Defence Cuts latest
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Henley
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacks Down
Thanks for the post. There are a few journalistic realities here which mean that I will have to take some of your criticism on the chin. Sorry lads another long post but might be worth reading for an insight into the way newspapers work.
Re the RAF Regt.
Patrick Hennesey and Sean Rayment write for the Sunday Telegraph. This is another of those internet telegraph things. The Sunday Telegraph and the Daily Telegraph are two completely different and separate papers but they merge into one on the internet Telegraph. We have no control over what they write and they have no control over what we write.
Re the Harriers. There were two articles in the Daily Telegraph on 2 April. The first was the one that you referred to and was a front-page “write-off” of the second inside article on Page 10 which made it clear that these were proposals put forward by the “work strands” and with regard to the Harriers included the quote in my previous post. This is it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/
2004/04/02/ncuts102.xml[/url]
Re the Pumas. Fully accept it has been unequivocal throughout. Worth pointing out the quotes from the civil servant involved and the senior officer.
Re Cranwell, and this is the take it on the chin bit, I have gone back to my notes and the source was talking originally about an ongoing review of shore-based naval establishments, which was considering the possibility of closing Dartmouth and leasing out parts of Devonport to commercial companies. When I focused on Dartmouth, he said there were in fact proposals to move all RN and RAF officer training to Shrivenham.
Ah you say, proposals you say, but the Torygraph said Cranwell “will” close.
I’m going to plead guilty as charged here but with mitigation, using what might be called the MI6 defence.
Say a careful journalist, not me obviously, files a carefully caveated piece that might hypothetically say:
“THE MOD is trying to force the PPRUNE website to close down its military forum and to identify all the serving RAF officers who have posted comments on it.
“If the MoD has its way, the army’s ARRSE military forums will also be closed down…”
People above his pay grade might think, wrongly in my opinion: Well that’s not a bad story but it would read better if it said:
“THE PPRUNE website’s military forum faces closure with the identity of all the serving RAF officers who have posted comments on it handed over to the MoD.
“The army’s ARRSE military forums will also be closed down…”
There is an inference that both the PPRUNE and ARRSE military forums only “face” closure but the ordinary reader is entitled to read it as a done deal, certainly in the ARRSE case. I should emphasise this is only a hypothetical case. I’ve never written about the ARRSE military forums.
So, to recap:
RAF Regt: Not guilty (although I believe the prosecution has dropped charges).
Harriers: Not guilty. I said Jock Stirrup wasn’t going to let it happen. I’m not sure now why I was so confident but I was right.
Pumas and Cranwell: Guilty as charged. I was unequivocal and, despite my plea in mitigation on the second charge, I will take it on the chin if I am wrong.
The key word is “if”. As Front Seater says, estate rationalisation and helicopters are still to come, along with a whole range of other things. The cuts are already bad but they are only going to get worse and yes Front Seater we will keep on top of that.
As for Jacks Down’s challenge. No deal with the Harriers in it. But without them, game on.
Thanks for the post. There are a few journalistic realities here which mean that I will have to take some of your criticism on the chin. Sorry lads another long post but might be worth reading for an insight into the way newspapers work.
Re the RAF Regt.
Patrick Hennesey and Sean Rayment write for the Sunday Telegraph. This is another of those internet telegraph things. The Sunday Telegraph and the Daily Telegraph are two completely different and separate papers but they merge into one on the internet Telegraph. We have no control over what they write and they have no control over what we write.
Re the Harriers. There were two articles in the Daily Telegraph on 2 April. The first was the one that you referred to and was a front-page “write-off” of the second inside article on Page 10 which made it clear that these were proposals put forward by the “work strands” and with regard to the Harriers included the quote in my previous post. This is it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/
2004/04/02/ncuts102.xml[/url]
Re the Pumas. Fully accept it has been unequivocal throughout. Worth pointing out the quotes from the civil servant involved and the senior officer.
Re Cranwell, and this is the take it on the chin bit, I have gone back to my notes and the source was talking originally about an ongoing review of shore-based naval establishments, which was considering the possibility of closing Dartmouth and leasing out parts of Devonport to commercial companies. When I focused on Dartmouth, he said there were in fact proposals to move all RN and RAF officer training to Shrivenham.
Ah you say, proposals you say, but the Torygraph said Cranwell “will” close.
I’m going to plead guilty as charged here but with mitigation, using what might be called the MI6 defence.
