Calls for more military spending!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: East of the meridian
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calls for more military spending!!!!
The head of NATO says European countries need to increase military spending in the wake of the United States terror attacks. And he warns that America will expect them to shoulder more responsibility within the alliance in future.
Does anybody (The Chiefs) expect us (The Indians) to supply an even wider demand of our VERY limited assets to an ever-increasing number of worldwide theatres?
I feel an un-presidented increase of military expenditure is necessary to meet the tasks required. We need better kit, more of it and more bums on seats. When will MOD and the purse holders see this for real?
Hopefully when we haven't been caught with our defence assets trousers down.
What do YOU think???
Does anybody (The Chiefs) expect us (The Indians) to supply an even wider demand of our VERY limited assets to an ever-increasing number of worldwide theatres?
I feel an un-presidented increase of military expenditure is necessary to meet the tasks required. We need better kit, more of it and more bums on seats. When will MOD and the purse holders see this for real?
Hopefully when we haven't been caught with our defence assets trousers down.
What do YOU think???
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: East of the meridian
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are there any very high-up people that read this and can justify NOT investing in our nations defence? Tourist seems to be one of those who knows what he is talking about, but is willing to sit it out and let the ship drift by. If my previous is a vacuous post then whilst it may be vacuous, it does not take away the fact that it is TRUE. Sir Michael Graydon stood his ground, if only for a day, a number of years ago. That is the spirit and conviction that needs to be conveyed to those playing toy soldiers with our nation's defence. 
New Labour maintains that we just need a new chapter to the fiasco that was SDR. The pretence remains that the SDR was a proportionate, properly funded attempt to reconfigure UK armed forces to meet post Cold War requirements (and not a well-argued but ultimately cynical justification for swingeing cuts which dramatically increased overstretch and torpedoed morale).
Thus the attack on the WTC and Pentagon by about 20 terrorists was unpredictable because of its scale.
What is needed is a recognition that SDR talked the talk (that it was necessary to re-configure the armed forces to meet the needs of a new and less predictable world, with increased emphasis on expensive out-of-area and expeditionary capabilities) but didn't walk the walk.
With war against Afghanistan looming, maybe we need to recognise that the Trident nuclear capability is an expensive luxury, and that Special Forces, Para Battalions, transport aircraft and deployable FJs are more relevant than six modernised tank regiments and maintaining infantry numbers.
If we can't repeat a Granby-sized contribution to an air war, and if UK AD isn't significantly strengthened then SDR and its latest incarnation will have failed to address the requirements of the unstable and unpredictable world in which we now live.
Retain the Jags to 2015 (and then replace them with JAS 39), retain three F3 squadrons in the 'Weasel' role, and order more EFs (six/seven squadrons isn't enough).
To restore capabilities to the 1990 level would apparently cost £10 Bn extra per year.
Thus the attack on the WTC and Pentagon by about 20 terrorists was unpredictable because of its scale.
What is needed is a recognition that SDR talked the talk (that it was necessary to re-configure the armed forces to meet the needs of a new and less predictable world, with increased emphasis on expensive out-of-area and expeditionary capabilities) but didn't walk the walk.
With war against Afghanistan looming, maybe we need to recognise that the Trident nuclear capability is an expensive luxury, and that Special Forces, Para Battalions, transport aircraft and deployable FJs are more relevant than six modernised tank regiments and maintaining infantry numbers.
If we can't repeat a Granby-sized contribution to an air war, and if UK AD isn't significantly strengthened then SDR and its latest incarnation will have failed to address the requirements of the unstable and unpredictable world in which we now live.
Retain the Jags to 2015 (and then replace them with JAS 39), retain three F3 squadrons in the 'Weasel' role, and order more EFs (six/seven squadrons isn't enough).
To restore capabilities to the 1990 level would apparently cost £10 Bn extra per year.
Even Hoon has announced that a 'review' is required!
Right - let the first thing to go be the ridiculous idea to use a mercenary PPP organisation to provide our next generation tanker transport and the next be the death of MFTS!! Which I've heard even those involved in the project (and who didn't like me 'well poisoning' MFTS) describe as 'a crock of $hit'!!
