UK Defence Restructuring
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst we bemoan the 'restructuring of defence' the bottomless funding pit, the NHS, has just published this little gem for general consumption. What a waste of money.......
http://62.189.42.125/12stisofchristmas/12-stis.swf
http://62.189.42.125/12stisofchristmas/12-stis.swf
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, I don't agree that it is a waste of money. After all, one of the reasons for reducing Defence expenditure is to fund the NHS to treat a whole variety of ailments caused by lifestyle problems. Whilst the armed services are keeping themselves fit and healthy the majority of those who fund the forces and the social security scroungers are busy abusing and otherwise neglecting their bodies in the certain knowledge that the cure will 'be free at the point of delivery'. One wonders what they would behave like if they had to pay for the cure.
soddim,
Get your facts straight, no-one's "reducing defence expenditure" so I'm afraid your nasty little diatribe is wrong as well as offensive.
Get your facts straight, no-one's "reducing defence expenditure" so I'm afraid your nasty little diatribe is wrong as well as offensive.
Last edited by pr00ne; 14th Dec 2003 at 07:20.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think, proone, it depends how one defines reducing. In relative terms, to NHS expenditure, for example, our defence share is reducing.
I personally find it offensive that taxpayers money is being wasted, so I have some sympathy with the comments that offended you.
I personally find it offensive that taxpayers money is being wasted, so I have some sympathy with the comments that offended you.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the matter, proone? Had a bad pint at the pub? Suggest next Friday or Saturday night you get yourself down to any A&E department at any central London hospital and just look at the social ailments of those taking up our precious NHS resources. Then go and look objectively at our remaining capability for defence of this country and prosecution of UK interests overseas and maybe you'll be less offended next time I post some less than politically correct words.
And so say all of us.
Well, most of us anyway....
Well, most of us anyway....
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bats you have hit a nail on the head would a review of this nature take place into the sacred cow of the NHS?
I don't think any government Labour or Tory would have the necessary balls to do it! Yet having worked in it I would sugest that a total review of the NHS is actually what is required. To decide on a coherent strategy for the future so that provision of relevant healthcare free at the point of delivery can be sorted. Instead of this throwing money at it and tinkering round the edges.
I don't believe the way forward is health insurance for the general population. But am almost certain more than sufficient resources are provided to provide a modern health service and that what is preventing this happening is chronic missmanagement and beauracratic waste.
I don't think any government Labour or Tory would have the necessary balls to do it! Yet having worked in it I would sugest that a total review of the NHS is actually what is required. To decide on a coherent strategy for the future so that provision of relevant healthcare free at the point of delivery can be sorted. Instead of this throwing money at it and tinkering round the edges.
I don't believe the way forward is health insurance for the general population. But am almost certain more than sufficient resources are provided to provide a modern health service and that what is preventing this happening is chronic missmanagement and beauracratic waste.
Proone
The Defence budget for the UK has been about £20 - 25B per annum for as long as I have been in the forces. The Social Security Budget is currently £117 Billion!!! I am sorry if you are offended but I would like to see this sacred cow take some (a lot) of pain. Work the firgures out 117 Billion (that is 117 000 000 000 [I think I have enough 0s]) divided by a population of 60 000 000. Somebody is getting a lot of my share!! Even the department concerned estimates there is some £2-3B per year of fraud. That would pay for a lot of Defence equipment.
And this doesn't include what is spent on health (circa £60B) education (circa £60B) and security which is now greater than Defence as well.
The Defence budget for the UK has been about £20 - 25B per annum for as long as I have been in the forces. The Social Security Budget is currently £117 Billion!!! I am sorry if you are offended but I would like to see this sacred cow take some (a lot) of pain. Work the firgures out 117 Billion (that is 117 000 000 000 [I think I have enough 0s]) divided by a population of 60 000 000. Somebody is getting a lot of my share!! Even the department concerned estimates there is some £2-3B per year of fraud. That would pay for a lot of Defence equipment.
And this doesn't include what is spent on health (circa £60B) education (circa £60B) and security which is now greater than Defence as well.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The outright efficiency of this whole organisation is poor in the first place. Therefore expect as a berginning a review of how we do things administratively and domestically. Small examples are mess reception staff [believe it or not!!], catering staff in crew rooms, the culture and organisation of the Military Mess, and as indicated earlier, people such as the deployment SWO and some of the lazy admin types. As a result, you can expect a 'more from fewer' command ethos, that will give us all the shi*ts. Do we really need the multi tier command Group AND station level command over fighting elements?
