Military Job cuts AGAIN
Tally so far:
16 Nimrod MR2s (from 21)
12 Nimrod MRA4s only to be procured
Norfolk, Grafton and Marlborough (T23s) to go
Cardiff, Newcastle and Glasgow (T42s) to go
2 new CVFs to stay
T45 buy to reduce to 8 ships
3 MCMVs to go, Inverness, Bridport and Sandown
3 patrol vessels to go, Brecon, Dulverton and Cottesmore
RN manpower to be cut to 36,000 (presently 37,500)
RAF manpower to be cut to 41,000 (presently 48,500)
Civvies cut by 10,000
Tornado F3s to lose one Sqdn
Withdraw Jag early
Close Coltishall
Buy the C17s, plus one extra
Reduce the new helicopter procurement budget from £4.1Bn to just over £3Bn
This is all, of course, "an increase in defence spending in real terms"................
16 Nimrod MR2s (from 21)
12 Nimrod MRA4s only to be procured
Norfolk, Grafton and Marlborough (T23s) to go
Cardiff, Newcastle and Glasgow (T42s) to go
2 new CVFs to stay
T45 buy to reduce to 8 ships
3 MCMVs to go, Inverness, Bridport and Sandown
3 patrol vessels to go, Brecon, Dulverton and Cottesmore
RN manpower to be cut to 36,000 (presently 37,500)
RAF manpower to be cut to 41,000 (presently 48,500)
Civvies cut by 10,000
Tornado F3s to lose one Sqdn
Withdraw Jag early
Close Coltishall
Buy the C17s, plus one extra
Reduce the new helicopter procurement budget from £4.1Bn to just over £3Bn
This is all, of course, "an increase in defence spending in real terms"................
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well at least we're not building in a Capability Gap.
I'm beyond getting upset about how the Military gets treated. Every time we go to war we get sliced up afterwards. The people who join the armed forces and serve their country in war at the whim of the Govt then get cast aside and made redundant to save money while Govt continues to grow and grow.
I think the Military should organise a 'Govt review' so we can work out how to save a couple of Billion a year by cutting the slack out.
Let's start with a reduction in the number of MPs, and a reduction in their extortionate expenses allowances. They should only be able to do one job (be an MP), as if they have time to do more than one they can't be working hard enough.
I'm beyond getting upset about how the Military gets treated. Every time we go to war we get sliced up afterwards. The people who join the armed forces and serve their country in war at the whim of the Govt then get cast aside and made redundant to save money while Govt continues to grow and grow.
I think the Military should organise a 'Govt review' so we can work out how to save a couple of Billion a year by cutting the slack out.
Let's start with a reduction in the number of MPs, and a reduction in their extortionate expenses allowances. They should only be able to do one job (be an MP), as if they have time to do more than one they can't be working hard enough.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its time for a regime change in this country, never mind any one elses!
Are there any decent politicians out there??
pr00ne
enjoy your arguments.
It would appear that, as you rightly said, defence spending will increase in real terms. However, it looks like it will be spent on technology.
This in itself is no bad thing, if it works as advertised and you have the power behind the punch. what is your opinion of WE branch fanatic's views, general overstrech in the armed forces, fire strikes, the likes of increasing paramilitary activity, peacekeeping duties, Caribbean gaurd ships, patrols etc etc etc etc.
It might be a case of pain now for ease in the future, but i doubt it.
Any thoughts??
Are there any decent politicians out there??
pr00ne
enjoy your arguments.
It would appear that, as you rightly said, defence spending will increase in real terms. However, it looks like it will be spent on technology.
This in itself is no bad thing, if it works as advertised and you have the power behind the punch. what is your opinion of WE branch fanatic's views, general overstrech in the armed forces, fire strikes, the likes of increasing paramilitary activity, peacekeeping duties, Caribbean gaurd ships, patrols etc etc etc etc.
It might be a case of pain now for ease in the future, but i doubt it.
Any thoughts??
Last edited by waivar; 21st Jul 2004 at 14:41.
waivar,
There probably are a few. The sort who believe in service, duty and that sort of thing (usually reservists or ex-service , I gather - can you imagine Gordon Brown going off to serve in Iraq as a TA officer? Blair? er.. no). Problem is, because the politician of that ilk is invariably not a self-serving 'sh-one-t' [to use Jane Clark's description of Alan], they rarely rise to prominence.
If you really want to be depressed at the low calibre of most politicians, read Jeremy Paxman's book 'The Political Animal' - a damning indictment on the self-interested idiots that populate the benches of the Commons.