Right - let the first thing to go be the ridiculous idea to use a mercenary PPP organisation to provide our next generation tanker transport and the next be the death of MFTS!! Which I've heard even those involved in the project (and who didn't like me 'well poisoning' MFTS) describe as 'a crock of $hit'!!
Hoon? Just where the fcuk is he in the current crisis? All I've seen in the media is our grinning el presidente and Hoon's predecessor across in Brussels. Come out, come out wherever you are, Buff, we'd all like to know where you stand.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some sound arguments here. What it needs is some concerted efforts by civilians (me & others) lobying our local MP's.
Hopefully, this thread will be read by the press so they will report accordingly. We need to spend some money on our National defences before it is too late, if it isn't already.
"The lowest percentage of our GNP is being spent on Defence since the late 19th century" - HELP!
Hopefully, this thread will be read by the press so they will report accordingly. We need to spend some money on our National defences before it is too late, if it isn't already.
"The lowest percentage of our GNP is being spent on Defence since the late 19th century" - HELP!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
Whilst yet ANOTHER review is hard to swallow, it is equally hard to deny that in the light of recent events it is fully justified.
I think it a litle harsh to describe the SDR cuts as "swingeing." Reconfiguring from an unsustainable and increasingly irrelevant Cod War stance WAS needed.
I agree wholehearted;l about Trident, but surely that expense has long peaked, cutting it now would not save a vast fortune surely, but would remove a vast (if unuseable) capability.
Special Forces will undoubtedly be the recipients of extra funding, as will the likes of the Paras and the RM. But more FJ's, why? They are hardly relevant in a theatre like Afghanistan, certainly not in numbers greater than we have now. How are we going to use more than we have, will we ever NEED to mount a Granby sized operation again?
Human intelligence assets, SF, para-military and security resources are where we will need to focus in what is a real new world.
Strengthen UK AD, why? All the F3's and Typhoons in the world wouldn't have helped us on Sept 11th if the threat had been coming our way. A fully tooled up AD aircraft is helples against a suitcase bomb or a ballistic missile, and they are what we should be worrying about.
If the free world is serious about a sustained assault on terrorism, and I have my doubts that it is, then the UK forces will need to be substantially different to their present make up, fact!
BEagle,
I think you just may get your wish!
Methinks that FSTA is being looked at in a very different light right now. An already fragile economic justification appears to have REALLY gone off the rails. There will never be a better time to ACQUIRE decent second hand 767 or L1011 frames than now.
1.3VStall,
You obviously didn't hear his speech at the Party conference, then you'd KNOW where he stood.
eXtreme,
Lobby your MP to do what precisely? We currently spend 2.5% of the our GDP on defence, that's £23 Billion this year and a further increase has been announced taking it to £25Billion by 2003/4.
That's a greater per cent of GDP than the NATO average and of a GDP significantly greater than in this nations history.
Apart from the terrorist threat there is NO other real world threat to the UK, we are less at risk now than at any time since the late 19th Century.
Suit
Whilst yet ANOTHER review is hard to swallow, it is equally hard to deny that in the light of recent events it is fully justified.
I think it a litle harsh to describe the SDR cuts as "swingeing." Reconfiguring from an unsustainable and increasingly irrelevant Cod War stance WAS needed.
I agree wholehearted;l about Trident, but surely that expense has long peaked, cutting it now would not save a vast fortune surely, but would remove a vast (if unuseable) capability.
Special Forces will undoubtedly be the recipients of extra funding, as will the likes of the Paras and the RM. But more FJ's, why? They are hardly relevant in a theatre like Afghanistan, certainly not in numbers greater than we have now. How are we going to use more than we have, will we ever NEED to mount a Granby sized operation again?
Human intelligence assets, SF, para-military and security resources are where we will need to focus in what is a real new world.
Strengthen UK AD, why? All the F3's and Typhoons in the world wouldn't have helped us on Sept 11th if the threat had been coming our way. A fully tooled up AD aircraft is helples against a suitcase bomb or a ballistic missile, and they are what we should be worrying about.
If the free world is serious about a sustained assault on terrorism, and I have my doubts that it is, then the UK forces will need to be substantially different to their present make up, fact!