Say a careful journalist, not me obviously, files a carefully caveated piece that might hypothetically say:
“THE MOD is trying to force the PPRUNE website to close down its military forum and to identify all the serving RAF officers who have posted comments on it.
“If the MoD has its way, the army’s ARRSE military forums will also be closed down…”
People above his pay grade might think, wrongly in my opinion: Well that’s not a bad story but it would read better if it said:
“THE PPRUNE website’s military forum faces closure with the identity of all the serving RAF officers who have posted comments on it handed over to the MoD.
“The army’s ARRSE military forums will also be closed down…”
There is an inference that both the PPRUNE and ARRSE military forums only “face” closure but the ordinary reader is entitled to read it as a done deal, certainly in the ARRSE case. I should emphasise this is only a hypothetical case. I’ve never written about the ARRSE military forums.
So, to recap:
RAF Regt: Not guilty (although I believe the prosecution has dropped charges).
Harriers: Not guilty. I said Jock Stirrup wasn’t going to let it happen. I’m not sure now why I was so confident but I was right.
Pumas and Cranwell: Guilty as charged. I was unequivocal and, despite my plea in mitigation on the second charge, I will take it on the chin if I am wrong.
The key word is “if”. As Front Seater says, estate rationalisation and helicopters are still to come, along with a whole range of other things. The cuts are already bad but they are only going to get worse and yes Front Seater we will keep on top of that.
As for Jacks Down’s challenge. No deal with the Harriers in it. But without them, game on.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just returned from the middle east - utterly dismayed!
A study was conducted amongst senior commanders to ascertain what skills and qualities they deemed essential for a good Officer. High up on their list of essentials (in the top 3) was 'Moral Courage'.
How sad it is that none of the current chiefs seems to possess a nanogram of this 'essential quality'. They are a bunch of spinless so and so's (being v careful to watch my language!) who have sold out the military and the hard working, selfless, servicemen and women who have given so much, all to ensure that they secure their knighthoods and peerages. Another quality they deemed essential was 'Loyalty'. Clearly our lordships consider that this is a quality that must only be delivered one-way - from our people to the service. Regardless of our peoples efforts the management(and service) clearly reserve the right to withdraw their obligation to return unquestionable loyalty.
One thing they(our lords and masters) must have are kuhooners the size of jupiter. Lets face it they have those, for Gen Jackson to announce the cuts on one day, and the next announce that we may be sending 5000 troops to Sudan(but we are not over- stretched!), his wotsits must be made of Tungsten. Either that or he is the love child of General Hague and Gen Melchitt.
Sleep easy at night your lordships, and when on your rocking chairs in 20 years time you can reflect on what you did for the services when you were put in the privilaged position of 'being in command' - you shafted them! Good pension though eh!
And bye the way don't worry about all the seperation for the families. The military will not have a divorce problem, because no-one has time to see a solicitor!
rant over!
A study was conducted amongst senior commanders to ascertain what skills and qualities they deemed essential for a good Officer. High up on their list of essentials (in the top 3) was 'Moral Courage'.
How sad it is that none of the current chiefs seems to possess a nanogram of this 'essential quality'. They are a bunch of spinless so and so's (being v careful to watch my language!) who have sold out the military and the hard working, selfless, servicemen and women who have given so much, all to ensure that they secure their knighthoods and peerages. Another quality they deemed essential was 'Loyalty'. Clearly our lordships consider that this is a quality that must only be delivered one-way - from our people to the service. Regardless of our peoples efforts the management(and service) clearly reserve the right to withdraw their obligation to return unquestionable loyalty.
One thing they(our lords and masters) must have are kuhooners the size of jupiter. Lets face it they have those, for Gen Jackson to announce the cuts on one day, and the next announce that we may be sending 5000 troops to Sudan(but we are not over- stretched!), his wotsits must be made of Tungsten. Either that or he is the love child of General Hague and Gen Melchitt.
Sleep easy at night your lordships, and when on your rocking chairs in 20 years time you can reflect on what you did for the services when you were put in the privilaged position of 'being in command' - you shafted them! Good pension though eh!
And bye the way don't worry about all the seperation for the families. The military will not have a divorce problem, because no-one has time to see a solicitor!
rant over!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How sad it is that none of the current chiefs seems to possess a nanogram of this 'essential quality'.
I do not instinctively welcome the early disposal of good ships ...