There probably are a few. The sort who believe in service, duty and that sort of thing (usually reservists or ex-service , I gather - can you imagine Gordon Brown going off to serve in Iraq as a TA officer? Blair? er.. no). Problem is, because the politician of that ilk is invariably not a self-serving 'sh-one-t' [to use Jane Clark's description of Alan], they rarely rise to prominence.
If you really want to be depressed at the low calibre of most politicians, read Jeremy Paxman's book 'The Political Animal' - a damning indictment on the self-interested idiots that populate the benches of the Commons.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko - I wouldn't suggest that, mate. 'Sources' indicate that the Firm's Plod is snuffling about trying to establish the identities of more controversial posters (I note that one VSO has recently stopped posting), so suggesting that 'unauthorised' contacts with the media could be conducted in such a way is not a good idea.
Every time there are cutbacks, there is a silence from those in dark blue/green/light blue. This is taken as tacit approval of the direction of HM forces. I popped into work briefly to catch the "bad" news (there's devotion to duty!) and it is probably the case that morale is as low as it ever has been since the cutbacks of the 1930s. We know what happened after those.....
As to the snuffling of the Plods, I believe they have enough on their plate trying to track down certain members of HM Forces posing in uniform (and little else) on more graphic and "adult" websites!!!
If little can be done about that, then I can't see what can be done about these posts, which are a useful outlet in these depressing times! "You reckon it was me? Prove it!! Yes, and you'll need a warrant, no I won't accept a summary punishment and my lawyer will obstruct you every step of the way
"
And for the brief duration that a PM lasts in my inbox they'll have to be very quick indeed to catch it, and they'll still need to prove who sent it, 'cos I don't want to know, and wouldn't tell even if I did.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 6:28 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel sorry for poor sods who will get these though their in-tray about 6000 over a period of 4 years
http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/eve3-3732...ite/id118.html
Soldiers kicked out to 'soften up regiments'
BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR
THE military has been accused of using its own disciplinary code to expel soldiers from Scottish regiments so they can be ‘softened up’ for the axe.
Scotland on Sunday revealed last week that at least two historic regiments will be disbanded as a result of swingeing defence cuts, with the most likely targets those units with the biggest recruitment problems.
It has now emerged that the number of Scottish soldiers dismissed for indiscipline under archaic ‘Queen’s Regulations’ has soared over the past five years.
The toll of servicemen and women being kicked out of the King’s Own Scottish Borderers alone has soared by 300% in the past five years, from 10 in 1999/2000, to 40 in 2003/04.
Government critics suggest the MoD is deliberately increasing the number of troops dismissed to bolster its argument for axing regiments.
The number of Scots soldiers dismissed under Queen’s Regulations paragraph 9.414, which covers offences including indiscipline, failing drugs tests and engaging in "sexual aberration" has more than doubled to 245 since 2000.
"The number of people being kicked out under this code should be fairly consistent over the years," said John Thurso, the Lib Dems’ Scottish affairs spokesman.
"I find it hard to believe that there has been such a dramatic rise of cases of indiscipline in the King’s Own Scottish Borderers. The only plausible answer is they are using exit codes such as 9.414 to push people out.
"It is unacceptable that when Scottish regiments are suffering such overstretch that experienced soldiers are being forced out.
"It worries me that this practise is being used to run down the regiment ahead of defence spending cuts."
But an MoD spokeswoman last night claimed it was "absolutely ridiculous" to attribute the rise in dismissals to any requirement to keep a lid on recruiting.
She added: "It is in the best interests of the commanding officer to keep infantry battalions at full strength.
"He doesn’t want to lose soldiers, so to link this rise with penny-pinching civil servants just does not make sense."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel sorry for poor sods who will get these though their in-tray about 6000 over a period of 4 years
http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/eve3-3732...ite/id118.html
Soldiers kicked out to 'soften up regiments'
BRIAN BRADY
WESTMINSTER EDITOR
THE military has been accused of using its own disciplinary code to expel soldiers from Scottish regiments so they can be ‘softened up’ for the axe.
Scotland on Sunday revealed last week that at least two historic regiments will be disbanded as a result of swingeing defence cuts, with the most likely targets those units with the biggest recruitment problems.
It has now emerged that the number of Scottish soldiers dismissed for indiscipline under archaic ‘Queen’s Regulations’ has soared over the past five years.
The toll of servicemen and women being kicked out of the King’s Own Scottish Borderers alone has soared by 300% in the past five years, from 10 in 1999/2000, to 40 in 2003/04.