BEagle,
I think you just may get your wish!
Methinks that FSTA is being looked at in a very different light right now. An already fragile economic justification appears to have REALLY gone off the rails. There will never be a better time to ACQUIRE decent second hand 767 or L1011 frames than now.
1.3VStall,
You obviously didn't hear his speech at the Party conference, then you'd KNOW where he stood.
eXtreme,
Lobby your MP to do what precisely? We currently spend 2.5% of the our GDP on defence, that's £23 Billion this year and a further increase has been announced taking it to £25Billion by 2003/4.
That's a greater per cent of GDP than the NATO average and of a GDP significantly greater than in this nations history.
Apart from the terrorist threat there is NO other real world threat to the UK, we are less at risk now than at any time since the late 19th Century.
Suit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: East of the meridian
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>Suit wrote>>Whilst yet ANOTHER review is hard to swallow, it is equally hard to deny that in the light of recent events it is fully justified.
Why when we say REVIEW do we think CUTS? It is a trend that has been with us since the end of the Cold War, in that sense I agree with Suit.
>>Suit wrote>>But more FJ's, why? They are hardly relevant in a theatre like Afghanistan, certainly not in numbers greater than we have now. How are we going to use more than we have, will we ever NEED to mount a Granby sized operation again?
A reactive defence will always remain defensive. We need to be prepared, not hang around the international corners with trousers around our ankles. It is opinions like this that will condemn us further from superpower status, and therefore puppets thoughout future conflicts. What would you have said with hind sight in August 1990?
>>Suit wrote>>Strengthen UK AD, why? All the F3's and Typhoons in the world wouldn't have helped us on Sept 11th if the threat had been coming our way. A fully tooled up AD aircraft is helples against a suitcase bomb or a ballistic missile, and they are what we should be worrying about.
Then intel is the way ahead unless we radically change freedom rights in the UK, that is not my bag, I would leave discussions like that to the tree-huggers. Please Suit, tell me that others in your apparent position can see beyond thier own nose, you would be a great guy to have around - the day AFTER a military decision needed to be made.
>>Suit wrote>>We currently spend 2.5% of the our GDP on defence, that's £23 Billion this year and a further increase has been announced taking it to £25Billion by 2003/4.
That's a greater per cent of GDP than the NATO average and of a GDP significantly greater than in this nations history.
BUT IT WILL NOT BE ENOUGH!!!
>>Suit wrote>>Apart from the terrorist threat there is NO other real world threat to the UK, we are less at risk now than at any time since the late 19th Century.
You are not wrong, TODAY. Do I need to go on about being prepared? I was never a Boy Scout but it makes sense.
Disclaimer: I will never be a suit making big decisions, nor will I make a high profile military strategist. (Analogy time)I belond at the coalface for the time-being, and I can only speak my tiny mind from the clutches of that coal face. I DO know that we do not have enough tools, enough people and the coal face is getting bigger. Also those on the surface are making decisions on the premise of a geologist armed only with barometer and a slide rule.
Why when we say REVIEW do we think CUTS? It is a trend that has been with us since the end of the Cold War, in that sense I agree with Suit.
>>Suit wrote>>But more FJ's, why? They are hardly relevant in a theatre like Afghanistan, certainly not in numbers greater than we have now. How are we going to use more than we have, will we ever NEED to mount a Granby sized operation again?
A reactive defence will always remain defensive. We need to be prepared, not hang around the international corners with trousers around our ankles. It is opinions like this that will condemn us further from superpower status, and therefore puppets thoughout future conflicts. What would you have said with hind sight in August 1990?
>>Suit wrote>>Strengthen UK AD, why? All the F3's and Typhoons in the world wouldn't have helped us on Sept 11th if the threat had been coming our way. A fully tooled up AD aircraft is helples against a suitcase bomb or a ballistic missile, and they are what we should be worrying about.
Then intel is the way ahead unless we radically change freedom rights in the UK, that is not my bag, I would leave discussions like that to the tree-huggers. Please Suit, tell me that others in your apparent position can see beyond thier own nose, you would be a great guy to have around - the day AFTER a military decision needed to be made.
