Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks

Old 14th Mar 2018, 18:23
  #841 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 343
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
As someone who has worked on a number of military programmes, aviation and naval I take the defence of our nation seriously.

I like most people have seen the progressive rundown of our airforce and navy (no experience of the Army) to the extent that we are no longer able to even do the bare minimum.
Risking the safety of our nation is not clever or responsible. What you sow you shall reep and I sincerely hope that we will not regret leaving ourselves so weak and vulnerable.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 09:49
  #842 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have actually said for a long while that up to now we have been lucky and by fighting wars or actions against third class enemies (equipment - not people) we have been successful and lucky.

If we ever ended up fighting against people on a similar level of equipment to ourselves I think we would suddenly find that we may get a bit of a bashing. I'm not saying that I want to lose (who does ?) but that if this happened it might just wake up people in Government and Joe Public to the reality of our true position regarding equipment and facilities.

By then of course it may be too late.............

Looking into Europe the French appear to be becoming the big Defence Player in the region both in terms of equipment and capability............ Nelson and Wellington would be turning in their respective graves I'm sure..........

Arc
Arclite01 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 09:58
  #843 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Line Entry
And of course, all of you lot wrote to the papers while you were serving to complain about cuts...
Oh hang on, you didn’t. Maybe that was because as a serving officer/airman/soldier you had a duty to support the elected representatives of the people, regardless of whether you agreed with them or not.
Once retired, you are of course free to express whatever views you wish. Maybe that is exactly what the Admiral is doing.
Its not a case of writing to the damned papers about it. Its about effing inspiration and Leadership and Command, for crying out loud. If you as a Very Senior Commander have either misgivings or concerns about being able to deliver what your rank, your position and your appointment charges you with delivering, when there is at least one hand tied behind your back, it is your responsibility to either do something about it or speak the hell up and say so.

Unless you give more of a toss about your career and your place in the House Of Lords than you do for those in your command. Which, in recent years with very few notable exceptions, is mainly the way it has been going. The paucity of leadership is frankly embarrassing.
Jabba_TG12 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 10:11
  #844 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
‘If, after attempting unsuccessfully to persuade those in power of their needs, the defence chiefs of staff are to remain silent, this would entail a serious breach of one of the cardinal principles of leadership; namely, the integrity of command. Most officers understand that, in any military organisation, the man at the top must remain loyal to the men at the bottom if he is to command their respect; if he cannot do that with a clear conscience, he should resign’.
(The late Rear Admiral Ron Holley RN, CB)


tucumseh is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 12:44
  #845 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tucumseh
‘If, after attempting unsuccessfully to persuade those in power of their needs, the defence chiefs of staff are to remain silent, this would entail a serious breach of one of the cardinal principles of leadership; namely, the integrity of command. Most officers understand that, in any military organisation, the man at the top must remain loyal to the men at the bottom if he is to command their respect; if he cannot do that with a clear conscience, he should resign’.
(The late Rear Admiral Ron Holley RN, CB)



Absobloodylutely.
Jabba_TG12 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 10:13
  #846 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So why isn't there a professional lobby group running a long term campaign in the media - especially social media - constantly reminding the populace at large that our defences are woeful and need to be prioritised? Every time some politician spouts the usual "2%, fifth largest budget blah blah" nonsense, the same outfit would hit back with the actual facts such that defence begins to creep up the priority concerns of voters at large. Once politicians see there are votes in it, funds will follow. Such a course absolutely should not be necessary but, regrettably, that may be the only way of getting some serious attention - and funding - applied to the matter.
Torquelink is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 15:10
  #847 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 343
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Torquelink
So why isn't there a professional lobby group running a long term campaign in the media - especially social media - constantly reminding the populace at large that our defences are woeful and need to be prioritised? Every time some politician spouts the usual "2%, fifth largest budget blah blah" nonsense, the same outfit would hit back with the actual facts such that defence begins to creep up the priority concerns of voters at large. Once politicians see there are votes in it, funds will follow. Such a course absolutely should not be necessary but, regrettably, that may be the only way of getting some serious attention - and funding - applied to the matter.
Quite agree. I have written to my MP on a number of occasions raising the issue of the progressive rundown of the RAF in particular.
Unfortunately, his responses were all the same - simply restating the government position despite me asking for his views.
As a result I wrote to the Secretary of state for Defence. After waiting for months all I got was a pre printed letter stating that I should raise my concern with my MP!!!
I will keep trying but would urge other PPRUNEers to write to their MP.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 15:28
  #848 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Buster15
Quite agree. I have written to my MP on a number of occasions raising the issue of the progressive rundown of the RAF in particular.
Unfortunately, his responses were all the same - simply restating the government position despite me asking for his views.
As a result I wrote to the Secretary of state for Defence. After waiting for months all I got was a pre printed letter stating that I should raise my concern with my MP!!!
I will keep trying but would urge other PPRUNEers to write to their MP.
I did exactly the same: wrote both to my MP and the Defence Secretary with, predictably, exactly the same results as you - and until the issue becomes of wider concern, that's all we'll ever get.