Government critics suggest the MoD is deliberately increasing the number of troops dismissed to bolster its argument for axing regiments.
The number of Scots soldiers dismissed under Queen’s Regulations paragraph 9.414, which covers offences including indiscipline, failing drugs tests and engaging in "sexual aberration" has more than doubled to 245 since 2000.
"The number of people being kicked out under this code should be fairly consistent over the years," said John Thurso, the Lib Dems’ Scottish affairs spokesman.
"I find it hard to believe that there has been such a dramatic rise of cases of indiscipline in the King’s Own Scottish Borderers. The only plausible answer is they are using exit codes such as 9.414 to push people out.
"It is unacceptable that when Scottish regiments are suffering such overstretch that experienced soldiers are being forced out.
"It worries me that this practise is being used to run down the regiment ahead of defence spending cuts."
But an MoD spokeswoman last night claimed it was "absolutely ridiculous" to attribute the rise in dismissals to any requirement to keep a lid on recruiting.
She added: "It is in the best interests of the commanding officer to keep infantry battalions at full strength.
"He doesn’t want to lose soldiers, so to link this rise with penny-pinching civil servants just does not make sense."
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: brighton
Age: 52
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why not pull out of iraq and afgan and let the yanks sort thier own problems. with the money saved we could build up some pretty good home security and defence. this can only be done when tony blair emerges from his hide out some where up the bush pass.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: at home, here, there
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko, I would happilly PM you anything I knew if it would help. My point/gripe was against those of my fellow servicemen (much senior unfortunately)who went to some length to "discover " my identity in a previous incarnation. Now they may have difficulty in a court of law pursuing any action but they can(and did) make life a little awkward if they're not as broadminded as you or I.
Anyway about this 3 point Tristar
Anyway about this 3 point Tristar
Waivar,
The outcome is much as I expected, the only thing I find slightly confusing is the final number of fast jet squadrons, not sure if he announced a cut of one or four?
Are the disbanded Jag squadrons to reform on Typhoon? I wouldn’t expect XI to, if not then we have 232 aircraft for 3 squadrons plus an OCU, seems rather too many to me………………
As to WEBF, he just has an obsession about Air Defence, he totally ignores the actual strategic situation we find ourselves in this Century. There IS no AD threat, either to land forces or naval forces in the foreseeable future.
As to his point on overstretch, it is a fair point, but what do we have an armed force for? Is it to fight fires, I don’t think so, is it to conduct operations in support of HM Govt policy abroad, yes, and that is what they appear to be structuring them for, though I think it a high risk strategy that is not necessarily a bad thing, after all, I want the bare minimum of my tax £ spent on defence, there are far more important things to spend tax payers money on in 2004. Not to say that I begrudge the £30 odd billion we are going to spend annually, I just think that in an era where there is no direct threat to the UK we shouldn’t be spending any more.
As to all those planks suggesting regime change, you vote in the Tories and see how Oliver Letwin makes you squeal!
The outcome is much as I expected, the only thing I find slightly confusing is the final number of fast jet squadrons, not sure if he announced a cut of one or four?
Are the disbanded Jag squadrons to reform on Typhoon? I wouldn’t expect XI to, if not then we have 232 aircraft for 3 squadrons plus an OCU, seems rather too many to me………………
As to WEBF, he just has an obsession about Air Defence, he totally ignores the actual strategic situation we find ourselves in this Century. There IS no AD threat, either to land forces or naval forces in the foreseeable future.
As to his point on overstretch, it is a fair point, but what do we have an armed force for? Is it to fight fires, I don’t think so, is it to conduct operations in support of HM Govt policy abroad, yes, and that is what they appear to be structuring them for, though I think it a high risk strategy that is not necessarily a bad thing, after all, I want the bare minimum of my tax £ spent on defence, there are far more important things to spend tax payers money on in 2004. Not to say that I begrudge the £30 odd billion we are going to spend annually, I just think that in an era where there is no direct threat to the UK we shouldn’t be spending any more.
As to all those planks suggesting regime change, you vote in the Tories and see how Oliver Letwin makes you squeal!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typhoon Squadrons
The next few typhoon squadrons, folowing 17 and 29, will be 6, 11 and 41. At least there is a future for some of the squadrons being lost in the near future, if the government buys all it intends to!!
Here is some conjecture about the helicopter force - 6 Puma to go, Chinook Mk 3 to live, an extra 20-40 Chinook Mk 4's (Mixed RAF/RN) - All to RAF Lyneham.
