This isn't good at all!!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't look like there is much hope under the Tories either. The suggestion from their new spending plan seems to be that the money to pay for it is going to come from defence amongst other areas.... Can't see the Lib Dems increasing the defence budget either. I think the forces are now on a one-way downward spiral.
I simply don't understand how defence can be seen as the sacrificial cow any more! Aren't the forces more committed than ever? It makes no sense at all.
I simply don't understand how defence can be seen as the sacrificial cow any more! Aren't the forces more committed than ever? It makes no sense at all.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Postman
Agreed, unlike 1979, this time the Conservative party isn't going to ride to the rescue. The Forces are going to be slashed whoever is in office.
Reading between the lines, the Conservatives may well cut our Armed Forces down to a homeland Defence Force, to be a sort of Immigration Service!! In a lot of civilian peoples eyes that would be no bad thing mind.
Having trawled the media today I really believe that some savage cuts are coming and very, very soon. I also think that the RAF is going to come off worst out of any proposed cuts.
Agreed, unlike 1979, this time the Conservative party isn't going to ride to the rescue. The Forces are going to be slashed whoever is in office.
Reading between the lines, the Conservatives may well cut our Armed Forces down to a homeland Defence Force, to be a sort of Immigration Service!! In a lot of civilian peoples eyes that would be no bad thing mind.
Having trawled the media today I really believe that some savage cuts are coming and very, very soon. I also think that the RAF is going to come off worst out of any proposed cuts.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Norwich
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This could'nt possibly be true, if it is Im totally gutted.
I am graduating in a few months and want to join the RAF as a pilot. I would love to go fast jet obviously. But by the looks of things I have next to no chance.
I hate the way the Labour party treat the armed forces, hate it so much that I may write to Tony Blair, not that it'll do any good. But right now, if another Falklands happened we would probably struggle.
Gutted
I am graduating in a few months and want to join the RAF as a pilot. I would love to go fast jet obviously. But by the looks of things I have next to no chance.
I hate the way the Labour party treat the armed forces, hate it so much that I may write to Tony Blair, not that it'll do any good. But right now, if another Falklands happened we would probably struggle.
Gutted
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate the way the Labour party treat the armed forces,
Do a 'Google' on John Knott (huge defence cuts pre-Falklands) or Nicholas Soames (Options for change, frontline first)
The Conservatives don't like us either! (unless there's a war)
Anyone want to buy a battleship?
-Nick
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the idiots who ruin this country have read about the achievements of the Few and decided that is the way to ensure future RAF capability - make sure that the few are indeed fewer. Maybe they think rapid expansion in time of political tension is still possible - let's face it, they are daft enough.
Whatever comes out the other end of the next round of cuts we will be dependant on others for our future defence capability so they had better recruit a new breed of politician who does not volunteer our services to fight foreign wars and who can talk their way out of war instead of into it.
Whatever comes out the other end of the next round of cuts we will be dependant on others for our future defence capability so they had better recruit a new breed of politician who does not volunteer our services to fight foreign wars and who can talk their way out of war instead of into it.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Norwich
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing I don't get, Tony Blair wants to maintain a big influence on the world stage. To do that you need forces. In this current climate, Iraq, Afganistan, we need more forces, not less.
Why can we all see that and he can't. The average soldier spends 6 months of the year outside of the UK- thats proper over commitment. On top of all this the "red tape" keeps getting worse.
The UK has/had the best forces in the world, thats another reason I want to join. By the looks of it we are getting totally screwed..mostly because of the ****ty NHS
Why can we all see that and he can't. The average soldier spends 6 months of the year outside of the UK- thats proper over commitment. On top of all this the "red tape" keeps getting worse.
The UK has/had the best forces in the world, thats another reason I want to join. By the looks of it we are getting totally screwed..mostly because of the ****ty NHS
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I joined the RAF just as the Strategic Defence Review came out. The projections from that were of a streamlined, more modern, military. Lots of old heads around shook their heads with disbelief and muttered phrases like 'cut to the bone'. "Don't join young man!" I was told.
The rumours (strong ones at that) doing the rounds at the moment just beggar belief. If indeed they do turn out to be well founded, phrases such as 'cutting into the bone' will be fully justified. Gulf War II just might turn out to be more costly than any of us had imagined.............
