Get yer crystal balls out
Navibrator:
In 1982 it may well have been around the 90,000 figure, and could well have been on the way down. I won't dispute that, I wasn't in the RAF then (I was still letting my Mum cut my hair in 1982).
In 1990 however, I assure you there were just over 100,000. The cold war had swelled the numbers. I admit that the total dipped by an alarming rate not long after that.
Still, 90,000, 100,000, what's the difference? The point stands that the conservatives decimated the armed forces throughout the 1990's and are unlikely to reverse that trend.
In 1982 it may well have been around the 90,000 figure, and could well have been on the way down. I won't dispute that, I wasn't in the RAF then (I was still letting my Mum cut my hair in 1982).
In 1990 however, I assure you there were just over 100,000. The cold war had swelled the numbers. I admit that the total dipped by an alarming rate not long after that.
Still, 90,000, 100,000, what's the difference? The point stands that the conservatives decimated the armed forces throughout the 1990's and are unlikely to reverse that trend.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Defence reorganisation is called for tby the incoming SOS Def
1- Mass Sackings of Admirals, Air Marshalls Generals and senior MoD CS's to make the structure less top heavy.
2- Moritorium on Officer recruitment for 6 months.
3- RAF to be split into 3 commands. RAF (Maritime Support) RAF (Land Support) and A home command Dealing with Home defence and stuff that the other 2 commands have in common (Training etc) Maritme and Land Commands will be answerable to the RN and Army respectively and assimilate wrt working practices, rank and uniform. The home command will be run jointly pooling people from the other 2 commands. Division of resources will be done as per Commands requirement.
4- All current projects to be garunteed.
5- Everyone lives happily ever after.
1- Mass Sackings of Admirals, Air Marshalls Generals and senior MoD CS's to make the structure less top heavy.
2- Moritorium on Officer recruitment for 6 months.
3- RAF to be split into 3 commands. RAF (Maritime Support) RAF (Land Support) and A home command Dealing with Home defence and stuff that the other 2 commands have in common (Training etc) Maritme and Land Commands will be answerable to the RN and Army respectively and assimilate wrt working practices, rank and uniform. The home command will be run jointly pooling people from the other 2 commands. Division of resources will be done as per Commands requirement.
4- All current projects to be garunteed.
5- Everyone lives happily ever after.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: england
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
althenick,
You are living in a dream world, 2 extra commands, how would that reduce the number of *s? What maritime assets would you put in maritime command? Have we got any air worthy assets?
AB
As for the tories being the saviour of defence, have you forgotten who was responsible for options for change, defence costs studies, three rounds of redundancies in the mid ninties, split year below the rate of inflation pay rises and closure of military hospitals? Need I go on, FFS.
Anyway the civil servants are preparing for a hung government.
Three admin wishes.
Bin CEA for anyone who isn't overseas on a posting and plough the money into allowances for all, like decent subsistence allowances.
Don't give SFA to anyone who owns a house within 25 miles of their place of duty. Especially if there is a shortage of SFA resulting in personnel getting SSFA.
Bin JPA and get a decent HRIS, HR.net for instance.
Won't happen because some air officers won't be able to line their pockets or get jobs on the staff/board of EDS
You are living in a dream world, 2 extra commands, how would that reduce the number of *s? What maritime assets would you put in maritime command? Have we got any air worthy assets?
AB
As for the tories being the saviour of defence, have you forgotten who was responsible for options for change, defence costs studies, three rounds of redundancies in the mid ninties, split year below the rate of inflation pay rises and closure of military hospitals? Need I go on, FFS.
Anyway the civil servants are preparing for a hung government.
Three admin wishes.
Bin CEA for anyone who isn't overseas on a posting and plough the money into allowances for all, like decent subsistence allowances.
Don't give SFA to anyone who owns a house within 25 miles of their place of duty. Especially if there is a shortage of SFA resulting in personnel getting SSFA.
Bin JPA and get a decent HRIS, HR.net for instance.
Won't happen because some air officers won't be able to line their pockets or get jobs on the staff/board of EDS
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again,
Another very good thread and I too have been wondering what a Strategic Defence Review will achieve?
The 3 key areas that instantly leap out at me are:
Given that the planning assumptions of the demise of the Warsaw Pact and the aspired 'Peace Dividends' have not been achieved (with the world becoming more unstable and prone to conflict) then why have we not had a SDR already?
With the pressure on H M Treasury to find billions to satisfy the national debt it is apparent that some defence programmes will have to be cut. Which one to cut must surely be based upon academic rigour only obtained as a result of Joined up SDR?
