Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
Thread Starter
Blimey there's an election today. I hope nobody votes for Blair and his "more cuts, more wars" party.
Look here.
Blair didn't even know how many people had got killed....
Look here.
Blair didn't even know how many people had got killed....
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone else see the interview with Gordon Brown on the BBC Breakfast programme on Tuesday?
Whilst discussing the war in Iraq GB said that it was for "the national eccomic interest"
Strange, I thought it was for the 'national security interest' that we went there, leading to all those brave souls being lost 
This (that) Government really are a bunch of liars and tw@s
MadMark!!!
Whilst discussing the war in Iraq GB said that it was for "the national eccomic interest"
Strange, I thought it was for the 'national security interest' that we went there, leading to all those brave souls being lost This (that) Government really are a bunch of liars and tw@s
MadMark!!!
WE Branch Fanatic,
"Japan to have missile defence and 2 'aircraft carriers'"
Your point is...........................?
"Japan to have missile defence and 2 'aircraft carriers'"
Your point is...........................?
WE Branch Fanatic,
Oh, OK, can't see that bit but as a matter of opinion;
Japan has no nukes, no SLBM, no SSN, no cruise missiles, no sophisticated ground attack capability over any decent range or in inclement weather, no real amphibious lift of any real reach, no heavy lift and no AAR capability, so I would tend to agree.
What they DO have is a large FFG/DDGforce, a very large LRMP force and a very capable AD capability, so, I think that gives them a very good home defence capability, but when you look at where they are in the world, wouldn't you?
Oh, OK, can't see that bit but as a matter of opinion;
Japan has no nukes, no SLBM, no SSN, no cruise missiles, no sophisticated ground attack capability over any decent range or in inclement weather, no real amphibious lift of any real reach, no heavy lift and no AAR capability, so I would tend to agree.
What they DO have is a large FFG/DDGforce, a very large LRMP force and a very capable AD capability, so, I think that gives them a very good home defence capability, but when you look at where they are in the world, wouldn't you?
Thread Starter
Umm have you seen the new ships that they're building? And yes they do have amphibious forces. I think the Japanese constitution and political sensitivities makes offensive assets controversial.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSDF (for how much longer?)
Since 11 Sep 01, the Japanese constitution has been quietly amended to allow for increasing deployment of Japanese assets outside of their EEZ. For example in Sep 03 the JSDF, along with civilian units, boarded vessels in the Coral Sea, off Queensland. As an Australian observer put it 'it's not the first time they have operated here.' They are also keen aprticipants of the US-led Proliferation Security Initiative.
Arguably - and this is a point forwarded by Dan Plesch, late of RUSI - Japan has rationale and wherewithal to become the next (open) nuclear power. There is the old emnity with China, beligerancy of DPR (North Korea) and territorial issues with Vietnam, to name a few. They have the launch vehicles, the nuclear industry and the means of production. Politically a time-bomb, but the Japanese are not institutionally passive.
As some readers are aware, they have deployed ships in and around the Gulf for years, safeguarding their energy lifeline.
CC
Arguably - and this is a point forwarded by Dan Plesch, late of RUSI - Japan has rationale and wherewithal to become the next (open) nuclear power. There is the old emnity with China, beligerancy of DPR (North Korea) and territorial issues with Vietnam, to name a few. They have the launch vehicles, the nuclear industry and the means of production. Politically a time-bomb, but the Japanese are not institutionally passive.
As some readers are aware, they have deployed ships in and around the Gulf for years, safeguarding their energy lifeline.
CC
Last edited by Cambridge Crash; 20th Jun 2005 at 14:03.
Thread Starter
Lefties/do gooders/pinkos take note
I expect many parts of the media will turn a blind ey to this, but HMS Endurance will soon be conducting important work to help us understand and protect out natural environment.
See this link.
Of course, it wouldn't do to report anything postive.....
See this link.
Of course, it wouldn't do to report anything postive.....
WEBF,
WHAT??????????????????????????
WHAT??????????????????????????
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
So Endurance does the job it was funded, designed, built and crewed for and has done for years. So where's the story you want the meeja to cover?
Would it come above "Shock, Horror: Toilet Cleaner Cleans Toilet!" and below "Exclusive: Chemistry Teacher Teaches Children the Periodic Table!"?
So Endurance does the job it was funded, designed, built and crewed for and has done for years. So where's the story you want the meeja to cover?
Would it come above "Shock, Horror: Toilet Cleaner Cleans Toilet!" and below "Exclusive: Chemistry Teacher Teaches Children the Periodic Table!"?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lowlevel UK
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Veer away WEBF. Why not wait until the Plum gets to the South Atlantic Islands and beyond. Circumstance will place news in her path; it does every season.
Factoid to calm you: A puff jet couldn't land on it when it was MV Polar Circle because the flight deck was covered in tarmac.
Factoid to calm you: A puff jet couldn't land on it when it was MV Polar Circle because the flight deck was covered in tarmac.
AT
If your story was edited to be....
"Shock, Horror: NHS Toilet Cleaning Contractor Cleans Toilet"
Then that WOULD be a headline.