.........How old BEagle must be chuckling to himself
The rumours (strong ones at that) doing the rounds at the moment just beggar belief. If indeed they do turn out to be well founded, phrases such as 'cutting into the bone' will be fully justified. Gulf War II just might turn out to be more costly than any of us had imagined.............
.........How old BEagle must be chuckling to himself
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What those who sit back and do not contest the cuts in defence are doing is worse than driving without insurance - they are obviously not aware that if we cannot defend ourselves all other insurance is null and void - a strong military is the ultimate insurance. They also have no concept of the fact that intentions can change instantly; capabilities take much longer to acquire.
Members of the forces writing to MPs probably does little good but talking to voters who have no personal interest and persuading them to write might be more constructive.
Members of the forces writing to MPs probably does little good but talking to voters who have no personal interest and persuading them to write might be more constructive.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad news I agree but . . . .
And I`m trying to look at this from another point of view . . . . .
Whilst Joe Public admire and respect the Forces (our boys), if you explain the reason why Grandma can`t get hip replacement for 12 mths and why little Johnny is in a class of 35 as X Billon is spent on an armed force that doesn`t need x y and z because of the "New Role of Policing the World" then they will buy it.
Yes I know
- That is a dangerous policy and will inevitably blow up in some policy makers face
- That when the time comes (as it will) that we are needed that we will be unable to do what we are asked (but then we do it now ?.....let`s not start on that.....)
It`s all designed to get votes. Whatever gets people in, that`ll be the line. If the proverbial hits the pan, we`ll throw money at it.
And as much as I admire the job the boys do at Colt, are we really justified in keeping all the Jags ? Maybe we do, maybe we don`t. Someone that side could answer that.
I don`t agree with it, but Defence is seen a bit like insurance to politicians. A drain on money and no use until you need it and then it`s the best investment you ever made.
Way to win ? Become an MP !!!!
And I`m trying to look at this from another point of view . . . . .
Whilst Joe Public admire and respect the Forces (our boys), if you explain the reason why Grandma can`t get hip replacement for 12 mths and why little Johnny is in a class of 35 as X Billon is spent on an armed force that doesn`t need x y and z because of the "New Role of Policing the World" then they will buy it.
Yes I know
- That is a dangerous policy and will inevitably blow up in some policy makers face
- That when the time comes (as it will) that we are needed that we will be unable to do what we are asked (but then we do it now ?.....let`s not start on that.....)
It`s all designed to get votes. Whatever gets people in, that`ll be the line. If the proverbial hits the pan, we`ll throw money at it.
And as much as I admire the job the boys do at Colt, are we really justified in keeping all the Jags ? Maybe we do, maybe we don`t. Someone that side could answer that.
I don`t agree with it, but Defence is seen a bit like insurance to politicians. A drain on money and no use until you need it and then it`s the best investment you ever made.
Way to win ? Become an MP !!!!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: kent, England
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Conservatives if they get into power and if they followed Letwins plan (very unlikely on both counts) almost cetainly will cut defence spending, or at very best freeze it (which amounts to a real term cut), remember they are trying to achieve the political holy grail of increased NHS/Education spending without hitting middle England with tax increases or increasing borrowing.
The Goverments next defence paper will decide how I (as a civilian) will vote in the next election and want a goverment that takes defence seriously, though as all the main parties look like they hjave a policy of cutting dfence spending I dont know where my vote will go!
The Goverments next defence paper will decide how I (as a civilian) will vote in the next election and want a goverment that takes defence seriously, though as all the main parties look like they hjave a policy of cutting dfence spending I dont know where my vote will go!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our insurance policy? Do note that nobody has ever mentioned Trident in any cuts, even those ex card carrying CND hippies. Bet they'd rather use those than consider having a defence force to do the job properly in the first place... No, the NHS needs more Project Managers, red tape, and accountants - we've got nukes, sod the military!
The problem is, its not the politicians who are going to hurt when things go wrong, its the forces. I just hope that when it happens, they have the sense to roll over and die, rather than try to heap the blame onto someone else as they seem only too happy to do...