Closely linked is the re-alignment of expectations from H M Govt. If it wants to be able to play apart on the world stage and use its military as leverage then it either has to instruct H M Treasury to fund it or ignore all other threats and risks to this nation and apply the limited resources to fighting the current battle.
Bottomline, in the current environment H M Govt cannot have it all, and if it continues to accept the risks with servicemen and women's lives then it will continue to get caught out (as recent coroners courts are highlighting).
Sadly though, this is not resulting in H M Govt recognising its under funding and under equipping of its Armed Forces, it is attempting to reduce its own liability and acceptance of risk by wrapping serving personnel in risk averse, risky shift and risk management administration.
In doing so it is by default making its fighting personnel very risk conscience, even at the lowest levels - to the extent that potentially compromises tactical success.
Therefore, any future Strategic Defence Review has got to have a robust joined up approach (certainly not a Torpy 'Land Grab' paperwork exercise). Once we have established where we as Nation want to be in the future then we must either reduce our expectations (and our Prime Minister must stop using his underfunded military as method of obtaining a seat at the diplometic table) or we must truly work out where we perceive the future threats to be and how to comabt them. If this means reducing the Typhoon buy, or knocking the Carriers on the head or no more more nuclear submarines, then so be it.
If in this review H M Treasury look the MoD, RUSI, JDCC and all of the Main Building Strategic Think Tanks in the eye and say openly - sorry fellas, you can produce a very shiney SDR with lots of recommendations, but essentially there aint the money to pay for it, then...
That too must be accepted and actioned and if it means we become a Carbenari, local Defence Force for National interests only, then lets face up to it.
So, looking into my crystal ball, I really do not mind what comes out of the SDR (because atleast we are having one at last). But what I do care about is that it is conducted in a robust, Joint way with the recommendations fully actioned (and resourced).
If we do not, then we will just continue to take on risk, ultimately become a risk averse nation of 'warfighters' and more importantly have to look families in the eye when we as a military force try and explain our rationale as to why we were willing to accept the risk that ultimately resulted in their loved ones death (and I am not talking about the inherent risk of being shot at or bombed).
In an idealistic world we would all like to say that Doctrine drives procurement and force structures, but as we are all experiencing in the realistic world it is H M Treasury funding that is really driving what the h m Forces can and cannot achieve.
Therefore, with any impending SDR H M Treasury need to ensure that nugatory effort and time is not spent in producing an SDR that the Treasury knows that it cannot (and will not) fund.
From where I sit, I believe it will go one of 3 ways (or maybe a amalgam):
1. The Treasury significantly limit the growth and development of H M Forces and by stealth we become a localised Defence Force, with major programmes axed (CVF/JCA/Typhoon/FRES etc). UK stops being such a prominent player on the world stage and becomes a deployable arm of the US Foreign Policy (more so than currently).
2. SDR articulates future threats to UK interests, but HM Treasury refuses to fund and can only resource current operations, leaving future threats to future Govts. All major programmes axed, but politically spun with uplift in current big ticket items (Support Helicopters, FRES (-) and better pay and conditions for serving personnel).
3. SDR is purely a paperwork exercise and actually results in no real outcome. No one in H M Govt wants to be seen to either accept the risk of not funding for potential future threats or to be forcing personnel into an impossible situation by continued salami slicing of resources to make budgets reconcile.
We will see - but sadly after the whole 'One Nation, One Air Force' politics by my own service I fear that our inspired and trusted leaders will not be motivated by the strategic good of the country and will have to play a political tune that creates the impression that we can continuing to conduct all of the military tasks asked of with the current (and proposed) funding that the Treasury will bestow upon us in order to deliver those tasks.
Another very good thread and I too have been wondering what a Strategic Defence Review will achieve?
The 3 key areas that instantly leap out at me are:
Given that the planning assumptions of the demise of the Warsaw Pact and the aspired 'Peace Dividends' have not been achieved (with the world becoming more unstable and prone to conflict) then why have we not had a SDR already?
With the pressure on H M Treasury to find billions to satisfy the national debt it is apparent that some defence programmes will have to be cut. Which one to cut must surely be based upon academic rigour only obtained as a result of Joined up SDR?
Closely linked is the re-alignment of expectations from H M Govt. If it wants to be able to play apart on the world stage and use its military as leverage then it either has to instruct H M Treasury to fund it or ignore all other threats and risks to this nation and apply the limited resources to fighting the current battle.