I do find it strange that, for example, at the very least the defence industry, ex-service organisations and other concerned parties have not managed to set up a professional "defence truth" group to educate the population on defence actualities and to respond robustly to the usual platitudes put out by politicians. I rather thought that RUSI might do the job but apparently not.
Torquelink is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 15:50
  #849 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 513
Received 156 Likes on 83 Posts
Originally Posted by Torquelink
I do find it strange that, for example, at the very least the defence industry, ex-service organisations and other concerned parties have not managed to set up a professional "defence truth" group to educate the population on defence actualities and to respond robustly to the usual platitudes put out by politicians. I rather thought that RUSI might do the job but apparently not.

Well, there's this lot - set up to provide exactly that lobbying function and including eminences from RUSI and wider academia.


UKNDA - Home


Just not sure anyone is listening.....
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 17:39
  #850 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"So why isn't there a professional lobby group running a long term campaign in the media"

costs serious money
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 17:40
  #851 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,197
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The most recent AA Populus poll (monthly thing which seeks opinions on mainly motoring/transport matters) asked participants to list the three issues which caused them most concern from a list of about 15 - the economy, welfare, Brexit, education, NHS, environment, transport, the usual stuff. Defence wasn't even an option!
TorqueOfTheDevil is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 17:59
  #852 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 513
Received 156 Likes on 83 Posts
Originally Posted by TorqueOfTheDevil
The most recent AA Populus poll (monthly thing which seeks opinions on mainly motoring/transport matters) asked participants to list the three issues which caused them most concern from a list of about 15 - the economy, welfare, Brexit, education, NHS, environment, transport, the usual stuff. Defence wasn't even an option!
Always going to be influenced by whoever writes the list that gets presented to Joe Public. Hopefully that will change.
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 22:04
  #853 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am hopeful that the poisoning case will start a few people thinking that maybe the world is more dangerous than they thought and spending a bit more on defence might be wise
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 13:47
  #854 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
costs serious money
BAE, RR, Babcock, Thales, Cobham etc have money. Maybe they just don't want to embarrass the government and would rather make as much as they can while they can from the shrinking pot and don't want to be seen to pressuring the government for more.

The most recent AA Populus poll (monthly thing which seeks opinions on mainly motoring/transport matters) asked participants to list the three issues which caused them most concern from a list of about 15 - the economy, welfare, Brexit, education, NHS, environment, transport, the usual stuff. Defence wasn't even an option!
Which perfectly illustrates why the defence lobby needs to get its act together. As HH says, maybe the Russians releasing nerve agents in the UK might do something . .
Torquelink is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 19:47
  #855 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 327
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
On the (very cautiously) plus side, there is a bigger groundswell of support for more defence spending among MPs than I can remember, with even defence ministers going on the record as saying 2% of GDP isn't enough. I'm not starry eyed about what that will mean in practice but I think there is at least a reasonable prospect of some form of uptick in defence spend coming out of the current review. We'll find out at the time of the NATO summit in July.
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2018, 15:34
  #856 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 1,074
Received 16 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Red Line Entry
And of course, all of you lot wrote to the papers while you were serving to complain about cuts... Oh hang on, you didn’t.
Yes we did. I, and many other JOs, used to write to the papers with our names and addresses supplied. Hang the consequences. Funny though, none of our letters were ever published or even acknowledged, and we were not even dobbed in to the rozzers/snowdrops for Sedition!