The problem is, its not the politicians who are going to hurt when things go wrong, its the forces. I just hope that when it happens, they have the sense to roll over and die, rather than try to heap the blame onto someone else as they seem only too happy to do...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Shrewsbury, UK
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point I was going to make has already been touched on, that its not so much that the politicians think its a good idea to cut the forces, as its the public's perception that we're an unnecessary waste of money. The simple fact is, that so long as the flames of conflict are not licking at Joe Public's ankles, no deployment is worth a cut of his hard-earned cash, that could be going towards his second car, or his third child's university fees.
The vast majority of the electorate today (including myself of course) have not been alive through a major conflict the likes of Napoleonic or World Wars, that could positively threaten the soverignity of the UK, and furthermore, have little understanding, or indeed interest, in the long term outcomes of global politics. I would go as far as to say that in this country we are behind even the US on this issue, since they have been galvanised into action, or at least awareness, by 9/11, while we stoically compare modern terrorism to the Northern Ireland conflicts which are now in recession, and therefore do not feature prominently in our daily perception of danger.
So what, you may ask, is the solution to this poor public image, not of the forces, but of our usefulness and value for money? I honestly have no suggestions. The government is unlikely to increase military spending against public opinion. Indeed, I am learning more and more through my pre-Cranwell studies that we were very very lucky in the Falklands, while most of the population no doubt thinks, as I did previously, that 'Of course we won, we always do'.
I can only suppose that nothing short of our overall failure in a major campaign, as someone previously mentioned, will be enough to gain public support for healthier armed forces at their own expense. However, if that campaign is one to which our foces were sent under the deceptive machinations of our elected 'leaders' (forged dossiers on WMD for example) then it will only serve to further the public's predisposition towards global isolationism and demilitarisation.
Hyperbolic rant suspended for now....
The vast majority of the electorate today (including myself of course) have not been alive through a major conflict the likes of Napoleonic or World Wars, that could positively threaten the soverignity of the UK, and furthermore, have little understanding, or indeed interest, in the long term outcomes of global politics. I would go as far as to say that in this country we are behind even the US on this issue, since they have been galvanised into action, or at least awareness, by 9/11, while we stoically compare modern terrorism to the Northern Ireland conflicts which are now in recession, and therefore do not feature prominently in our daily perception of danger.
So what, you may ask, is the solution to this poor public image, not of the forces, but of our usefulness and value for money? I honestly have no suggestions. The government is unlikely to increase military spending against public opinion. Indeed, I am learning more and more through my pre-Cranwell studies that we were very very lucky in the Falklands, while most of the population no doubt thinks, as I did previously, that 'Of course we won, we always do'.
I can only suppose that nothing short of our overall failure in a major campaign, as someone previously mentioned, will be enough to gain public support for healthier armed forces at their own expense. However, if that campaign is one to which our foces were sent under the deceptive machinations of our elected 'leaders' (forged dossiers on WMD for example) then it will only serve to further the public's predisposition towards global isolationism and demilitarisation.
Hyperbolic rant suspended for now....
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Here and there
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Postie,
Good point you mention about the V boats. With the fair amount of MRA4 bashing that is going around at the moment and the Sunday Times article stating that Nimrod's ASW role is obsolete, how will the Navy react to no air cover for the bombers? If I recall the boys in dark blue still appreciate a little airborne ASW support even if we have no idea where they are. And it still is a primary role of ours amongst so many others.
I realise that this is probably being argued to death elsewhere, but will people please realise that anti-sub is not what we do nowadays. Yes it is still role we undertake, but probably around 20% of flying, if that, is undertaken for ASW.
Kicking the hornets nest now, I would even suggest that low level ops for the fast jets is more outdated than ASW! Lets get rid of all low level training. That'll sure save a few pennies..........
Good point you mention about the V boats. With the fair amount of MRA4 bashing that is going around at the moment and the Sunday Times article stating that Nimrod's ASW role is obsolete, how will the Navy react to no air cover for the bombers? If I recall the boys in dark blue still appreciate a little airborne ASW support even if we have no idea where they are. And it still is a primary role of ours amongst so many others.
I realise that this is probably being argued to death elsewhere, but will people please realise that anti-sub is not what we do nowadays. Yes it is still role we undertake, but probably around 20% of flying, if that, is undertaken for ASW.