As the captain of a frigate in the Falklands he came under sustained air attack. With his ship badly damaged and probably on its last legs (metaphorically) and facing yet another air attack, he bravely ordered his crew to bring the ship's weapons arcs to bear and once more face the enemy.
IMHO that is Moral Courage.
If the chiefs had stood up and really argued these cuts, they would have been sacked and replaced by someone who would agree. Why do you think the last CDS ( a naval officer) left his post a year early - not happy at servicemen being used to fight fires per chance ?
I think they are in a catch 22 situation - agree and be damned by the boys, disagree and be sacked.
I dont know what the answer is.
Yes we are getting smaller, concentrating on capability effects from less people but better equipment (?) but in my very humble opinion quantity has a quality all of its own. (and I bet someone else said that at some point).
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tigs2
Please be careful about what you say about their Lordships on a public forum, especially in the current climate.
3 reasons
1. It could be construed as going against QRs etc and 'They' are keen to stamp out such dissent - apparently.
2. They are also human beings with families and (big) mortgages. There are some 'good uns' but Og Av has alluded their dillema - speak up and get the order of the boot or keep schtum to keep the pay and get the knighthood. A difficult decision for anyone at any level.
3. They also believe they are the 'best men for the job' and those below them will never be quite as good as they are. Resignation has probably crossed the minds of a few but remember what happened to Adm Boyce, AM Gaydon and an F3 Sqn Cdr (emulating Sir Douglas Bader) when he said "this Sqn is non-operational"? They fell on their swords and someone more able to say "Yessir, No sir, 3 bags full sir" stepped over their 'dead bodies' to take over. So, individuals saying "Up yours Buff" is unlikely.
However, imagine the political statement if the Def Council/AFB resigned en masse. The result of their collective strength would emphasise the difference of opinion and lack of trust between the Services and their political 'masters'. I wouldn't mind betting that a few Airships with active consciences have thought about this. Sadly, this won't happen either and I can understand why.
Notwithstanding Reason 2, I suspect it would change nothing in the short term but it MIGHT just tip the balance in favour of another political party in the Gen Election as New Labour flounder with numerous cOck-ups in other arenas. Their Lordships may have been able to play this card but its too late now.
But even if NL fell as a result of such a dramatic event, who would replace 'Tony's Cronies' - Lib Dems?.....lordy no! Tories?....yuk and look what they did to the military between 1982 -1997!!! Frankly, there is no difference between all of them and NL. 'Our Tone', however, wants to be 'world player' and he needs some clout. If he didn't, do you think we would be getting 2 new carriers, Typhoon, JSF, C17, UAVs etc??? I think we would be in a whole lot deeper doo-doo than we are at the moment. So our Lordships might argue that 'better the devil we know......etc'
Bottom Line..... THERE ARE NO VOTES IN DEFENCE and our Lordships know that - they are staving off repeated attacks on our budget by Big Bad Gordon. To fall on their swords would only leave the way open to him taking more and more or ultimately, someone even worse getting into govt.
Jees - what a mess?! One day, most regrettably, I guarantee this saga will end with our illustrious Forces losing to some tin-pot country whose people are not fit to lick the boots of our soldiers, sailors and airmen whom deserve better kit and support. Even if it is predictable, it will be unforgiveable.
I think it was Sun Tzsu who said
"He who fails to learn from history is condemned to repeat it"
Please be careful about what you say about their Lordships on a public forum, especially in the current climate.
3 reasons
1. It could be construed as going against QRs etc and 'They' are keen to stamp out such dissent - apparently.
2. They are also human beings with families and (big) mortgages. There are some 'good uns' but Og Av has alluded their dillema - speak up and get the order of the boot or keep schtum to keep the pay and get the knighthood. A difficult decision for anyone at any level.
3. They also believe they are the 'best men for the job' and those below them will never be quite as good as they are. Resignation has probably crossed the minds of a few but remember what happened to Adm Boyce, AM Gaydon and an F3 Sqn Cdr (emulating Sir Douglas Bader) when he said "this Sqn is non-operational"? They fell on their swords and someone more able to say "Yessir, No sir, 3 bags full sir" stepped over their 'dead bodies' to take over. So, individuals saying "Up yours Buff" is unlikely.
However, imagine the political statement if the Def Council/AFB resigned en masse. The result of their collective strength would emphasise the difference of opinion and lack of trust between the Services and their political 'masters'. I wouldn't mind betting that a few Airships with active consciences have thought about this. Sadly, this won't happen either and I can understand why.