>>Suit wrote>>We currently spend 2.5% of the our GDP on defence, that's £23 Billion this year and a further increase has been announced taking it to £25Billion by 2003/4.
That's a greater per cent of GDP than the NATO average and of a GDP significantly greater than in this nations history.
BUT IT WILL NOT BE ENOUGH!!!
>>Suit wrote>>Apart from the terrorist threat there is NO other real world threat to the UK, we are less at risk now than at any time since the late 19th Century.
You are not wrong, TODAY. Do I need to go on about being prepared? I was never a Boy Scout but it makes sense.
Disclaimer: I will never be a suit making big decisions, nor will I make a high profile military strategist. (Analogy time)I belond at the coalface for the time-being, and I can only speak my tiny mind from the clutches of that coal face. I DO know that we do not have enough tools, enough people and the coal face is getting bigger. Also those on the surface are making decisions on the premise of a geologist armed only with barometer and a slide rule.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Down t' south
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
awayday
Whilst like most I would welcome an increase in the number of FJ assets the UK has, surely a more pressing problem is the forecast severe shortage of pilots in that role. Despite recent events, the force will still be well below current pilot levels, leaving even fewer people to do even more roles.
The Gov't needs to ensure it can fill the shortfalls in manpower across all 3 services before it considers trying to increase the size of any of them!
Whilst like most I would welcome an increase in the number of FJ assets the UK has, surely a more pressing problem is the forecast severe shortage of pilots in that role. Despite recent events, the force will still be well below current pilot levels, leaving even fewer people to do even more roles.
The Gov't needs to ensure it can fill the shortfalls in manpower across all 3 services before it considers trying to increase the size of any of them!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: East of the meridian
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al Titude:
I shal re-quote myself as I obviously agree.
"I feel an un-presidented increase of military expenditure is necessary to meet the tasks required. We need better kit, more of it and more bums on seats.
Up Very Gently:
If you feel that way then either add something constructive to the argument with some base level of sincerity, or waste somebody elses bandwidth with a pointless comment that has very little substance.
I shal re-quote myself as I obviously agree.
"I feel an un-presidented increase of military expenditure is necessary to meet the tasks required. We need better kit, more of it and more bums on seats.
Up Very Gently:
If you feel that way then either add something constructive to the argument with some base level of sincerity, or waste somebody elses bandwidth with a pointless comment that has very little substance.
Suit
You said: "Apart from the terrorist threat there is NO other real world threat to the UK, we are less at risk now than at any time since the late 19th Century."
The whole point about the Post Cold War world is that it is inherently unpredictable, and threats (whether direct, or merely to our interests) can develop more quickly than we can develop defences against them. The only 'near certainty' is that the Soviet threat from the East has gone, and can never reappear at the same level. But threats remain, whether 'small scale' and assymetric or large scale. Who can safely assume that we won't need to do another 'Granby-sized op'? I'd have thought that that was a reasonable 'high end' threat against which armed forces should be sized.
You also ask "Why more FJ's?" and suggest that they are "hardly relevant in a theatre like Afghanistan, certainly not in numbers greater than we have now."
Afghanistan is a specific case, and in any event, the usefulness of FJs (supported by Special Forces to identify and designate targets) could still be pivotal, if Western foreign policy is not so inept as to rule out basing in neighbouring countries. (Quick rule of thumb - if you can't get nearby basing, your military plan is probably unsupportable morally/politically).
And even if there's never a Granby-sized op again, I believe that a force of that 1990-era size is probably required in order to sustain more modest peacekeeping comitments without the crippling overstretch and plummeting morale we have seen since 1990.
You ask why we should Strengthen UK AD.
Because it's inadequate to meet any threat (even a determined push by the Belgian Air Force) and because F-15s and F-16s based closer to NY and DC, and with NORAD warned sooner could have made some difference on Sept 11th. Equually F3s could possibly make a difference to an attack aimed against London, but perhaps not if they struggle to get two aircraft on the line each day, don't mount permanent QRA and are based in Scotland and North Yorkshire. Yes, a fighter is useless against a suitcase bomb or a ballistic missile, but we must be prepared against the full threat spectrum, and must not concentrate narrowly only on what is considered to be today's most likely threat.