Kicking the hornets nest now, I would even suggest that low level ops for the fast jets is more outdated than ASW! Lets get rid of all low level training. That'll sure save a few pennies..........
You're right.
Because we (I should say 'you' - teaching part of the estimate process doesn't exactly qualify me for the 'we') won, the public looked on proudly, then moved back to worry about issues that affect them more immediately - such as
1. The NHS (Auntie Maureen waiting for ten months to be seen by a specialist);
2. On crime (cousin James' car was broken into last week and the police didn't turn up for hours);
3. On education (are little Johnny's GCSEs worth the paper they're written on? Will Jane be forced to go £20,000 into debt by the time she's 21 if she's to get a degree? What can mum & dad do to help her?);
4. On transport (Mum's train was 45 minutes late - again. Dad was sent a congestion charge bill again despite the fact he's never driven to London in his life)
5. On...
The only department of the government that has consistently delivered since 1997 is the MoD, or, more to the point, those that the department (mis-)manages.
Problem: Firefighters on strike? FBU making statements that soldiers, sailors and airmen can't operate newer fire engines? Solution: Can do service personnel ask 'how difficult is it to use a hose?', work out how to do it, deliver the goods.
Problem: Government totally ****s up foot & mouth crisis. Government in a panic? Solution: Call on armed services to sort out the mess.
Problem: Prime Minister with a desire to throw weight around on international stage? Solution: Send in armed forces, who go out, moan a bit about lack of kit and appalling Sec of State, crack on with it anyway in fashion generally admired by public, win anyway.
Which of these departments of state is in the most urgent need of funding? The one that delivers all the time, or the ones that fail to do so on every single occasion?
The sad fact is that it is only going to be when a PM sends troops to war and they die because of the inattention of successive adminstrations that the public will be appalled at what's happened to 'our lads [and lasses] and make the government do something. Which will be far too 'king late.
The solution lies in more publicity - which means that someone needs to point out that Max Hastings recent articles in the Grauniad and the Spectator are barking (essentially slash the RAF to next to nothing; equip the RN entirely with carriers and SSN [no other ships] look fondly at the army and recruit the thousands of willing teenagers out there); that if someone PVRs because they are so ticked off with how things have gone that they write to their MP and to the press (after a hundred of these letters have crossed the desk of the editor of a broadsheet, a story might arise); and, as negative publicity, CDS/CNS/CNS/CAS report gloomily on the state of the forces at every opportunity rather than adopting the cheery 'Well, bit difficult but we'll crack on with it' approach - an admirable contrast to the whining we get everywhere else these days, but not one that will help.
It is time to start spreading the message that it won't be long until there is no more defence to cut!
{Rant ends}
Because we (I should say 'you' - teaching part of the estimate process doesn't exactly qualify me for the 'we') won, the public looked on proudly, then moved back to worry about issues that affect them more immediately - such as
1. The NHS (Auntie Maureen waiting for ten months to be seen by a specialist);
2. On crime (cousin James' car was broken into last week and the police didn't turn up for hours);
3. On education (are little Johnny's GCSEs worth the paper they're written on? Will Jane be forced to go £20,000 into debt by the time she's 21 if she's to get a degree? What can mum & dad do to help her?);
4. On transport (Mum's train was 45 minutes late - again. Dad was sent a congestion charge bill again despite the fact he's never driven to London in his life)
5. On...
The only department of the government that has consistently delivered since 1997 is the MoD, or, more to the point, those that the department (mis-)manages.
Problem: Firefighters on strike? FBU making statements that soldiers, sailors and airmen can't operate newer fire engines? Solution: Can do service personnel ask 'how difficult is it to use a hose?', work out how to do it, deliver the goods.
Problem: Government totally ****s up foot & mouth crisis. Government in a panic? Solution: Call on armed services to sort out the mess.
Problem: Prime Minister with a desire to throw weight around on international stage? Solution: Send in armed forces, who go out, moan a bit about lack of kit and appalling Sec of State, crack on with it anyway in fashion generally admired by public, win anyway.
Which of these departments of state is in the most urgent need of funding? The one that delivers all the time, or the ones that fail to do so on every single occasion?