Majority of Lynx/Gazelle, all junglie Sea Kings, all Puma to go by 2007. New Medium lift helicopter procured (NH90). Decision on Merlin to be announced.
Odiham, Benson and Yeovilton to close
Oh, and all SAR first line maintenance to be contractorised.
Majority of Lynx/Gazelle, all junglie Sea Kings, all Puma to go by 2007. New Medium lift helicopter procured (NH90). Decision on Merlin to be announced.
Odiham, Benson and Yeovilton to close
Oh, and all SAR first line maintenance to be contractorised.
Deliverance,
ALL AD is NOT going, 3 F3 Squadrons, 8 T42 Destroyers, to be replaced by Typhoon and 8 T45 destroyers and a very AD capable replacement for the Harrier GR9 in the shape of the F-35. Rapier is still there as is HVM, and the Typhoons in the OS role will have a very capable AD fit as well.
So where’s the problem???
ALL AD is NOT going, 3 F3 Squadrons, 8 T42 Destroyers, to be replaced by Typhoon and 8 T45 destroyers and a very AD capable replacement for the Harrier GR9 in the shape of the F-35. Rapier is still there as is HVM, and the Typhoons in the OS role will have a very capable AD fit as well.
So where’s the problem???
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F35 is some years off, as are the carriers, even if it can even take off. Wars don't wait on procurement and the Yanks don't get involved in all the wars we fight....err, they were 2 years late the last time we asked for their help!
Rapier has a well-known difficulty with targets above a certain height and beyond a certain range! You can trust your air defence to HVM if you wish, but I wouldn't recommend it!
The point of air defence is it is meant to be layered! T42 on picket with jets (with sensors please, not GR9!) and something (Sea King) for beyond visual range coverage all up-threat. The threat doesn't have to actually be a threat to cause massive damage - a visual ID before a shootdown may prevent a USS Vincennes-type incident. But if you had no sensor you would feel very vulnerable! And NEC is only any good if there are sensors to plug into the network, a lesson that many have had difficulty grasping - nothing in, nothing out as the picture doesn't just come from nowhere!
There are many problems!!! Too much jam tomorrow (next week) and the cupboard is always empty at the wrong time.
Rapier has a well-known difficulty with targets above a certain height and beyond a certain range! You can trust your air defence to HVM if you wish, but I wouldn't recommend it!
The point of air defence is it is meant to be layered! T42 on picket with jets (with sensors please, not GR9!) and something (Sea King) for beyond visual range coverage all up-threat. The threat doesn't have to actually be a threat to cause massive damage - a visual ID before a shootdown may prevent a USS Vincennes-type incident. But if you had no sensor you would feel very vulnerable! And NEC is only any good if there are sensors to plug into the network, a lesson that many have had difficulty grasping - nothing in, nothing out as the picture doesn't just come from nowhere!
There are many problems!!! Too much jam tomorrow (next week) and the cupboard is always empty at the wrong time.
Slotback - and don't forget 3 Sqn. When it loses the GR 9 as part of the renumbering exercise to accommodate 800 & 801 NAS, it'll be senior enough to get Typhoon. On seniority, it would do so ahead of all but 6 Sqn.
[I have a suspicion that the old canard that 6 Sqn has never disbanded might be being given homage as well - so 6 (Jaguar) disbands at 23:59:59 Zulu on ??/??/07; 6 (Typhoon) forms 00:00:00 ??+1/??/07...]
I wouldn't be surprised if their airships don't undertake a fairly major reappraisal of what a squadron is in the near future so that they can maintain more of the numberplates.
Pr00ne - the intention is for 7 Typhoon sqns (although I'd not be surprised to see that cut to 6), with 137 active aircraft and the rest in reserve . If all seven squadrons do appear, then the FJ fleet in 2015 (ish) should be 7 Sqns of Typhoon; 4 of JSF plus the remaining GR 4 units. Given that I think there aren't enough GR 4s to maintain the current force levels until 2018 (when the GR 4 is meant to be retired), I suspect that there will be a gradual reduction of the GR 4 fleet as the most fatigued airframes are retired.
[I have a suspicion that the old canard that 6 Sqn has never disbanded might be being given homage as well - so 6 (Jaguar) disbands at 23:59:59 Zulu on ??/??/07; 6 (Typhoon) forms 00:00:00 ??+1/??/07...]
I wouldn't be surprised if their airships don't undertake a fairly major reappraisal of what a squadron is in the near future so that they can maintain more of the numberplates.
