UK Defence Restructuring
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Defence Restructuring
UK military faces major overhaul (BBC News)
The UK military looks set for change
The UK's top military officer has indicated a major overhaul of Britain's armed forces to respond to the demands of combating international terrorism.
Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Michael Walker signalled cuts in warships, aircraft and heavy armour.
The general - speaking ahead of Thursday's Defence White Paper - warned of "tough choices" ahead.
He said the plans had the backing of military top brass and were not being driven by politicians and accountants.
Adapting to the changing strategic environment will require difficult choices to be made
General Sir Michael Walker
But Conservative defence spokesman Keith Simpson warned against cutting troop numbers.
"With the Army already under strength, and committed from Northern Ireland to Iraq and relying heavily on reservists, it would be highly irresponsible to cut the strength of the Armed Forces further," he said.
In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute, Sir Michael cautioned that there must be "no change for the sake of change".
He added: "But this White Paper is about building 21st century armed forces."
Changes were being driven by the need for a more "flexible and agile" armed forces to counter the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to tackle international terrorism.
"Counter-terrorism and counter proliferation operations in particular will require rapidly deployable forces able to respond swiftly to intelligence and achieve precise effects across the world," he said.
Fleet 'adjustments'
"This places a premium on the agility, deployability and sustainability of our forces."
With the Type 45 destroyer and two planned new aircraft carriers coming into service some of the Royal Navy's older warships would no longer be required - giving space for "some adjustments" within the existing fleet.
And new technology including the latest precision missiles would allow the RAF to achieve its military objectives while deploying fewer aircraft.
In the army, a new generation medium weight armoured vehicle would "inevitably reduce our requirement for heavy armoured fighting vehicles and heavy artillery".
"Significant" amounts of cash would be invested so that weapons such as unmanned aerial drones could help spot and attack "targets of opportunity".
Large-scale operations
"It is inevitable that this will mean change - adapting to the changing strategic environment will require difficult choices to be made," he said.
"It would be quite wrong for us to retain systems, within a finite budget, which we know are no longer effective."
The restructuring, said Sir Michael, would enable Britain to mount "limited national operations" unilaterally or take the lead in small to medium operations in international conflict.
UK forces would also retain the capacity to undertake large-scale operations but the "most demanding expeditionary operations" could only be "plausibly" mounted if the US was involved.
"Consequently, our Armed Forces will need to be interoperable with US command and control structures, maintain the US operational tempo and provide those capabilities that deliver the greatest impact when operating alongside the US," he said.
Polarisation warning
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon also stressed the importance of British forces being able to operate alongside the Americans - something which he acknowledged was both "technologically challenging and financially expensive".
Mr Hoon issued a warning to European allies against any move that would polarise relations with the US.
"In some places, a parody has been developing of America which all but demonises its power and its policies, and seeks to put all of the ills of the world at its door," he said.
"The dangerous consequence of this is that it can feed misunderstanding and encourage isolationist tendencies on both sides of the Atlantic."
It was important both to Europe and to the US that there continued to be an "effective and sustainable transatlantic alliance", preferably via Nato.
*************************************************
Sorry guys, but this doesn't bode well for the UK military. Guess its not unexpected, but other than to save on labour putting tax up before an election, I cant see any logic in it at all... Start thinking American seems to be the order of the day, cos we won't be able to do anything ourselves....
The UK military looks set for change
The UK's top military officer has indicated a major overhaul of Britain's armed forces to respond to the demands of combating international terrorism.
Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Michael Walker signalled cuts in warships, aircraft and heavy armour.
The general - speaking ahead of Thursday's Defence White Paper - warned of "tough choices" ahead.
He said the plans had the backing of military top brass and were not being driven by politicians and accountants.
Adapting to the changing strategic environment will require difficult choices to be made
General Sir Michael Walker
But Conservative defence spokesman Keith Simpson warned against cutting troop numbers.
"With the Army already under strength, and committed from Northern Ireland to Iraq and relying heavily on reservists, it would be highly irresponsible to cut the strength of the Armed Forces further," he said.
In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute, Sir Michael cautioned that there must be "no change for the sake of change".
He added: "But this White Paper is about building 21st century armed forces."
Changes were being driven by the need for a more "flexible and agile" armed forces to counter the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to tackle international terrorism.