The sad fact is that it is only going to be when a PM sends troops to war and they die because of the inattention of successive adminstrations that the public will be appalled at what's happened to 'our lads [and lasses] and make the government do something. Which will be far too 'king late.
The solution lies in more publicity - which means that someone needs to point out that Max Hastings recent articles in the Grauniad and the Spectator are barking (essentially slash the RAF to next to nothing; equip the RN entirely with carriers and SSN [no other ships] look fondly at the army and recruit the thousands of willing teenagers out there); that if someone PVRs because they are so ticked off with how things have gone that they write to their MP and to the press (after a hundred of these letters have crossed the desk of the editor of a broadsheet, a story might arise); and, as negative publicity, CDS/CNS/CNS/CAS report gloomily on the state of the forces at every opportunity rather than adopting the cheery 'Well, bit difficult but we'll crack on with it' approach - an admirable contrast to the whining we get everywhere else these days, but not one that will help.
It is time to start spreading the message that it won't be long until there is no more defence to cut!
{Rant ends}
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: cambridge uk
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a point worth raising is that it appears that the government believes that the major threat to the UK is not from an aerial bomber assault or a large invasion by some foreign army but from a small terrorist cell. You cant scramble an F3 to intercept a terrorist (unless he is flying something of course) etc etc.
The government are more interested in possible chemical attacks to the tube/public areas of large cities, dirty bombs. They are able to further "streamline" the 3 branches with their risk assesors saying that there will never be another large scale conflict like WW1, WW2, korea,Cold War, Vietnam, Falklands, GW1, GW2, Afghanistan...
Ludicrous, the MoD staff have been proved wrong every time, there is roughly a large scale conflict every 10 years, and it always requires loads of people, tonnes of kit to go and give whoever it might be a whipping.
Insurance is an excellent analogy - but the tax payer is not getting value for money anymore the funds are being steered to some more public eye area of the budget to help win votes ie NHS.
The government are more interested in possible chemical attacks to the tube/public areas of large cities, dirty bombs. They are able to further "streamline" the 3 branches with their risk assesors saying that there will never be another large scale conflict like WW1, WW2, korea,Cold War, Vietnam, Falklands, GW1, GW2, Afghanistan...
Ludicrous, the MoD staff have been proved wrong every time, there is roughly a large scale conflict every 10 years, and it always requires loads of people, tonnes of kit to go and give whoever it might be a whipping.
Insurance is an excellent analogy - but the tax payer is not getting value for money anymore the funds are being steered to some more public eye area of the budget to help win votes ie NHS.
Can't some retired senior bod organise a hard hitting media campaign on your behalf?
Such as getting everyone to send back their medals to the Queen on 11th Nov 2004.
That would raise a few eyebrows and embarass the Cabinet.
I'm sure there are may such actions serving personnel could undertake with impunity. Of course the real deal would be to get the law changed and allow unionisation - does EU law offer no hint of a chance of that?
Cheers
WWW
Such as getting everyone to send back their medals to the Queen on 11th Nov 2004.
That would raise a few eyebrows and embarass the Cabinet.
I'm sure there are may such actions serving personnel could undertake with impunity. Of course the real deal would be to get the law changed and allow unionisation - does EU law offer no hint of a chance of that?
Cheers
WWW
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HM Forces are just too good at "making do".
Sadly, I doubt things will change until we (you) get a large-scale kicking along the lines of Isaldwana/Dunkirk/World Trade Centre.
Even then, I'm not so sure they'd bother...
Sadly, I doubt things will change until we (you) get a large-scale kicking along the lines of Isaldwana/Dunkirk/World Trade Centre.
Even then, I'm not so sure they'd bother...
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
38 point looming?
Been offered PAS?
Can't decide what to do?
£50K (less tax) to stay in as PAS for 5 years or £56K (tax free at the moment)+pension to leave and get another job now while you can?
Not a difficult choice now!
Goodbye chaps, I'll keep the coffee on for the rest of you!
Vage
Been offered PAS?
Can't decide what to do?
£50K (less tax) to stay in as PAS for 5 years or £56K (tax free at the moment)+pension to leave and get another job now while you can?
Not a difficult choice now!
Goodbye chaps, I'll keep the coffee on for the rest of you!
Vage