UKAD today seems adequate only to contribute AD assets to expeditionary forces, and not to actually defend UK airspace, should the need ever arise. I believe that's dangerous.
You said: "Apart from the terrorist threat there is NO other real world threat to the UK, we are less at risk now than at any time since the late 19th Century."
The whole point about the Post Cold War world is that it is inherently unpredictable, and threats (whether direct, or merely to our interests) can develop more quickly than we can develop defences against them. The only 'near certainty' is that the Soviet threat from the East has gone, and can never reappear at the same level. But threats remain, whether 'small scale' and assymetric or large scale. Who can safely assume that we won't need to do another 'Granby-sized op'? I'd have thought that that was a reasonable 'high end' threat against which armed forces should be sized.
You also ask "Why more FJ's?" and suggest that they are "hardly relevant in a theatre like Afghanistan, certainly not in numbers greater than we have now."
Afghanistan is a specific case, and in any event, the usefulness of FJs (supported by Special Forces to identify and designate targets) could still be pivotal, if Western foreign policy is not so inept as to rule out basing in neighbouring countries. (Quick rule of thumb - if you can't get nearby basing, your military plan is probably unsupportable morally/politically).
And even if there's never a Granby-sized op again, I believe that a force of that 1990-era size is probably required in order to sustain more modest peacekeeping comitments without the crippling overstretch and plummeting morale we have seen since 1990.
You ask why we should Strengthen UK AD.
Because it's inadequate to meet any threat (even a determined push by the Belgian Air Force) and because F-15s and F-16s based closer to NY and DC, and with NORAD warned sooner could have made some difference on Sept 11th. Equually F3s could possibly make a difference to an attack aimed against London, but perhaps not if they struggle to get two aircraft on the line each day, don't mount permanent QRA and are based in Scotland and North Yorkshire. Yes, a fighter is useless against a suitcase bomb or a ballistic missile, but we must be prepared against the full threat spectrum, and must not concentrate narrowly only on what is considered to be today's most likely threat.
UKAD today seems adequate only to contribute AD assets to expeditionary forces, and not to actually defend UK airspace, should the need ever arise. I believe that's dangerous.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JN,
Fair point about the unpredictability of the post Cold War world, isn't that why we retain a force of it's current size? The UK armed forces are supposed to be sized and structured to meet small scale or asymetric threats up to a Granby sized Op.
I don't doubt the potential usefulness of FJ's, I just query the need for a force larger than it is going to be. Surely 7 Eurothingy squadrons at 16 a time plus a large OEU and OCU, along with 7 GR4 Sqn's, 3 Harrier Sqns with their attendant OCU/OEU's IS going to be sufficient to meet contingencies?
If we had dealt with Saddam properly last time then there would be no need for Northern and Southern air exclusion patrols. If he is targetted this time round and we take it as far as we should then those deployments will be history.
How can 5 F3 Squadrons plus OCU be inadequate (cue electric spaz jet jokes) for UK AD against NO threat, when for years during the Cold War, when there WAS a threat, the same number of Squadrons of short range Lightnings armed with 2 dubious infra red AAM WERE considered adequate?
Like the Belgian quip by the way!
The fact that the RAF struggles to get qty 2 F3's on the line is a condemnation of their logistics and support organisation surely?
I still maintain that having more AD squadrons will count for diddly squat against an attack aimed at London. It also smacks of training and equipping to fight the LAST war, something that the west is unusually good at.
Suit
Fair point about the unpredictability of the post Cold War world, isn't that why we retain a force of it's current size? The UK armed forces are supposed to be sized and structured to meet small scale or asymetric threats up to a Granby sized Op.
I don't doubt the potential usefulness of FJ's, I just query the need for a force larger than it is going to be. Surely 7 Eurothingy squadrons at 16 a time plus a large OEU and OCU, along with 7 GR4 Sqn's, 3 Harrier Sqns with their attendant OCU/OEU's IS going to be sufficient to meet contingencies?
If we had dealt with Saddam properly last time then there would be no need for Northern and Southern air exclusion patrols. If he is targetted this time round and we take it as far as we should then those deployments will be history.