I believe a review will occurr soon, and some hard to swallow changes will be recommended, even though we may not like them.
On the effectiveness of the RAF as a whole fighting force, I cannot see how the Jag AND Harrier force will remain intact - let alone sustain the number of GR-4s that are on line. I can forsee at least one GR-4 Sqn being reduced, even if all the jets and crews are spread throughout the other remaining Sqns. You woould then lose some 100 GND and Ops staff immediately.
Typhoon needs to be a muilti role jet on roll out - not just an air to air jet that will be modified later to do mud moving.
Apparent 'hard times' are ahead, but no matter what we think, the support and infrastructure of the RAF must get into the 80s at least before it can operate in the millenium.
I believe a review will occurr soon, and some hard to swallow changes will be recommended, even though we may not like them.
On the effectiveness of the RAF as a whole fighting force, I cannot see how the Jag AND Harrier force will remain intact - let alone sustain the number of GR-4s that are on line. I can forsee at least one GR-4 Sqn being reduced, even if all the jets and crews are spread throughout the other remaining Sqns. You woould then lose some 100 GND and Ops staff immediately.
Typhoon needs to be a muilti role jet on roll out - not just an air to air jet that will be modified later to do mud moving.
Apparent 'hard times' are ahead, but no matter what we think, the support and infrastructure of the RAF must get into the 80s at least before it can operate in the millenium.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Service's Best Friend...............not"
This man asks too much of our forces and gives too little
By Max Hastings
(Filed: 14/12/2003)
Tony Blair's electoral success has been founded upon articulating noble purposes nobody can quarrel with: health care that works, schools that teach, a representative Second Chamber, peace in our time. Unfortunately, his fervent rhetoric is all too often unmatched by convincing action.
So it is with last week's Defence White Paper. Mr Micawber would be lost in admiration for the lofty sentiments, worthy expressions of intent. Here is a document so vague and ill-defined, so self-consciously virtuous, that turkeys could endorse it for Christmas, as indeed have the chiefs of staff. It is bland, boring and rich in techno-babble.
It will do nothing, however, to remove the sense of apprehension that hangs over Britain's soldiers, sailors and airmen. They know that the Chancellor is prowling. The Treasury is fingering its well-sharpened axe. No one in Whitehall has contradicted the charge made by the former Chief of Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, in the Lords this week, that Gordon Brown wants to take £1 billion out of defence spending every year for the next four years.
A critical moment will come if the Government announces, as Tony Blair yearns to do, that armed conflict in Northern Ireland is officially at an end. There are today 10 battalions of troops in the province. If it is decreed that these are no longer required for peace-keeping, the Chancellor will demand that most or all are disbanded. This would be a huge blow to the capability, indeed credibility, of the British Army.
"You mustn't quote me anywhere that might be sourced," a close associate of the Prime Minister said to me coyly a few weeks ago, "but you should know that Tony would love to increase the size of the Army. It's just that Gordon won't let him."
I hear that the Prime Minister himself has made similar fatuous assertions to others. Sufficient to say that if the Army's manpower is cut further, it will come close to losing critical mass. Britain's falling birth-rate already threatens recruitment. The six Scottish regiments, in particular, are woefully under strength, and rely on injections of Commonwealth troops to fill their ranks.
Oddly enough, the charge against the Government which possesses least substance is the one which received most prominence this week. Headlines focused upon the National Audit Office's report castigating shortcomings in equipment for the Iraq war. These were valid as far as they went - some kit was delivered late, and in inadequate quantity. Yet the NAO's report underplayed the central fact, that British war-fighting equipment worked amazingly well, indeed better than the gear for any previous expedition in British history.
The real issue is not the Army's kit for today, but its manning for tomorrow. The rest of the world finds it bewildering that successive British governments - for John Major treated the Armed Forces shamefully - devote so much ingenuity to cutting them, when their cost as a proportion of government spending is now marginal.
The services command greater admiration than any other British institution. I remember Raymond Seitz, when he was US Ambassador in London in the early 1990s, expressing astonishment at the Government's parsimony: "Your Armed Forces really can enable Britain to punch above its weight," he said. "They are by far your most cost-effective means of exercising influence in the world."