Bottomline, in the current environment H M Govt cannot have it all, and if it continues to accept the risks with servicemen and women's lives then it will continue to get caught out (as recent coroners courts are highlighting).
Sadly though, this is not resulting in H M Govt recognising its under funding and under equipping of its Armed Forces, it is attempting to reduce its own liability and acceptance of risk by wrapping serving personnel in risk averse, risky shift and risk management administration.
In doing so it is by default making its fighting personnel very risk conscience, even at the lowest levels - to the extent that potentially compromises tactical success.
Therefore, any future Strategic Defence Review has got to have a robust joined up approach (certainly not a Torpy 'Land Grab' paperwork exercise). Once we have established where we as Nation want to be in the future then we must either reduce our expectations (and our Prime Minister must stop using his underfunded military as method of obtaining a seat at the diplometic table) or we must truly work out where we perceive the future threats to be and how to comabt them. If this means reducing the Typhoon buy, or knocking the Carriers on the head or no more more nuclear submarines, then so be it.
If in this review H M Treasury look the MoD, RUSI, JDCC and all of the Main Building Strategic Think Tanks in the eye and say openly - sorry fellas, you can produce a very shiney SDR with lots of recommendations, but essentially there aint the money to pay for it, then...
That too must be accepted and actioned and if it means we become a Carbenari, local Defence Force for National interests only, then lets face up to it.
So, looking into my crystal ball, I really do not mind what comes out of the SDR (because atleast we are having one at last). But what I do care about is that it is conducted in a robust, Joint way with the recommendations fully actioned (and resourced).
If we do not, then we will just continue to take on risk, ultimately become a risk averse nation of 'warfighters' and more importantly have to look families in the eye when we as a military force try and explain our rationale as to why we were willing to accept the risk that ultimately resulted in their loved ones death (and I am not talking about the inherent risk of being shot at or bombed).
In an idealistic world we would all like to say that Doctrine drives procurement and force structures, but as we are all experiencing in the realistic world it is H M Treasury funding that is really driving what the h m Forces can and cannot achieve.
Therefore, with any impending SDR H M Treasury need to ensure that nugatory effort and time is not spent in producing an SDR that the Treasury knows that it cannot (and will not) fund.
From where I sit, I believe it will go one of 3 ways (or maybe a amalgam):
1. The Treasury significantly limit the growth and development of H M Forces and by stealth we become a localised Defence Force, with major programmes axed (CVF/JCA/Typhoon/FRES etc). UK stops being such a prominent player on the world stage and becomes a deployable arm of the US Foreign Policy (more so than currently).
2. SDR articulates future threats to UK interests, but HM Treasury refuses to fund and can only resource current operations, leaving future threats to future Govts. All major programmes axed, but politically spun with uplift in current big ticket items (Support Helicopters, FRES (-) and better pay and conditions for serving personnel).
3. SDR is purely a paperwork exercise and actually results in no real outcome. No one in H M Govt wants to be seen to either accept the risk of not funding for potential future threats or to be forcing personnel into an impossible situation by continued salami slicing of resources to make budgets reconcile.
We will see - but sadly after the whole 'One Nation, One Air Force' politics by my own service I fear that our inspired and trusted leaders will not be motivated by the strategic good of the country and will have to play a political tune that creates the impression that we can continuing to conduct all of the military tasks asked of with the current (and proposed) funding that the Treasury will bestow upon us in order to deliver those tasks.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
May I quote from Winston Churchill's "History of the Second World War" Vol 1 end of chapter V. I will leave it to the reader to draw parallels......
"We must regard as deeply blameworthy before history the conduct not only of the British National and Conservative Government, but of the Labour-Socialist and Liberal parties, both in and out of office, during this fatal period. Delight in smooth sounding platitudes, refusal to face unpleasant facts, desire for popularity and electorial success irrespective of the vital interests of the State, genuine love of peace and pathetic belief that love can be its sole foundation, obvious lack of intellectual vigour in both leaders of the British Coalition Government, marked ignorance of Europe and aversion from its problems in Mr Baldwin, the strong and violent pacifism which at this time dominated the Labour-Socialist party, the utter devotion of the Liberals to sentiment apart from reality, the failure and worse than failure of Mr Lloyd George, the earstwhile wartime leader, to address himself to the continuity of his work, the whole supported by by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Parliament: all these constituted a picture of British fatuity and fecklessness which, though devoid of guile was not devoid of guilt, and, though free from wickedness or evil design, played a definite part in the unleashing upon the world of horrors and miseries which, even so far as they have unfolded, are already beyond comparison in human experience.