How can 5 F3 Squadrons plus OCU be inadequate (cue electric spaz jet jokes) for UK AD against NO threat, when for years during the Cold War, when there WAS a threat, the same number of Squadrons of short range Lightnings armed with 2 dubious infra red AAM WERE considered adequate?
Like the Belgian quip by the way!
The fact that the RAF struggles to get qty 2 F3's on the line is a condemnation of their logistics and support organisation surely?
I still maintain that having more AD squadrons will count for diddly squat against an attack aimed at London. It also smacks of training and equipping to fight the LAST war, something that the west is unusually good at.
Suit
Suit,
You got the number of Lightning squadrons wrong by about 100%. There were two each at Leuchars, Binbrook, Wattisham and Gutersloh with a ninth at Akrotiri and 65 Sqn (OCU) at Coltishall had a war role. (Not forgetting, of course, 74 Sqn in Singapore).
Now those really were the days!
[ 04 October 2001: Message edited by: 1.3VStall ]
You got the number of Lightning squadrons wrong by about 100%. There were two each at Leuchars, Binbrook, Wattisham and Gutersloh with a ninth at Akrotiri and 65 Sqn (OCU) at Coltishall had a war role. (Not forgetting, of course, 74 Sqn in Singapore).
Now those really were the days!
[ 04 October 2001: Message edited by: 1.3VStall ]
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.3vStall,
Not wrong at all, 11 and 23 at Leuchars, 5 at Binbrook, 111 and 29 at Wattisham. The OCU was there but so is the F3 OCU so the comparison is still valid. We were comparing UK AD not the global Lightning fleet!
I know that in 1969 43 came on the scene with surplus FAA Phantom FG1's but my point remains as it was, that UK AD then was mounted by a similar number of squadrons when the threat was real, recognised and there for all to see.
Suit
Not wrong at all, 11 and 23 at Leuchars, 5 at Binbrook, 111 and 29 at Wattisham. The OCU was there but so is the F3 OCU so the comparison is still valid. We were comparing UK AD not the global Lightning fleet!
I know that in 1969 43 came on the scene with surplus FAA Phantom FG1's but my point remains as it was, that UK AD then was mounted by a similar number of squadrons when the threat was real, recognised and there for all to see.
Suit
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beags
I think it was in Flight recently that BA are V keen to get rid of their 767s...Fast. prices quoted were £20 - 40M per ac. Don't know if that is a good price or not but I guess the RAF can't afford them anyway. Still if the recession bites a bit more the price might come down!!!! Also saw that Gulf Air are looking at rationalization of their fleet and that they had 6 767s that they might be looking to sell. Looks like the market could be flooded with 767s soon. Perhaps the price will come down enough that even HM Treasury see the logic of buying them rather than PFI-ing them.
On the subject of the Defence budget the Sunday Times ran a very good article a couple of weekends ago that said for the UK to return to a level of Defence expenditure comparable to that of the US (in GDP terms Suit) Gordon Broooooon would have to inject £14 Billion into defence. Anyone see that happening? Anyway I thought the defence budget was up in the 3 - 5% area during the Cold War, not the measly 2 and a bit % of now!!
I think it was in Flight recently that BA are V keen to get rid of their 767s...Fast. prices quoted were £20 - 40M per ac. Don't know if that is a good price or not but I guess the RAF can't afford them anyway. Still if the recession bites a bit more the price might come down!!!! Also saw that Gulf Air are looking at rationalization of their fleet and that they had 6 767s that they might be looking to sell. Looks like the market could be flooded with 767s soon. Perhaps the price will come down enough that even HM Treasury see the logic of buying them rather than PFI-ing them.
On the subject of the Defence budget the Sunday Times ran a very good article a couple of weekends ago that said for the UK to return to a level of Defence expenditure comparable to that of the US (in GDP terms Suit) Gordon Broooooon would have to inject £14 Billion into defence. Anyone see that happening? Anyway I thought the defence budget was up in the 3 - 5% area during the Cold War, not the measly 2 and a bit % of now!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: East of the meridian
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>Suit wrote>>I don't doubt the potential usefulness of FJ's, I just query the need for a force larger than it is going to be. Surely 7 Eurothingy squadrons at 16 a time plus a large OEU and OCU, along with 7 GR4 Sqn's, 3 Harrier Sqns with their attendant OCU/OEU's IS going to be sufficient to meet contingencies?