Pr00ne - the intention is for 7 Typhoon sqns (although I'd not be surprised to see that cut to 6), with 137 active aircraft and the rest in reserve . If all seven squadrons do appear, then the FJ fleet in 2015 (ish) should be 7 Sqns of Typhoon; 4 of JSF plus the remaining GR 4 units. Given that I think there aren't enough GR 4s to maintain the current force levels until 2018 (when the GR 4 is meant to be retired), I suspect that there will be a gradual reduction of the GR 4 fleet as the most fatigued airframes are retired.
Timzsta, the Review (or whatever we're meant to call Cmd 6269) says that there will be 8 (as opposed to 12) T45.
Does this mean that the govt has already decided the figure and has offered a false figure so that the cutbacks don't look so bad?
Does this mean that the govt has already decided the figure and has offered a false figure so that the cutbacks don't look so bad?
If there is no air threat, or we only operate under an umbrella of US air superority, then why not cut more Type 42 Destroyers (main role = anti air warfare) to save Type 23 Frigates which are newer, cheaper to run, and apart from having only a short range anti air missile, more capable is most aspects (as I noted on the first page of this thread)?
Possible reasons:
1. Air threat/need for another anti air system after Sea Harrier withdrawn.....
2. Type 23s need refitting....
3. Other Type 42s to be scrapped in a few years time, hence a larger reduction (without having to annouce it)....
I believe they said there was no air threat shortly in the 1930s and people like pr00ne tried to prevent Fighter Command getting Spitfires and Hurricanes....
Possible reasons:
1. Air threat/need for another anti air system after Sea Harrier withdrawn.....
2. Type 23s need refitting....
3. Other Type 42s to be scrapped in a few years time, hence a larger reduction (without having to annouce it)....
I believe they said there was no air threat shortly in the 1930s and people like pr00ne tried to prevent Fighter Command getting Spitfires and Hurricanes....
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 22nd Jul 2004 at 12:25.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A true leader.............NOT!
Undermanned, undervalued and overburdened
(Filed: 22/07/2004)
http://www.news.telegraph.co.uk/opin.../22/dl2201.xml
Yesterday the axe finally fell on Tommy Atkins and Jack Tar. After fighting three wars in five years in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq; after peacekeeping in Northern Ireland and Sierra Leone; after dealing with foot and mouth and fire strikes, the Armed Forces might have hoped for a little gratitude from Tony Blair.
Not a bit of it. Any such hopes had been dashed by last December's cost-cutting White Paper and last week's miserly "increase" of 1.5 per cent accompanied by "savings" of £2.8 billion, in the Spending Review. The Services' reward is to suffer even more drastic retrenchment than they did after the end of the Cold War. Geoff Hoon's cuts will reduce their frontline strength to its lowest peacetime level in modern times.
Yet this is not peacetime. We are engaged in a global war on terror, and our thin red line has never been thinner.
This process of strategic cheeseparing has been taking place under a weak Defence Secretary, already notorious in the mess as "Buff"(-Hoon) for his failure to take on the Treasury.
Yesterday, Mr Hoon sought to present his starvation rations as a banquet. New systems mean that fewer troops and platforms are needed, he claimed. But the Eurofighter, designed for the Cold War, is not yet in service; the two new aircraft carriers are still on the drawing board. Mr Hoon made no promises when either will see service.
Meanwhile, our multi-tasking Forces will lose 16,500 - about 10 per cent - of their personnel. The RAF is particularly hard hit, losing nearly a fifth of manpower, four squadrons and at least one big base. The Army, already below its nominal level of 107,500 troops, will be reduced to 102,000. Four battalions and seven Challenger 2 tank squadrons will go.
The unkindest cut of all will be the virtual abolition of the regimental system as we have known it - the goose that lays the golden eggs. The Navy will lose 12 warships, including a fifth of the destroyers and frigates that patrol the high seas. Any savings in the 95,000 MoD "tail" have already been anticipated by Gordon Brown.
With unconscious irony, Mr Hoon's obituary for the military is entitled "Delivering Security in a Changing World". He is in denial about our insecurity in a world that is changing for the worse. There is no clear recognition of the threat from rogue states, perhaps equipped with WMD, and no acknowledgement of the fact that troops went into action in Iraq without proper protection against such dangers - not to mention basic equipment such as desert boots and body armour.
It is fatuous for the Defence Secretary to pretend that these cuts have been driven by strategic rather than financial factors, or for the chiefs of staff to profess satisfaction. Soldiers, sailors and airmen would respect their top brass more if they had put up more resistance to the politicians.