Originally Posted by Red Line Entry
Maybe that was because as a serving officer/airman/soldier you had a duty to support the elected representatives of the people, regardless of whether you agreed with them or not.
I have just checked and re-checked my scroll, and yep, it mentions the Queen and Air Officers set over me, but nothing about elected representatives/snake-oil salesmen (delete as required).

Last edited by Training Risky; 22nd Mar 2018 at 15:35. Reason: spooling
Training Risky is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2018, 22:31
  #857 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From The Times today 22 March 2018. Managing expectations?

“The armed forces must be ready to slay some “sacred cows” to free up cash for new and more deployable technologies, the top civil servant at the Ministry of Defence has said.

Stephen Lovegrove did not specify which pieces of military equipment he had in mind but said that some capabilities were not deployed very often or were perhaps no longer able to keep the military personnel using them safe from modern threats.

It is the first time a senior official has indicated in public that difficult choices will probably have to be made as part of a review of the armed forces that will conclude in July, unless there is a big enough increase in the defence budget to meet all of the department’s costs.

“If we are going to invest in new, highly destructive technologies, that is going to come at a cost,” Mr Lovegrove, the permanent secretary, said during a question and answer session at the Strand Group, King’s College London, after a lecture on Tuesday evening.

“We need to be rather more ruthless, unless there is to be more money, about getting rid of some of the [capabilities] that are actually deployed less often or [are] incapable of being deployed” because of concerns over safety, he said. “I think we do have some of those capabilities and we need to be prepared to slay the odd sacred cow.”

Potential “sacred cows” could include the army’s fleet of Warrior armoured fighting vehicles that have yet to receive a much needed upgrade, according to a defence expert. The vulnerability of tracked vehicles to anti-tank missiles has been demonstrated in recent weeks in the northern Syrian city of Afrin where a number of Turkish tanks have been destroyed. There is no suggestion that Britain is considering scrapping its Challenger 2 main battle tanks.

Another capability that could be vulnerable is the navy’s amphibious assault ships, HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion. The landing craft were singled out as potential sacrifices last year.

Cutting a whole capability is a more efficient way to make savings than retaining the capability on a reduced scale.

Mr Lovegrove had been responding to a question about whether he thought the Royal Navy, army and Royal Air Force should be merged to some degree to reduce costs. He declined to be drawn on such an idea but said that efforts were under way to reduce duplication in parts of defence. He cited as an example the helicopters operated by the army and the RAF.

The senior civil servant, who has previously said that the MoD needs to find £20 billion in efficiencies over the next decade, described his department’s savings targets as challenging.“

My highlights. Interesting (?) times ahead.
Chinny Crewman is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2018, 07:54
  #858 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That's a classic warming up shot............ AFV's, Assualt ships, Helicopters......

spread the pain across all the services

and his shot about capabilities not deployed recently gives us a good guide to what may be on the block... tho' I;m surprised they are going to keep the MBT's.....
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2018, 15:15
  #859 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 1,074
Received 16 Likes on 6 Posts
Maybe the old-boys power of the Cavalry in Horseguards has some clout to save the MBTs?

I would love to see how much more integration of AH and SH the civil servants think they can achieve, in addition to JHC and all the joint postings between fleets...

Maybe they believe that one set of engineers can maintain all AH/SH/floaty stuff at one big airbase outside Birmingham. Look good on a balance sheet at least...
Training Risky is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2018, 15:29
  #860 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,118
Received 151 Likes on 77 Posts
...efforts were under way to reduce duplication in parts of defence. He cited as an example the helicopters operated by the army and the RAF.
It's not looking good for the army's Wildcats. In the options for cuts leaked last year, two of the three solutions included axing the Wildcats, I seem to recall. The Puma folks must be feeling a little vulnerable, also.
melmothtw is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.