I Disagree. I am not aware of ANY Eurothingy squadrons that are CR at the moment. Also, of the squadrons that we have now, how many of them are; 100% manned, receive the logistics support necessary to have servicable jets on the line, have an acceptable level of dilution across the experience spectrum?
>>Suit wrote>>If we had dealt with Saddam properly last time then there would be no need for Northern and Southern air exclusion patrols. If he is targetted this time round and we take it as far as we should then those deployments will be history.
Agreed. However, without the need for these deployments, it would not necessitate downsizing our AD force based on theweak assumption that they would no longer be needed.
>>Suit wrote>>How can 5 F3 Squadrons plus OCU be inadequate (cue electric spaz jet jokes) for UK AD against NO threat, when for years during the Cold War, when there WAS a threat, the same number of Squadrons of short range Lightnings armed with 2 dubious infra red AAM WERE considered adequate?
When the OCU dilute the front line squadrons by taking crews from <100% manned squadrons. When the OCU no longer participate in the Falklands commitments. When there are 1/3 of a squadron strength always in the Falklands. When there is a squadron always in Op Resinate. When there is a squadron away on exercise getting some REQUIRED training for when the sh!t hits the fan, for real. When some crews actually get some time off with their families. Now, without doing the math, figure it out yourself clever clogs...!!!!!
Do you know the manning on any of the squadrons of the RAF, ME, RW and FJ? If I ever found out that I was under the control of people with your lack of commitment to the defence of our country and the people that we protect, I would feel ashamed to admit I was a member of HMFs.
I Disagree. I am not aware of ANY Eurothingy squadrons that are CR at the moment. Also, of the squadrons that we have now, how many of them are; 100% manned, receive the logistics support necessary to have servicable jets on the line, have an acceptable level of dilution across the experience spectrum?
>>Suit wrote>>If we had dealt with Saddam properly last time then there would be no need for Northern and Southern air exclusion patrols. If he is targetted this time round and we take it as far as we should then those deployments will be history.
Agreed. However, without the need for these deployments, it would not necessitate downsizing our AD force based on theweak assumption that they would no longer be needed.
>>Suit wrote>>How can 5 F3 Squadrons plus OCU be inadequate (cue electric spaz jet jokes) for UK AD against NO threat, when for years during the Cold War, when there WAS a threat, the same number of Squadrons of short range Lightnings armed with 2 dubious infra red AAM WERE considered adequate?
When the OCU dilute the front line squadrons by taking crews from <100% manned squadrons. When the OCU no longer participate in the Falklands commitments. When there are 1/3 of a squadron strength always in the Falklands. When there is a squadron always in Op Resinate. When there is a squadron away on exercise getting some REQUIRED training for when the sh!t hits the fan, for real. When some crews actually get some time off with their families. Now, without doing the math, figure it out yourself clever clogs...!!!!!
Do you know the manning on any of the squadrons of the RAF, ME, RW and FJ? If I ever found out that I was under the control of people with your lack of commitment to the defence of our country and the people that we protect, I would feel ashamed to admit I was a member of HMFs.
Sorry, Suit, but have to disagree. The Cold War AD force may have been deemed adequate for public consumption, but wasn't really, despite the best efforts of all involved. The rot set in in 1957 with the Sandys review: AD was to be taken over by missiles. The Frightening was allowed to proceed on the grounds that it had gone too far to cancel, and would not recieve much additional funding (explaining why it took until the Mark 6 to get the larger belly tank and why all the realtively cheap but clever and apparently effective upgrades proposed were never adopted). Of course, the missiles never arrived - apart from Bloodhound, but, oddly enough, the airframes to make up the short fall didn't arrive either.
Pre-Sandys, there were twenty odd RAuxAF fighter units, which although equipped with the Meteor and Vampire (arguably still just adequate against the bomber threat)at the time of the review, were intended to get the Swift (oops) and the Hunter (which certainly was). In addition, the AD force was far larger. It wasn't reduced because there were too many aircraft but beacuse they cost too much in comparison to the wundermissiles that never actually arrived (which their airships had tried to explain).