The new White Paper's enthusiasm for lighter, more flexible forces is sensible. In the post-Cold War era, Britain needs few heavy tanks or interception fighters. Yet cuts seem likely to be made many years before the new generation of equipment can be put in place. Already the Army's reconnaissance vehicles are older than the soldiers who man them.
The Ministry of Defence is doing a rotten job of looking after its most precious commodity - its people. Barracks, both at home and abroad, are a disgrace to this country, yet no politician seems to care. How can soldiers be expected to inhabit quarters deemed unfit for asylum-seekers? Yes, really. When the Army recently surrendered some barracks for conversion to Home Office use, senior Army officers noted bitterly that the buildings were deemed to need an expensive upgrade before they would be acceptable to Kosovans or Afghans.
No Labour minister other than Tony Blair himself has the smallest interest in the Armed Forces, or speaks of them with real warmth. The White Paper claims that technology now makes crude counts of soldiers or weapons platforms irrelevant. Informed soldiers say that this sort of language is simply designed to divert attention from fears over impending cuts in manpower.
Mass matters, and Britain's Armed Forces are close to losing it. The Royal Navy is now tiny. Cutting its strength still further must have a drastic effect on its ability to recruit, train and operate with conviction.
The Government reinforced service scepticism about its good faith last week, by announcing British participation in a new Euro-headquarters in Belgium. Here is real, Government-inspired waste. There are already far too many international headquarters.
Only the British, and narrowly also the French, today possess forces of the size and quality to perform effectively as peacekeepers, never mind battlefield soldiers. Until European governments show some willingness to fund effective defence capabilities, putting more staff officers into Belgium represents mere shuffling of deckchairs.
One statement in last week's White Paper seems incontrovertible: it is hard to imagine Britain again fighting a war except alongside the United States. Yet this is an admission of Europe's abject failure, rather than a declaration of prudent strategic policy.
New conventional threats might well emerge over the next generation, which Government policy would make it impossible to meet. Even in the immediate campaign against terrorism, the Blair Government has done precious little towards homeland defence. When a serious terrorist atrocity takes place in Britain, ministers should be castigated if the perpetrators prove to have circumvented our almost worthless border controls. These, too, should be part of a credible national defence policy.
From the Armed Forces' viewpoint, the White Paper amounts to typical Blairite waffle. Behind it, a much graver threat is lurking. Some time in the next few years, Gordon Brown is likely to become prime minister.
The Chancellor regards defence with rather less enthusiasm than the euro, the services as mere squanderers of cash that might otherwise be thrown at his latest child poverty action scheme. Britain's Armed Forces are not in the least frightened of Iraqis or Afghans. But gosh, they are scared by the prospect of Mr Brown moving next door.
This man asks too much of our forces and gives too little
By Max Hastings
(Filed: 14/12/2003)
Tony Blair's electoral success has been founded upon articulating noble purposes nobody can quarrel with: health care that works, schools that teach, a representative Second Chamber, peace in our time. Unfortunately, his fervent rhetoric is all too often unmatched by convincing action.
So it is with last week's Defence White Paper. Mr Micawber would be lost in admiration for the lofty sentiments, worthy expressions of intent. Here is a document so vague and ill-defined, so self-consciously virtuous, that turkeys could endorse it for Christmas, as indeed have the chiefs of staff. It is bland, boring and rich in techno-babble.
It will do nothing, however, to remove the sense of apprehension that hangs over Britain's soldiers, sailors and airmen. They know that the Chancellor is prowling. The Treasury is fingering its well-sharpened axe. No one in Whitehall has contradicted the charge made by the former Chief of Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, in the Lords this week, that Gordon Brown wants to take £1 billion out of defence spending every year for the next four years.
A critical moment will come if the Government announces, as Tony Blair yearns to do, that armed conflict in Northern Ireland is officially at an end. There are today 10 battalions of troops in the province. If it is decreed that these are no longer required for peace-keeping, the Chancellor will demand that most or all are disbanded. This would be a huge blow to the capability, indeed credibility, of the British Army.
"You mustn't quote me anywhere that might be sourced," a close associate of the Prime Minister said to me coyly a few weeks ago, "but you should know that Tony would love to increase the size of the Army. It's just that Gordon won't let him."