Notwithstanding Reason 2, I suspect it would change nothing in the short term but it MIGHT just tip the balance in favour of another political party in the Gen Election as New Labour flounder with numerous cOck-ups in other arenas. Their Lordships may have been able to play this card but its too late now.
But even if NL fell as a result of such a dramatic event, who would replace 'Tony's Cronies' - Lib Dems?.....lordy no! Tories?....yuk and look what they did to the military between 1982 -1997!!! Frankly, there is no difference between all of them and NL. 'Our Tone', however, wants to be 'world player' and he needs some clout. If he didn't, do you think we would be getting 2 new carriers, Typhoon, JSF, C17, UAVs etc??? I think we would be in a whole lot deeper doo-doo than we are at the moment. So our Lordships might argue that 'better the devil we know......etc'
Bottom Line..... THERE ARE NO VOTES IN DEFENCE and our Lordships know that - they are staving off repeated attacks on our budget by Big Bad Gordon. To fall on their swords would only leave the way open to him taking more and more or ultimately, someone even worse getting into govt.
Jees - what a mess?! One day, most regrettably, I guarantee this saga will end with our illustrious Forces losing to some tin-pot country whose people are not fit to lick the boots of our soldiers, sailors and airmen whom deserve better kit and support. Even if it is predictable, it will be unforgiveable.
I think it was Sun Tzsu who said
"He who fails to learn from history is condemned to repeat it"
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Og Av, Flipster
Fair points chaps, as I said just returned from hot and sunny places, disillusioned, tired and emotional!
Flipster, it is my understanding that the F3 sqn commander recently got promoted - excellent news!
Fair points chaps, as I said just returned from hot and sunny places, disillusioned, tired and emotional!
Flipster, it is my understanding that the F3 sqn commander recently got promoted - excellent news!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Smith,
Game on. Bet is that there will not be an annoucement of the loss/closure/move of the Puma fleet AND Cranwell (the Initial Officer Training part thereof, not another unit based there) by 31 Dec 04.
Quietly confident!
JD
Game on. Bet is that there will not be an annoucement of the loss/closure/move of the Puma fleet AND Cranwell (the Initial Officer Training part thereof, not another unit based there) by 31 Dec 04.
Quietly confident!
JD
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay fair hit - in fact, I am very glad to be wrong - said fella is a rarity - good on him!
At the higher echelons, however, I doubt if anyone is likely to fall on aforementioned Wilkinsons' hardware for stated reasons - sadly, its too late this time but I will happy to be proved wrong again.
I am sure those who were around then remember the positive vibes felt across the Services when Michael Portaloo was told "Hands off my Air Force!". Inevitably, the gloom and despair returned after CAS was 'told' to apologise. Even at that level, the 'mandarins and ministers' can always get one over on the top military brass.
C'est la guerre!
At the higher echelons, however, I doubt if anyone is likely to fall on aforementioned Wilkinsons' hardware for stated reasons - sadly, its too late this time but I will happy to be proved wrong again.
I am sure those who were around then remember the positive vibes felt across the Services when Michael Portaloo was told "Hands off my Air Force!". Inevitably, the gloom and despair returned after CAS was 'told' to apologise. Even at that level, the 'mandarins and ministers' can always get one over on the top military brass.
C'est la guerre!
Flipster
I agree with your words but by no one standing up and saying the right thing, does that not just further highlight a lack of moral courage?
Sometime you have to state your beliefs regardless of whom you might upset or what ever the personal consequences, especially if it is the right thing to do. That is IMHO the beginning of moral courage and leadership.
As for cuts a v.brief exchange with a 1* seems to confirm to me that we haven't finished yet. As the real estate is sold off we will need even fewer personell to support us all (admin & security were mentioned) but I'm quite happy to wait and see
I agree with your words but by no one standing up and saying the right thing, does that not just further highlight a lack of moral courage?
Sometime you have to state your beliefs regardless of whom you might upset or what ever the personal consequences, especially if it is the right thing to do. That is IMHO the beginning of moral courage and leadership.
As for cuts a v.brief exchange with a 1* seems to confirm to me that we haven't finished yet. As the real estate is sold off we will need even fewer personell to support us all (admin & security were mentioned) but I'm quite happy to wait and see
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't say I agreed with the moral or ethos of high level politics - its just the way it is - very, very sadly!