To slip into the golf bag cliche - we don't have the full bag of clubs.
In addition, there are serious manning problems, which even a deskbound civvy at the Purple Learning Centre can spot, although fellow PPruners are better qualified to run with this arguement than I.
We are at least two and probably four squadrons down for AD. 56 and 74 were initially meant to be flying the F-4 until about now, (getting replaced by the FEFA as it was called when this plan was first mooted). 19 and 92 were, according to some sources, meant to come back from Germany to reinforce UK AD. Instead, of course, they all went.
We tried this - 'ooh don't need this capability now' in the 1930s. This is why we just got away with the Battle of Britain; why the U-boat threat was far greater than it should have been since it took until 1937 for the threat to shipping to be fully recognised; partly why we didn't have effective tanks; etc, etc.
To throw in my second cliche of the evening, those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. We may not see the threat ('the wildcard'), but just because we don't see it doesn't mean we shouldn't take reasonable precautions. There's a near-earth objects committee, for heaven's [pun not intended] sake, so surely thinking about possible AD threats and the need for a slightly larger force - both manpower and machinery-wise isn't beyond the wit of our leaders.
It is beyond it, though, isn't it?
[edited to slightly improve clarity, believe it or not]
[ 04 October 2001: Message edited by: Archimedes ]
Pre-Sandys, there were twenty odd RAuxAF fighter units, which although equipped with the Meteor and Vampire (arguably still just adequate against the bomber threat)at the time of the review, were intended to get the Swift (oops) and the Hunter (which certainly was). In addition, the AD force was far larger. It wasn't reduced because there were too many aircraft but beacuse they cost too much in comparison to the wundermissiles that never actually arrived (which their airships had tried to explain).
To slip into the golf bag cliche - we don't have the full bag of clubs.
In addition, there are serious manning problems, which even a deskbound civvy at the Purple Learning Centre can spot, although fellow PPruners are better qualified to run with this arguement than I.
We are at least two and probably four squadrons down for AD. 56 and 74 were initially meant to be flying the F-4 until about now, (getting replaced by the FEFA as it was called when this plan was first mooted). 19 and 92 were, according to some sources, meant to come back from Germany to reinforce UK AD. Instead, of course, they all went.
We tried this - 'ooh don't need this capability now' in the 1930s. This is why we just got away with the Battle of Britain; why the U-boat threat was far greater than it should have been since it took until 1937 for the threat to shipping to be fully recognised; partly why we didn't have effective tanks; etc, etc.
To throw in my second cliche of the evening, those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. We may not see the threat ('the wildcard'), but just because we don't see it doesn't mean we shouldn't take reasonable precautions. There's a near-earth objects committee, for heaven's [pun not intended] sake, so surely thinking about possible AD threats and the need for a slightly larger force - both manpower and machinery-wise isn't beyond the wit of our leaders.
It is beyond it, though, isn't it?
[edited to slightly improve clarity, believe it or not]
[ 04 October 2001: Message edited by: Archimedes ]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North America
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overstretch
Funny old thing - the TTSC bid for FSTA utilises second-hand 767s from BA! Beags knows his stuff on this and is generally close to the mark.
The present PPP sounds like the Emperors Clothes to me. The top solution would be a mixed fleet of Strat and Tac capability AAR(much like now) although with multi-point dispensing on both fleets. How about 6 A330s(Air Tanker Bid) and 15 A310s(Luftwaffe MRTT). However, the military should own them.
It has been interesting to read comment on my initial AD Q about London although on a different thread! Wide divergence of opinions. Apologies if Sangiovese is offended by any of this.
Funny old thing - the TTSC bid for FSTA utilises second-hand 767s from BA! Beags knows his stuff on this and is generally close to the mark.
The present PPP sounds like the Emperors Clothes to me. The top solution would be a mixed fleet of Strat and Tac capability AAR(much like now) although with multi-point dispensing on both fleets. How about 6 A330s(Air Tanker Bid) and 15 A310s(Luftwaffe MRTT). However, the military should own them.
It has been interesting to read comment on my initial AD Q about London although on a different thread! Wide divergence of opinions. Apologies if Sangiovese is offended by any of this.