But it is the Prime Minister who has let the Forces down most. At his command, they go to the ends of the earth to fight for Queen and country. He invokes their patriotism, but he is not prepared to pay for it. Under the guise of a strategic defence review, the Blair Government is conducting a policy of unilateral disarmament.
(Filed: 22/07/2004)
http://www.news.telegraph.co.uk/opin.../22/dl2201.xml
Yesterday the axe finally fell on Tommy Atkins and Jack Tar. After fighting three wars in five years in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq; after peacekeeping in Northern Ireland and Sierra Leone; after dealing with foot and mouth and fire strikes, the Armed Forces might have hoped for a little gratitude from Tony Blair.
Not a bit of it. Any such hopes had been dashed by last December's cost-cutting White Paper and last week's miserly "increase" of 1.5 per cent accompanied by "savings" of £2.8 billion, in the Spending Review. The Services' reward is to suffer even more drastic retrenchment than they did after the end of the Cold War. Geoff Hoon's cuts will reduce their frontline strength to its lowest peacetime level in modern times.
Yet this is not peacetime. We are engaged in a global war on terror, and our thin red line has never been thinner.
This process of strategic cheeseparing has been taking place under a weak Defence Secretary, already notorious in the mess as "Buff"(-Hoon) for his failure to take on the Treasury.
Yesterday, Mr Hoon sought to present his starvation rations as a banquet. New systems mean that fewer troops and platforms are needed, he claimed. But the Eurofighter, designed for the Cold War, is not yet in service; the two new aircraft carriers are still on the drawing board. Mr Hoon made no promises when either will see service.
Meanwhile, our multi-tasking Forces will lose 16,500 - about 10 per cent - of their personnel. The RAF is particularly hard hit, losing nearly a fifth of manpower, four squadrons and at least one big base. The Army, already below its nominal level of 107,500 troops, will be reduced to 102,000. Four battalions and seven Challenger 2 tank squadrons will go.
The unkindest cut of all will be the virtual abolition of the regimental system as we have known it - the goose that lays the golden eggs. The Navy will lose 12 warships, including a fifth of the destroyers and frigates that patrol the high seas. Any savings in the 95,000 MoD "tail" have already been anticipated by Gordon Brown.
With unconscious irony, Mr Hoon's obituary for the military is entitled "Delivering Security in a Changing World". He is in denial about our insecurity in a world that is changing for the worse. There is no clear recognition of the threat from rogue states, perhaps equipped with WMD, and no acknowledgement of the fact that troops went into action in Iraq without proper protection against such dangers - not to mention basic equipment such as desert boots and body armour.
It is fatuous for the Defence Secretary to pretend that these cuts have been driven by strategic rather than financial factors, or for the chiefs of staff to profess satisfaction. Soldiers, sailors and airmen would respect their top brass more if they had put up more resistance to the politicians.
But it is the Prime Minister who has let the Forces down most. At his command, they go to the ends of the earth to fight for Queen and country. He invokes their patriotism, but he is not prepared to pay for it. Under the guise of a strategic defence review, the Blair Government is conducting a policy of unilateral disarmament.
WE BF,
It's Pr00ne dear boy, Pr00ne.
Who are "people like Prune" and when did they say there was no air threat in the 1930's and try to prevent Fighter Command receiving Spitfires and Hurricanes?
I think you neeed to brush up on you history old chap. It was the Trenchard brigade who believed in the bomber over the fighter, they and their ilk, staff officrs in the RAF of the time, put their store in attack over defence.
Perhaps they are paying off the T23's rather than more T42's so as to retain a balanced force, you know, capable of more than just one task.
When I joined the RAF in 1966 the Air Defence of the entire United Kingdom consisted of just 5 short range Lightning squadrons armed with 2 missiles each, wasn't that supposed to be at the height of the Cold War?
It's Pr00ne dear boy, Pr00ne.
Who are "people like Prune" and when did they say there was no air threat in the 1930's and try to prevent Fighter Command receiving Spitfires and Hurricanes?
I think you neeed to brush up on you history old chap. It was the Trenchard brigade who believed in the bomber over the fighter, they and their ilk, staff officrs in the RAF of the time, put their store in attack over defence.
Perhaps they are paying off the T23's rather than more T42's so as to retain a balanced force, you know, capable of more than just one task.
When I joined the RAF in 1966 the Air Defence of the entire United Kingdom consisted of just 5 short range Lightning squadrons armed with 2 missiles each, wasn't that supposed to be at the height of the Cold War?