History will repeat itself - it always does.
BU**ER - I hate being on the losing side!
History will repeat itself - it always does.
BU**ER - I hate being on the losing side!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just received on internal mail....
STAFF GUIDANCE ON DEFENCE RESTRUCTURING
1. This guidance is being issued to remedy a perceived difficulty experienced by Staff at all levels in understanding the rationale behind recent Defence re-structuring. In particular many Staff Officers seem not to understand how reducing the numbers of aircraft, ships, tanks, artillery and soldiers results in a more flexible, robust and effective fighting force.
2. In particular it seems that much of the confusion stems from a systemic misunderstanding of the correct use of military terminology. A list of common terms and actual meanings follows.
3. In addition there follows an explanation of the key assumptions embedded within the Defence Review. All Staff Officers are encouraged to seek clarification through their Chain of Command if they still have any questions.
4. Staff Terminology used in the new Defence Plan;
Term MOD meaning
Flexible- a. Smaller
b. Unable to operate unless under US protection
Robust- a. Smaller
b. Lacking reserves or regeneration capability
Networked- Smaller, but still unable to talk to each other
Capable- Smaller
Agile- Really, really small
Deployability- Method of making the Forces, primarily the Army, able to send higher percentages of their manpower to a distant location. This is achieved by reducing the overall numbers involved, i.e. “In future the Army will be able to send 50% of it’s manpower to Africa in the back of a Cessna, thus achieving greater deployability”.
Reach- The distance the American’s are willing to fly us
Efficient- Much, much smaller
Streamlined- Just unbelievably small
Just in time- For the funeral.
Integrated- Process by which all three services get to brief against each other in public leaks, attempting to justify and defend their own budget against cuts, thereby doing the Treasury’s work for them. Taken to extremes by the Army in which Corps and Regiments fight each other, and perfected within the Infantry.
Technically ambitious- a. Slang, as in “He was being a bit technically ambitious when he tried to drive that car through the wall” (cf, “To propose a Bowman”)
b. Description of the far future
Reserves- Integral part of current Operational Manning.
Rationalisation- a. Cuts
b. Psychological term, meaning to use complicated arguments to avoid facing unpalatable truths, i.e. , “we don’t need to pay for both expensive servicemen and equipment, because we will be networked, agile, and technically ambitious” .
Rapid- Used in a comparative sense, as in “The rapid erosion of the Himalayan Mountains…”
Modernisation- Cuts
Radical- Deep Cuts
Transformation- Really Deep Cuts
Sustainable- Assuming zero casualties, no leave and no emergencies.
Sentences such as “these proposals capture our aim for a speedy deployable, agile, joint and integrated, technically ambitious defence capability” will make more logical sense to the experienced Staff Officer once the above definitions are applied.
4. It will also help if Staff Officer’s bear in mind the following Planning Principles. Point C will be of particular relevance in explaining the rationale behind restructuring to Junior Staff.
a. Use of Special Forces. No one in the general Public has a clue how many there are, so they can be announced as deploying to every country in the world.
b. Aggressive use of terminology can compensate for lack of actual forces. For example in the past effective deterrence of a reasonably capable Maritime threat would require the despatch of a task force, consisting of destroyers, frigates, submarines and possibly even a carrier. In the future this task will still be achieved by a task force; but task-force will be the new description for a mine-sweeper.
c. The new Defence Plan was not resource driven. A comprehensive strategic estimate was conducted, from first principles, identifying the current and potential threats to the UK and it’s interests, allowing a reserve for the unexpected, and also allowing for recurrent non-warfighting tasks such as Fire Strike cover and Foot and Mouth disease. Against the tasks identified an ideal manpower establishment and Task Org was then identified. By an amazing coincidence it happened to fit almost exactly within current Treasury MOD expenditure plans, and even allow the MOD to carry half the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan.
d. Much of the current crisis in Defence Spending can be directly traced to the high costs of legacy equipments. These were ordered at a time of ignorance in the past when Planners naively seemed to believe that the threat they identified as imminent would remain the same for the 20-30 year service life of the equipment they were ordering. The assumption in the 1980’s and 90’s that tanks, artillery, and aircraft would be needed in the future was ridiculous, as none of these equipments have been used by the British Armed forces to any degree since the Falklands war.