"Counter-terrorism and counter proliferation operations in particular will require rapidly deployable forces able to respond swiftly to intelligence and achieve precise effects across the world," he said.
Fleet 'adjustments'
"This places a premium on the agility, deployability and sustainability of our forces."
With the Type 45 destroyer and two planned new aircraft carriers coming into service some of the Royal Navy's older warships would no longer be required - giving space for "some adjustments" within the existing fleet.
And new technology including the latest precision missiles would allow the RAF to achieve its military objectives while deploying fewer aircraft.
In the army, a new generation medium weight armoured vehicle would "inevitably reduce our requirement for heavy armoured fighting vehicles and heavy artillery".
"Significant" amounts of cash would be invested so that weapons such as unmanned aerial drones could help spot and attack "targets of opportunity".
Large-scale operations
"It is inevitable that this will mean change - adapting to the changing strategic environment will require difficult choices to be made," he said.
"It would be quite wrong for us to retain systems, within a finite budget, which we know are no longer effective."
The restructuring, said Sir Michael, would enable Britain to mount "limited national operations" unilaterally or take the lead in small to medium operations in international conflict.
UK forces would also retain the capacity to undertake large-scale operations but the "most demanding expeditionary operations" could only be "plausibly" mounted if the US was involved.
"Consequently, our Armed Forces will need to be interoperable with US command and control structures, maintain the US operational tempo and provide those capabilities that deliver the greatest impact when operating alongside the US," he said.
Polarisation warning
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon also stressed the importance of British forces being able to operate alongside the Americans - something which he acknowledged was both "technologically challenging and financially expensive".
Mr Hoon issued a warning to European allies against any move that would polarise relations with the US.
"In some places, a parody has been developing of America which all but demonises its power and its policies, and seeks to put all of the ills of the world at its door," he said.
"The dangerous consequence of this is that it can feed misunderstanding and encourage isolationist tendencies on both sides of the Atlantic."
It was important both to Europe and to the US that there continued to be an "effective and sustainable transatlantic alliance", preferably via Nato.
*************************************************
Sorry guys, but this doesn't bode well for the UK military. Guess its not unexpected, but other than to save on labour putting tax up before an election, I cant see any logic in it at all... Start thinking American seems to be the order of the day, cos we won't be able to do anything ourselves....
It is a good move - current Tornado support budget alone is more than the entire budget for Land Forces. Does that sound like value for money to you? When you consider the effect delivered (even at least in political terms)
I think there could be rocky times ahead for the RAF, but then, there is a lot of fat still to be cut from that particular organisation.
We'll find out soon with the Defence White Paper - out tomorrow if my memory serves?
I think there could be rocky times ahead for the RAF, but then, there is a lot of fat still to be cut from that particular organisation.
We'll find out soon with the Defence White Paper - out tomorrow if my memory serves?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hm
Surely the cuts will fall mainly on the army? Of all 3 services, they are clearly ripe to be plucked (over). Remove a regiment of Challengers, chop the Apache programme, get rid of the antiquated regimental system and reinvest the surplus funding into the 21st century method of warfighting - airpower.
Guys
Anyone who doesn't believe the Armed Forces are in for a massive kicking is being niave (sp?). The Sunday Papers (Times?) had an article that suggested a shrinkage in the carriers, a reduced buy of TypHoon, JSF, Astute, T45 etc etc etc and a reduction in the numbers of Challengers and Regts etc.
Rumours around a station in Bucks are that the RAF will lose between 10 and 20 thousand and the army a similar number (but then they are already 5000 short). The figure of 39400 for the RAF was one that was going around. Which branches the RAF looses as a reult will be interesting and how many of those jobs become civil service??
CP where would you suggest the RAF takes the cuts?? And land has a smaller budget than Tornado support????!!!!? Where do you get your figures?
Anyone who doesn't believe the Armed Forces are in for a massive kicking is being niave (sp?). The Sunday Papers (Times?) had an article that suggested a shrinkage in the carriers, a reduced buy of TypHoon, JSF, Astute, T45 etc etc etc and a reduction in the numbers of Challengers and Regts etc.
Rumours around a station in Bucks are that the RAF will lose between 10 and 20 thousand and the army a similar number (but then they are already 5000 short). The figure of 39400 for the RAF was one that was going around. Which branches the RAF looses as a reult will be interesting and how many of those jobs become civil service??