I hear that the Prime Minister himself has made similar fatuous assertions to others. Sufficient to say that if the Army's manpower is cut further, it will come close to losing critical mass. Britain's falling birth-rate already threatens recruitment. The six Scottish regiments, in particular, are woefully under strength, and rely on injections of Commonwealth troops to fill their ranks.
Oddly enough, the charge against the Government which possesses least substance is the one which received most prominence this week. Headlines focused upon the National Audit Office's report castigating shortcomings in equipment for the Iraq war. These were valid as far as they went - some kit was delivered late, and in inadequate quantity. Yet the NAO's report underplayed the central fact, that British war-fighting equipment worked amazingly well, indeed better than the gear for any previous expedition in British history.
The real issue is not the Army's kit for today, but its manning for tomorrow. The rest of the world finds it bewildering that successive British governments - for John Major treated the Armed Forces shamefully - devote so much ingenuity to cutting them, when their cost as a proportion of government spending is now marginal.
The services command greater admiration than any other British institution. I remember Raymond Seitz, when he was US Ambassador in London in the early 1990s, expressing astonishment at the Government's parsimony: "Your Armed Forces really can enable Britain to punch above its weight," he said. "They are by far your most cost-effective means of exercising influence in the world."
The new White Paper's enthusiasm for lighter, more flexible forces is sensible. In the post-Cold War era, Britain needs few heavy tanks or interception fighters. Yet cuts seem likely to be made many years before the new generation of equipment can be put in place. Already the Army's reconnaissance vehicles are older than the soldiers who man them.
The Ministry of Defence is doing a rotten job of looking after its most precious commodity - its people. Barracks, both at home and abroad, are a disgrace to this country, yet no politician seems to care. How can soldiers be expected to inhabit quarters deemed unfit for asylum-seekers? Yes, really. When the Army recently surrendered some barracks for conversion to Home Office use, senior Army officers noted bitterly that the buildings were deemed to need an expensive upgrade before they would be acceptable to Kosovans or Afghans.
No Labour minister other than Tony Blair himself has the smallest interest in the Armed Forces, or speaks of them with real warmth. The White Paper claims that technology now makes crude counts of soldiers or weapons platforms irrelevant. Informed soldiers say that this sort of language is simply designed to divert attention from fears over impending cuts in manpower.
Mass matters, and Britain's Armed Forces are close to losing it. The Royal Navy is now tiny. Cutting its strength still further must have a drastic effect on its ability to recruit, train and operate with conviction.
The Government reinforced service scepticism about its good faith last week, by announcing British participation in a new Euro-headquarters in Belgium. Here is real, Government-inspired waste. There are already far too many international headquarters.
Only the British, and narrowly also the French, today possess forces of the size and quality to perform effectively as peacekeepers, never mind battlefield soldiers. Until European governments show some willingness to fund effective defence capabilities, putting more staff officers into Belgium represents mere shuffling of deckchairs.
One statement in last week's White Paper seems incontrovertible: it is hard to imagine Britain again fighting a war except alongside the United States. Yet this is an admission of Europe's abject failure, rather than a declaration of prudent strategic policy.
New conventional threats might well emerge over the next generation, which Government policy would make it impossible to meet. Even in the immediate campaign against terrorism, the Blair Government has done precious little towards homeland defence. When a serious terrorist atrocity takes place in Britain, ministers should be castigated if the perpetrators prove to have circumvented our almost worthless border controls. These, too, should be part of a credible national defence policy.
From the Armed Forces' viewpoint, the White Paper amounts to typical Blairite waffle. Behind it, a much graver threat is lurking. Some time in the next few years, Gordon Brown is likely to become prime minister.
The Chancellor regards defence with rather less enthusiasm than the euro, the services as mere squanderers of cash that might otherwise be thrown at his latest child poverty action scheme. Britain's Armed Forces are not in the least frightened of Iraqis or Afghans. But gosh, they are scared by the prospect of Mr Brown moving next door.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nurse
Have you ever BEEN near a Mess Bill? They're not that cheap a thing. Messes are needed because of the way we operate. They are (still, regardless of what anyone says) part of the military life and ethos we joined for. If you start eroding the real time daily stuff back at base, there is no point in pushing money into the front line. There has to be a balance.
Messes are paid for by public & private funds.