Actually as would
"Exclusive: Chemistry Teacher Teaches Children the Periodic Table!"
IIRC there was an article in the national press just recently that teachers no longer teach the periodic table!!!
If your story was edited to be....
"Shock, Horror: NHS Toilet Cleaning Contractor Cleans Toilet"
Then that WOULD be a headline.
Actually as would
"Exclusive: Chemistry Teacher Teaches Children the Periodic Table!"
IIRC there was an article in the national press just recently that teachers no longer teach the periodic table!!!
Thread Starter
I was going to post this on the Future Carrier thread, but I feel it is better placed here.
I recently found the story below on the MOD website which gives an insight into one of the less well known aspects of UK and coalition operations in the Middle East.
UK charts the way for Iraq’s economic future
Perhaps this in some ways highlights the importance of the naval/maritime part of Telic. The threat from terrorists, pirates and other criminals is real, you may remember a terrorist incident off the Iraqi coast in 2004 in which several American sailors died. However, it must be dealt with if Iraq is to have any chance of reconstruction. See Ring of Steel Protects Iraqi Lifeblood.
See The Royal Navy and Gulf Operations and Maritime Security Operations.
Coalition maritime forces operate throughout international waters in the Arabian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden, Indian Ocean, and the Red Sea, conducting MSO.
Within this area, at any one time.........
1. There are about fifty warships conducting MSO operations, mostly frigates and destroyers. To put that into context, it is twice the number we have after the Hoon cuts, and is twice the number sent south in 1982.
2. About twenty of these are in the Persian/Arabian Gulf itself.
3. A number are constantly patrolling the Iraqi coast.
4. Supporting assets include submarines (in an ISTAR role, as they did in the Adriatic in the 90s), tankers and other support vessels, and maritime patrol aircraft (including our own Nimrods).
5. Most of the equipment used by UK forces is transported by sea, and the vessels involved have to be escorted and protected in other ways. This also applies to shipments of equipment to Pakistani ports for use in Afghanistan.
To state the obvious:
MORE OPERATIONS + LESS UNITS = OVERSTRETCH + MORALE PROBLEMS
This applies across all three services, although the public is much less aware of the RN's operation than Army/RAF ones. Sadly, as this news story shows, Overstretch is still denied at Ministerial level.
I recently found the story below on the MOD website which gives an insight into one of the less well known aspects of UK and coalition operations in the Middle East.
UK charts the way for Iraq’s economic future
Perhaps this in some ways highlights the importance of the naval/maritime part of Telic. The threat from terrorists, pirates and other criminals is real, you may remember a terrorist incident off the Iraqi coast in 2004 in which several American sailors died. However, it must be dealt with if Iraq is to have any chance of reconstruction. See Ring of Steel Protects Iraqi Lifeblood.
See The Royal Navy and Gulf Operations and Maritime Security Operations.
Coalition maritime forces operate throughout international waters in the Arabian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden, Indian Ocean, and the Red Sea, conducting MSO.
Within this area, at any one time.........
1. There are about fifty warships conducting MSO operations, mostly frigates and destroyers. To put that into context, it is twice the number we have after the Hoon cuts, and is twice the number sent south in 1982.
2. About twenty of these are in the Persian/Arabian Gulf itself.
3. A number are constantly patrolling the Iraqi coast.
4. Supporting assets include submarines (in an ISTAR role, as they did in the Adriatic in the 90s), tankers and other support vessels, and maritime patrol aircraft (including our own Nimrods).
5. Most of the equipment used by UK forces is transported by sea, and the vessels involved have to be escorted and protected in other ways. This also applies to shipments of equipment to Pakistani ports for use in Afghanistan.
To state the obvious:
MORE OPERATIONS + LESS UNITS = OVERSTRETCH + MORALE PROBLEMS
This applies across all three services, although the public is much less aware of the RN's operation than Army/RAF ones. Sadly, as this news story shows, Overstretch is still denied at Ministerial level.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 11th Aug 2006 at 13:05.
Thread Starter
Luckily for who?
The above post was intended to make the point that any more cuts to any of the services will cause problems. The public/media perception is that the Army and Royal Marines are busy on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places and so are the RAF. The public seems unaware that there is a naval/maritime side to current operations.
The fleet cannot be cut any more without having an adverse effect on the war on terror. However, public perception is everything...........
The above post was intended to make the point that any more cuts to any of the services will cause problems. The public/media perception is that the Army and Royal Marines are busy on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places and so are the RAF. The public seems unaware that there is a naval/maritime side to current operations.
The fleet cannot be cut any more without having an adverse effect on the war on terror. However, public perception is everything...........
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cash crisis so severe that base faces closure because Army can't afford to build a fe
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic
The fleet cannot be cut any more without having an adverse effect on the war on terror. However, public perception is everything...........
Yes, public perception and spin is everything. And when faced with headlines like these, my guess is that Fleet and the RAF will both suffer as well!
Defence spending has long been a running sore with many senior officers, who believe that the procurement of main weapons systems are too often made for political reasons rather than their practical use on the battlefield.