However, current planners possess better foresight and are able to predict future threats for at least the next 40 years. We are therefore able to be certain that Britain is unlikely to need any tanks, aircraft, submarines etc. past about 2015.
e. Britain no longer needs a significant anti-submarine capability. No other nation possesses submarines in any numbers, submarine technology is unlikely to advance at all over the next few 30 years, and should anti-submarine technology or skills be required at any point in the future they can be reconstituted overnight from the reserves. (Once the reserves have been reconstituted). In any case by 2020 the UK will be fully integrated into mainland Europe, and will therefore no longer have a coastline to defend or be reliant upon sea-supply.
f. Similar arguments apply to air defence.
g. The Regimental System. In the past the Regimental System has been seen as the corner-stone of British Military success, creating a system in which the individual is made to feel part of a greater family, often stretching back hundreds of years, in which he is nurtured and developed, and to which he feels such great loyalty that he is inspired to sacrifice himself if need be for his Regimental comrades. However, the British youth of today are so naturally self-sacrificing and community spirited that additional incentives are now unnecessary, and in any case the threat to soldiers on the ground has been assumed away. There is therefore no further need for a system whose main purpose is to generate fighting spirit, and it can be safely emasculated to achieve administrative efficiency (see “Efficient” above).
h. High divorce rates within the Services will solve manpower crises, by ensuring all service personnel will be happy to conduct back-to-back tours forever, as no one will have any families or friends to miss.
i. Savings will be ploughed into the purchase of large numbers of hats. This will be essential as in future everyone will be at least treble or quadruple hatted. Wars will be fought in rotation on a strict “first come, first served” basis.
k. Future savings will be made by abolishing all training for the Chiefs of Staff. After all they haven’t proven remotely as effective at manoeuvre warfare, disruption, dislocation or divide-and-rule as the Treasury.
l. Successive efficiency measures can be made to reinforce each other. For example, each time troop numbers are cut, a unit can then be tasked to conduct the same jobs as before. Provided there are no actual massacres of Friendly Forces, the new troop numbers can be seen to have been fully as effective as the previous numbers, and so can form a baseline for achieving efficiency cuts to new troop numbers. Savings can then be invested in new equipment, in the same way that British Airways fires half its pilots every time it needs to buy a new plane. The ultimate aim is to have one man, but equipped like Dr Octopus. He will sleep with one eye open at all times to replicate full manning.
m. Key Assumptions: Current levels of operations are an aberration, will never be repeated, and should form no guide to current manning requirements, let alone future ones. Gerry Adams has embraced peace, there is no more requirement for crowd control in Northern Ireland, the FBU have forsworn strikes along with all other key public workers, Osama Bin Laden is about to hand himself in and the Easter Bunny will be providing Area Air Defence for London.
5. More detailed guidance can be found in JSP 4708- “Magic Mushrooms, their consumption, effects and results in the MOD” and Minister Hoon’s Autobiography “What Colour is the Sky in My World?”
I M Promoted
SO2 Spin
Ministry of Truth
STAFF GUIDANCE ON DEFENCE RESTRUCTURING
1. This guidance is being issued to remedy a perceived difficulty experienced by Staff at all levels in understanding the rationale behind recent Defence re-structuring. In particular many Staff Officers seem not to understand how reducing the numbers of aircraft, ships, tanks, artillery and soldiers results in a more flexible, robust and effective fighting force.
2. In particular it seems that much of the confusion stems from a systemic misunderstanding of the correct use of military terminology. A list of common terms and actual meanings follows.
3. In addition there follows an explanation of the key assumptions embedded within the Defence Review. All Staff Officers are encouraged to seek clarification through their Chain of Command if they still have any questions.
4. Staff Terminology used in the new Defence Plan;
Term MOD meaning
Flexible- a. Smaller
b. Unable to operate unless under US protection
Robust- a. Smaller
b. Lacking reserves or regeneration capability
Networked- Smaller, but still unable to talk to each other
Capable- Smaller
Agile- Really, really small
Deployability- Method of making the Forces, primarily the Army, able to send higher percentages of their manpower to a distant location. This is achieved by reducing the overall numbers involved, i.e. “In future the Army will be able to send 50% of it’s manpower to Africa in the back of a Cessna, thus achieving greater deployability”.
Reach- The distance the American’s are willing to fly us
Efficient- Much, much smaller
Streamlined- Just unbelievably small
Just in time- For the funeral.