(I didn't even mention punctuation - oh, b.ugg3r.)
Have you ever BEEN near a Mess Bill? They're not that cheap a thing. Messes are needed because of the way we operate. They are (still, regardless of what anyone says) part of the military life and ethos we joined for. If you start eroding the real time daily stuff back at base, there is no point in pushing money into the front line. There has to be a balance.
Messes are paid for by public & private funds.
(I didn't even mention punctuation - oh, b.ugg3r.)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes just had 18 months of paying them even on deployment.
And living in the worst accomidation I have ever been in for 17 years.
In now other government job is their anything like the messing system and you get x-factor on top of that. Yes service life is different and i do understand that but maybe there are cheaper ways of delivering Food and accomidation?
And living in the worst accomidation I have ever been in for 17 years.
In now other government job is their anything like the messing system and you get x-factor on top of that. Yes service life is different and i do understand that but maybe there are cheaper ways of delivering Food and accomidation?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Swamp Land in East Anglia
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Nurse for real. 
I suggest a Christmas present in the form of a "Dikshunry!" would be of great help to you when posting on this forum. My four year old has better writing skills.
I suggest a Christmas present in the form of a "Dikshunry!" would be of great help to you when posting on this forum. My four year old has better writing skills.
He must be a young AC2, Trooper or Ordinary Seaman with an education like that..... I hope.
But the content of his posts is often even more hilarious than his spelling and grammar.
But the content of his posts is often even more hilarious than his spelling and grammar.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko, how many AC2, troopers or Ordinary Seamen do you know who pay mess bills? I take you point though, it's amazing that Nurse claims to be at least SNCO level yet hasn't mastered the Queens English. I note he's new to the forums this month, and at least he's made me laugh! Back to the thread though, I heard today that redundancys may be required to get to the levels our lords and masters require. Unfortunately there isn't any money so they're hoping that enough p*ssed off old sweats with their pension earnt will PVR! I've just signed on in the hope of a bigger pay off, but hey what if they don't get the natural wasteage they're hoping for? Interesting times!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey chaps, lay off the Nurse! It's refreshing to have his/her views and at least one can understand them despite the English.
In any case, none of us are perfect -
- remember that Hooded.
I've enjoyed your posts Nurse - don't get shouted down.
In any case, none of us are perfect -
I heard today that redundancys may be required
I've enjoyed your posts Nurse - don't get shouted down.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
try above senior NCO.
sorry about the spelling but typing isn't my thing.
The question about messes is to try and get people to look at what defence money is actually spent on and wether we're getting value for money or if there is a better way of doing things.
The army i agree spends loads on things that aren't useable on a modern battlefields eg Horses the HCMR is a superb spectcle and uses resources that could be diverted to saving some MBT's but it keeps alive traditions and is good at keeping the army in the public eye. I know that all the BBMF pilots are front line qualified aircrew but a Lancaster is hardly going to be used to Bomb Iraq but it keeps the RAF in the public eye and continues tradition all paid for at the expense of the defence budget. An accountant would say cut all that as it doesn't add capability directly but spectcle is an excellent recruiting tool and the sight of the HCMR display or a fly past of the BBMF may set a young person onto the path of a service career. But a bean counter would probably push for them to be cut. We are the current custodians of the armed forces of the UK and we know the Value of them we now have to fight the accountants who know the costs of everything and the value of nothing.
sorry about the spelling but typing isn't my thing.
The question about messes is to try and get people to look at what defence money is actually spent on and wether we're getting value for money or if there is a better way of doing things.
The army i agree spends loads on things that aren't useable on a modern battlefields eg Horses the HCMR is a superb spectcle and uses resources that could be diverted to saving some MBT's but it keeps alive traditions and is good at keeping the army in the public eye. I know that all the BBMF pilots are front line qualified aircrew but a Lancaster is hardly going to be used to Bomb Iraq but it keeps the RAF in the public eye and continues tradition all paid for at the expense of the defence budget. An accountant would say cut all that as it doesn't add capability directly but spectcle is an excellent recruiting tool and the sight of the HCMR display or a fly past of the BBMF may set a young person onto the path of a service career. But a bean counter would probably push for them to be cut. We are the current custodians of the armed forces of the UK and we know the Value of them we now have to fight the accountants who know the costs of everything and the value of nothing.