CP where would you suggest the RAF takes the cuts?? And land has a smaller budget than Tornado support????!!!!? Where do you get your figures?
Defence - the Treasury's first target?
Considering that defence consumes only a small percentage of public spending and an even smaller one of GNP/GDP, and the demands are going up...
Why is defence the first Government department to get cut? What about other departments? What about the thousands of civil service pen pushers who do nothing useful?
Perhaps we should give less money to the EU. And hand wringing liberal left do gooders. And the PC brigade...
Why is defence the first Government department to get cut? What about other departments? What about the thousands of civil service pen pushers who do nothing useful?
Perhaps we should give less money to the EU. And hand wringing liberal left do gooders. And the PC brigade...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CP where would you suggest the RAF takes the cuts??
Civilianise the whole of the Admin world and do away with the "Public Money" myth and all the accountability b@ll@cks that goes with that. You do not need a bl@@dy SWO or chief clerk full stop, let alone on det as all they do is make up stupid rules and pi@@ people off. Should save an absolute fortune
and you could utilise the savings to employ a civilian guard force which would allow all the techies etc to return to their primiary duties!! Before anyone comments on guards there are plenty of civvy guarded stations out there none more so than where "rodney's" are created
Civilianise procurement for all three services and you will then have accountability and no more of the "two years in post then promoted before all the contractoral nieviety becomes painfully apparent" tosh that we currently have........J model, eurofarce, apache blah blah blah. How any millions would that save
How many senior officers..........cull a few of those fuc@ers and we would save even more money............rant over
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Civilianise the whole of the Admin world and do away with the "Public Money" myth and all the accountability b@ll@cks that goes with that. You do not need a bl@@dy SWO or chief clerk full stop, let alone on det as all they do is make up stupid rules and pi@@ people off. Should save an absolute fortune
and you could utilise the savings to employ a civilian guard force which would allow all the techies etc to return to their primiary duties!! Before anyone comments on guards there are plenty of civvy guarded stations out there none more so than where "rodney's" are createdCivilianise procurement for all three services and you will then have accountability and no more of the "two years in post then promoted before all the contractoral nieviety becomes painfully apparent" tosh that we currently have........J model, eurofarce, apache blah blah blah. How any millions would that save
How many senior officers..........cull a few of those fuc@ers and we would save even more money............rant over
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABIW
Lots of civvies in procurement - brought in from industry in fact. Also, we need military types in procurement - they are the customer and ensure objectivity and help (honest) get what the customer needs. Oh - they're also putting people in procurement jobs for longer.
I accept that we are probably in for another spending kicking. However, there might be some interesting thinking out there. Many people are frightened of change. I'm just frightened when I think of how much worse it might get! Doing even more with even less can only go so far. Unfortunately that might mean we take a right kicking before someone notices the elastic has no stretch left.
Lots of civvies in procurement - brought in from industry in fact. Also, we need military types in procurement - they are the customer and ensure objectivity and help (honest) get what the customer needs. Oh - they're also putting people in procurement jobs for longer.
I accept that we are probably in for another spending kicking. However, there might be some interesting thinking out there. Many people are frightened of change. I'm just frightened when I think of how much worse it might get! Doing even more with even less can only go so far. Unfortunately that might mean we take a right kicking before someone notices the elastic has no stretch left.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok there is going to be cuts unfortunatley there will be pain for all 3 services. In Past cuts the army and the navy have been cut disporportinatley and are now not balanced. The RAF has goten of very lightly by trying to convince the Politicians you can control ground from the air. The same lie they have been peddling since 1919.
It has been proven time and time again the only way to control ground is to put troops on it.
So sorry guys and girls the RAF will have to realise it is another support service of the Army and Navy.
It has been proven time and time again the only way to control ground is to put troops on it.
So sorry guys and girls the RAF will have to realise it is another support service of the Army and Navy.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Money saving...
Do Air Ranks really need to retire on full pay? We still have almost the same number as the end of WWII taking a healthy wedge from us each month whilst everything else has trimmed back to about 5% of what it was.
We could spend the money saved on extra RAFP to ensure that the disabled parking slots outside the squadron are not violated by people not entitled to park there (everyone on the squadron.)
Alternatively, we could get rid of them too....
We could spend the money saved on extra RAFP to ensure that the disabled parking slots outside the squadron are not violated by people not entitled to park there (everyone on the squadron.)
Alternatively, we could get rid of them too....