Integrated- Process by which all three services get to brief against each other in public leaks, attempting to justify and defend their own budget against cuts, thereby doing the Treasury’s work for them. Taken to extremes by the Army in which Corps and Regiments fight each other, and perfected within the Infantry.
Technically ambitious- a. Slang, as in “He was being a bit technically ambitious when he tried to drive that car through the wall” (cf, “To propose a Bowman”)
b. Description of the far future
Reserves- Integral part of current Operational Manning.
Rationalisation- a. Cuts
b. Psychological term, meaning to use complicated arguments to avoid facing unpalatable truths, i.e. , “we don’t need to pay for both expensive servicemen and equipment, because we will be networked, agile, and technically ambitious” .
Rapid- Used in a comparative sense, as in “The rapid erosion of the Himalayan Mountains…”
Modernisation- Cuts
Radical- Deep Cuts
Transformation- Really Deep Cuts
Sustainable- Assuming zero casualties, no leave and no emergencies.
Sentences such as “these proposals capture our aim for a speedy deployable, agile, joint and integrated, technically ambitious defence capability” will make more logical sense to the experienced Staff Officer once the above definitions are applied.
4. It will also help if Staff Officer’s bear in mind the following Planning Principles. Point C will be of particular relevance in explaining the rationale behind restructuring to Junior Staff.
a. Use of Special Forces. No one in the general Public has a clue how many there are, so they can be announced as deploying to every country in the world.
b. Aggressive use of terminology can compensate for lack of actual forces. For example in the past effective deterrence of a reasonably capable Maritime threat would require the despatch of a task force, consisting of destroyers, frigates, submarines and possibly even a carrier. In the future this task will still be achieved by a task force; but task-force will be the new description for a mine-sweeper.
c. The new Defence Plan was not resource driven. A comprehensive strategic estimate was conducted, from first principles, identifying the current and potential threats to the UK and it’s interests, allowing a reserve for the unexpected, and also allowing for recurrent non-warfighting tasks such as Fire Strike cover and Foot and Mouth disease. Against the tasks identified an ideal manpower establishment and Task Org was then identified. By an amazing coincidence it happened to fit almost exactly within current Treasury MOD expenditure plans, and even allow the MOD to carry half the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan.
d. Much of the current crisis in Defence Spending can be directly traced to the high costs of legacy equipments. These were ordered at a time of ignorance in the past when Planners naively seemed to believe that the threat they identified as imminent would remain the same for the 20-30 year service life of the equipment they were ordering. The assumption in the 1980’s and 90’s that tanks, artillery, and aircraft would be needed in the future was ridiculous, as none of these equipments have been used by the British Armed forces to any degree since the Falklands war.
However, current planners possess better foresight and are able to predict future threats for at least the next 40 years. We are therefore able to be certain that Britain is unlikely to need any tanks, aircraft, submarines etc. past about 2015.
e. Britain no longer needs a significant anti-submarine capability. No other nation possesses submarines in any numbers, submarine technology is unlikely to advance at all over the next few 30 years, and should anti-submarine technology or skills be required at any point in the future they can be reconstituted overnight from the reserves. (Once the reserves have been reconstituted). In any case by 2020 the UK will be fully integrated into mainland Europe, and will therefore no longer have a coastline to defend or be reliant upon sea-supply.
f. Similar arguments apply to air defence.
g. The Regimental System. In the past the Regimental System has been seen as the corner-stone of British Military success, creating a system in which the individual is made to feel part of a greater family, often stretching back hundreds of years, in which he is nurtured and developed, and to which he feels such great loyalty that he is inspired to sacrifice himself if need be for his Regimental comrades. However, the British youth of today are so naturally self-sacrificing and community spirited that additional incentives are now unnecessary, and in any case the threat to soldiers on the ground has been assumed away. There is therefore no further need for a system whose main purpose is to generate fighting spirit, and it can be safely emasculated to achieve administrative efficiency (see “Efficient” above).
h. High divorce rates within the Services will solve manpower crises, by ensuring all service personnel will be happy to conduct back-to-back tours forever, as no one will have any families or friends to miss.
i. Savings will be ploughed into the purchase of large numbers of hats. This will be essential as in future everyone will be at least treble or quadruple hatted. Wars will be fought in rotation on a strict “first come, first served” basis.
k. Future savings will be made by abolishing all training for the Chiefs of Staff. After all they haven’t proven remotely as effective at manoeuvre warfare, disruption, dislocation or divide-and-rule as the Treasury.
