if the Eurofighter is an outdated Cold War project, why is the Telegraph not similarly critical of the F/A-22, Gripen, JSF (granted that just squeezes in to Cold War era planning), F-16, F-15E and, in fact, just about every combat aircraft available?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou, WEBF, for those links. Some a little biased but it does seem that the public are at last beginning to be concerned about the low level of defence forces - even if they are not yet ready to pay more tax to improve matters.
I can see why Typhoon gets criticised but it's too late now - the time for action was when the Germans were anxious to delay and reduce numbers. Now it is the best news we are likely to get in the RAF front line for some time.
However, knocking Typhoon in the hope of increasing the likelihood that we will afford the new carriers is a bit stupid - this chancellor would be delighted to cancel both and save even more money to waste on some other new labour target seeking expenditure.
A question that is worth asking is can we defend these new carriers when we get them?
I can see why Typhoon gets criticised but it's too late now - the time for action was when the Germans were anxious to delay and reduce numbers. Now it is the best news we are likely to get in the RAF front line for some time.
However, knocking Typhoon in the hope of increasing the likelihood that we will afford the new carriers is a bit stupid - this chancellor would be delighted to cancel both and save even more money to waste on some other new labour target seeking expenditure.
A question that is worth asking is can we defend these new carriers when we get them?
Thread Starter
"Only we can protect you from terrorism" - The Government
Nice to know, isn't it. But exactly how, and what with?
Perhaps by dealing with the situation in Iraq, Afgahnistan and other places. The main things we need there are troops on the ground and forces to support them. Unfortunately the infantry are being cut at a time they're already overstretched, the budget for support helicopters has been cut and so have other things needed to support troops on the ground.
Perhaps by intercepting terrorist movements/activites at sea - except the frigate/destroyer numbers have been cut to a level where performing all the peacetime tasks will be impossible. Submarine (very useful for ISTAR use) are also on the decline. Perhaps we could use aircraft - Nimrods perhaps? Except they're being cut.
Special Forces operations instead perhaps. Well, apart from suffering overstretch like everyone else, they will suffer from the Recent cuts. They do not exist in isolation, and there will be both a reduced number of people to recruit from. Moreover, they will be less helicopters, ships, submarines, vehicles etc to insert/extract them, and less aircraft, ships, infantry, artillery etc to provide fire and other support.
Home Defence then? Hmmmm! There are less and less aircraft to deal with rogue aircraft (didn't they once suggest extra QRA bases), and our forces spend less and less time at home. In 2002 they came up with the idea of using Reservists for home defence. Unfortunately the Reserves Forces are heavily commited to supporting operations in Iraq, Afgahnistan, the Balkans etc etc etc.
Is using defence against terrorism as an election theme really such a good idea (considering the above)?
Perhaps by dealing with the situation in Iraq, Afgahnistan and other places. The main things we need there are troops on the ground and forces to support them. Unfortunately the infantry are being cut at a time they're already overstretched, the budget for support helicopters has been cut and so have other things needed to support troops on the ground.
Perhaps by intercepting terrorist movements/activites at sea - except the frigate/destroyer numbers have been cut to a level where performing all the peacetime tasks will be impossible. Submarine (very useful for ISTAR use) are also on the decline. Perhaps we could use aircraft - Nimrods perhaps? Except they're being cut.
Special Forces operations instead perhaps. Well, apart from suffering overstretch like everyone else, they will suffer from the Recent cuts. They do not exist in isolation, and there will be both a reduced number of people to recruit from. Moreover, they will be less helicopters, ships, submarines, vehicles etc to insert/extract them, and less aircraft, ships, infantry, artillery etc to provide fire and other support.
Home Defence then? Hmmmm! There are less and less aircraft to deal with rogue aircraft (didn't they once suggest extra QRA bases), and our forces spend less and less time at home. In 2002 they came up with the idea of using Reservists for home defence. Unfortunately the Reserves Forces are heavily commited to supporting operations in Iraq, Afgahnistan, the Balkans etc etc etc.
Is using defence against terrorism as an election theme really such a good idea (considering the above)?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 12th Mar 2005 at 20:04.
Thread Starter
Bump bump bump bump
From the Telegraph.
A recent piece by Sir John Keegan:
Here
And a reply from Geoff Hoon: On the letters page
This is in contrast to the cuts in defence spending that were the hallmark of the previous Conservative government...
Something to do with the end of the Cold War?
This new money means that our Armed Forces have the equipment they need to remain the very best in the world.
As long as the US are there too?
We remain 100 per cent committed to providing the new aircraft carriers, fast jets, helicopters and the very latest equipment for our Armed Forces.
Help! I'm choking.
Carriers - delayed, not ordered yet.
Fast Jets - Typhoon orders have occured.
Helicopters - yes there is no shortage.
The very latest equipment - like what?
A recent piece by Sir John Keegan:
Here
And a reply from Geoff Hoon: On the letters page
This is in contrast to the cuts in defence spending that were the hallmark of the previous Conservative government...
Something to do with the end of the Cold War?
This new money means that our Armed Forces have the equipment they need to remain the very best in the world.
As long as the US are there too?
We remain 100 per cent committed to providing the new aircraft carriers, fast jets, helicopters and the very latest equipment for our Armed Forces.
Help! I'm choking.
Carriers - delayed, not ordered yet.
Fast Jets - Typhoon orders have occured.
Helicopters - yes there is no shortage.
The very latest equipment - like what?