1. Mandatory Equal Opportunities Awareness courses.
2. New No 1 uniforms for all JRs.
3. Admin Branch. (All of them.)
4. The Puma force.
5. The Merlin Force.
There... that's 5 ways the RAF could cut a heap of costs and not even notice a decline in operational effectiveness!
Cat + Pigeons = GO!
2. New No 1 uniforms for all JRs.
3. Admin Branch. (All of them.)
4. The Puma force.
5. The Merlin Force.
There... that's 5 ways the RAF could cut a heap of costs and not even notice a decline in operational effectiveness!
Cat + Pigeons = GO!
Unpopular Money Saving Ideas for the RAF
1. Sgt Pilot
2. Aircrew buy their in flight meals, blunty's buy their lunch when on duty, so why not aircrew.
3. Down rank the Officer Posts.
a. Flight Commander = Flt Lt (vice Sqn Ldr)
b. Boss of Sqn = Sqn Ldr (Vice Wg Cdr)
c. Boss of a station (ie 3 wings) Wg Cdr. (vice Gp capt)
d. Boss of a group = Gp Capt. (vice Air Commode)
etc etc
4. On a voluntary ground tour, NO FLYING PAY.
5. If they bend a kite, pay for the damage.
Blue touch paper lit and legs running quickly......
(Better money saving idea - Bin the Bean Counters and the Bean Counter's Assistant)
2. Aircrew buy their in flight meals, blunty's buy their lunch when on duty, so why not aircrew.
3. Down rank the Officer Posts.
a. Flight Commander = Flt Lt (vice Sqn Ldr)
b. Boss of Sqn = Sqn Ldr (Vice Wg Cdr)
c. Boss of a station (ie 3 wings) Wg Cdr. (vice Gp capt)
d. Boss of a group = Gp Capt. (vice Air Commode)
etc etc
4. On a voluntary ground tour, NO FLYING PAY.
5. If they bend a kite, pay for the damage.
Blue touch paper lit and legs running quickly......
(Better money saving idea - Bin the Bean Counters and the Bean Counter's Assistant)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice post 875 if perhahps a little too close to the truth of what really needs to be cut. I remember a while back when all this jointery shi@ came in and a RAF Wittismore was formed there was a suggestion that one Station Commander and one OC Admin/OC Eng/OC Ops etc would be the order of the day. Didn't happen did it, why? because that would stop the oppertunities for progression for the hoopers! Now who was it that decided on 2 GP Capt posts insted of one? Some guy who now holds Air Rank I believe!
Dream on..
Surely the cuts will fall mainly on the army? Of all 3 services, they are clearly ripe to be plucked (over). Remove a regiment of Challengers, chop the Apache programme, get rid of the antiquated regimental system and reinvest the surplus funding into the 21st century method of warfighting - airpower.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it sad that the inter-service arguments are once again deployed at a time when this goverment is trying to screw all the armed services. That this should be happening in the immediate aftermath of so much achievement by all three over-stretched services in a war that need not have been fought if this government had its' act half way together is even more lamentable.
It is time to stop the inter-service squabbling - when are we going to see a CDS who fights for his budget instead of kissing political backsides? (and any senior RAF officer who resigns on a point of principle?).
It is time to stop the inter-service squabbling - when are we going to see a CDS who fights for his budget instead of kissing political backsides? (and any senior RAF officer who resigns on a point of principle?).
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CDS with Vertebrae
"when are we going to see a CDS who fights for his budget instead of kissing political backsides? "
Didnt he just leave his post early over Op Telic vs Op Fresco?
Oggin
Didnt he just leave his post early over Op Telic vs Op Fresco?
Oggin
Let’s hope that there’ll be as much robust debate in the House when Buff gets up on his back legs today as there was yesterday at PMQs. Mad George’s bum-licking poodle looked distinctly ruffled when grilled by Michael Howard over the government propaganda radio advert (paid for by you and me) concerning their university tuition fee proposals. Apparently “You’ll cough zip ‘till you bling”, whatever that means.
No doubt this bunch think that by pandering to yoof-cuwcha in this way, they’ll attract more votes when they try to drop the voting age to 16.
No doubt this bunch think that by pandering to yoof-cuwcha in this way, they’ll attract more votes when they try to drop the voting age to 16.
Last edited by BEagle; 11th Dec 2003 at 16:07.