l. Successive efficiency measures can be made to reinforce each other. For example, each time troop numbers are cut, a unit can then be tasked to conduct the same jobs as before. Provided there are no actual massacres of Friendly Forces, the new troop numbers can be seen to have been fully as effective as the previous numbers, and so can form a baseline for achieving efficiency cuts to new troop numbers. Savings can then be invested in new equipment, in the same way that British Airways fires half its pilots every time it needs to buy a new plane. The ultimate aim is to have one man, but equipped like Dr Octopus. He will sleep with one eye open at all times to replicate full manning.
m. Key Assumptions: Current levels of operations are an aberration, will never be repeated, and should form no guide to current manning requirements, let alone future ones. Gerry Adams has embraced peace, there is no more requirement for crowd control in Northern Ireland, the FBU have forsworn strikes along with all other key public workers, Osama Bin Laden is about to hand himself in and the Easter Bunny will be providing Area Air Defence for London.
5. More detailed guidance can be found in JSP 4708- “Magic Mushrooms, their consumption, effects and results in the MOD” and Minister Hoon’s Autobiography “What Colour is the Sky in My World?”
I M Promoted
SO2 Spin
Ministry of Truth
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
twenty2fifty,
Wish I could take credit for it, however sadly as stated right at the top....... Just received on internal mail, doubt anyone would actually be owning up to it, unless their PVR was in the post already!
TheBeeKeeper
(DH82b)
As a point to note.... any aircrew visiting CAM for a course in near future that would like to share the costs for 1/2 hour in a Tiger Moth, more than willing to oblige! PM if interested, you will be shocked how cheap it is, as I am not allowed to make money out of it....... looking to hours build for Display Auth and CPL etc!
Wish I could take credit for it, however sadly as stated right at the top....... Just received on internal mail, doubt anyone would actually be owning up to it, unless their PVR was in the post already!
TheBeeKeeper
(DH82b)
As a point to note.... any aircrew visiting CAM for a course in near future that would like to share the costs for 1/2 hour in a Tiger Moth, more than willing to oblige! PM if interested, you will be shocked how cheap it is, as I am not allowed to make money out of it....... looking to hours build for Display Auth and CPL etc!
22sqn SOR
How about a new approach to cost cutting - instead of closing bases and getting rid of aircraft, a simple role change might save a few pounds. This one is called 'Search Or Rescue'. This will save money because it will eliminate either the hovering part, or the looking part, from the mission. I'm fairly confident it would work.
Ginge
Ginge
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Staff Guidance is excellent! It could almost have sprung from a "study day!" 
BTW, has anyone seen the expensive-looking A3 book on "effects-based-warfare" foreworded by VCDS? My, that must have cost a bit, we must have money to burn.
However, it does not have the frisbee utility of the "Air Power" CD!
Plea to our Airships - can any future publicity freebies be distributed using USB memory sticks, so we can wipe the blurb and use them for our own devices? Thank you! I have the honour etc..
BTW, has anyone seen the expensive-looking A3 book on "effects-based-warfare" foreworded by VCDS? My, that must have cost a bit, we must have money to burn.
However, it does not have the frisbee utility of the "Air Power" CD!
Plea to our Airships - can any future publicity freebies be distributed using USB memory sticks, so we can wipe the blurb and use them for our own devices? Thank you! I have the honour etc..
BeeKeeper (DH82b) wrote:
And I thought the Tiger Moth was a DH82a.
---DH Moth Club Ground Handler @ Woburn for many years---
As a point to note.... any aircrew visiting CAM for a course in near future that would like to share the costs for 1/2 hour in a Tiger Moth, more than willing to oblige! PM if interested, you will be shocked how cheap it is, as I am not allowed to make money out of it....... looking to hours build for Display Auth and CPL etc!
---DH Moth Club Ground Handler @ Woburn for many years---
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZH875,
and your comments have exactly what to do with this thread ???
Just to follow on with Gingerbread Man's train of thought, what about AWOCS ? If (Buff) Hoon decided to re-role the a/c in the AW role only, within a few months I am sure he could justify scrapping the aircraft altogether.
and your comments have exactly what to do with this thread ???
Just to follow on with Gingerbread Man's train of thought, what about AWOCS ? If (Buff) Hoon decided to re-role the a/c in the AW role only, within a few months I am sure he could justify scrapping the aircraft altogether.