"We must regard as deeply blameworthy before history the conduct not only of the British National and Conservative Government, but of the Labour-Socialist and Liberal parties, both in and out of office, during this fatal period. Delight in smooth sounding platitudes, refusal to face unpleasant facts, desire for popularity and electorial success irrespective of the vital interests of the State, genuine love of peace and pathetic belief that love can be its sole foundation, obvious lack of intellectual vigour in both leaders of the British Coalition Government, marked ignorance of Europe and aversion from its problems in Mr Baldwin, the strong and violent pacifism which at this time dominated the Labour-Socialist party, the utter devotion of the Liberals to sentiment apart from reality, the failure and worse than failure of Mr Lloyd George, the earstwhile wartime leader, to address himself to the continuity of his work, the whole supported by by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Parliament: all these constituted a picture of British fatuity and fecklessness which, though devoid of guile was not devoid of guilt, and, though free from wickedness or evil design, played a definite part in the unleashing upon the world of horrors and miseries which, even so far as they have unfolded, are already beyond comparison in human experience.
I don't need a crystal ball to confidently predict further cutbacks.
Early in my career I remember being wheeled into the staion briefing room where the staish informed the throng of the British withdrawal from East of Suez (bu**er - no Singapore posting for me then!).
Over the subsequent 20+ years until I left the RAF I experienced nothing but drawdowns, cutbacks, downsizing, outsourcing, contractorisation, leaning, embargoes, "more with less" and many other euphemisms for "let's reduce defence expenditure". It was the same whichever mob was in Downing Street and no matter what the defence commitments were at the time.
With the unsustainable debt that GB and his darling have
now saddled us with, why on earth should we expect anything other than further defence cuts?
Early in my career I remember being wheeled into the staion briefing room where the staish informed the throng of the British withdrawal from East of Suez (bu**er - no Singapore posting for me then!).
Over the subsequent 20+ years until I left the RAF I experienced nothing but drawdowns, cutbacks, downsizing, outsourcing, contractorisation, leaning, embargoes, "more with less" and many other euphemisms for "let's reduce defence expenditure". It was the same whichever mob was in Downing Street and no matter what the defence commitments were at the time.
With the unsustainable debt that GB and his darling have
now saddled us with, why on earth should we expect anything other than further defence cuts?
It'll be cuts all round, because whatever colour government gets in, the first things they will do are: -
Ensure their next pay rise
Protect their pensions
Protect and increase their allowances.
They are mostly a scurrilous lot and I wouldn't trust any of them, you know they're lying to you because their lips move.
Lord help us all, but what other choice do we have?
Doc C
Ensure their next pay rise
Protect their pensions
Protect and increase their allowances.
They are mostly a scurrilous lot and I wouldn't trust any of them, you know they're lying to you because their lips move.
Lord help us all, but what other choice do we have?
Doc C
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wensleydale,
Thank you, a very good post and made me sit and think for a while....
But as Mark Twain said, 'History does not repeat itself, it just rhymes'.
I wonder if we ever will learn our lessons?
As to Defence cuts - as I said, if that is what is confronting us and genuinely in the best interests of the nation, then so be it. My (rather long winded) point was that if the inevitable cuts do occur (H M Treasury led, rather than SDR informed), then so must UK Foreign Policy and FCO aspirations.
I am more than content to become a militarised police force to protect UK national interests if we cannot afford to play our (warfighting) role on the world stage I just do not want to be carrying or managing the risk that the MoD is shifting down to me when it still wants to conduct high end warfighting kinetic operations, but doesn't want to pay for it (in the current battlespace or in future battlespace for future threats).
Thank you, a very good post and made me sit and think for a while....
But as Mark Twain said, 'History does not repeat itself, it just rhymes'.
I wonder if we ever will learn our lessons?
As to Defence cuts - as I said, if that is what is confronting us and genuinely in the best interests of the nation, then so be it. My (rather long winded) point was that if the inevitable cuts do occur (H M Treasury led, rather than SDR informed), then so must UK Foreign Policy and FCO aspirations.
I am more than content to become a militarised police force to protect UK national interests if we cannot afford to play our (warfighting) role on the world stage I just do not want to be carrying or managing the risk that the MoD is shifting down to me when it still wants to conduct high end warfighting kinetic operations, but doesn't want to pay for it (in the current battlespace or in future battlespace for future threats).
