Defence is at a crossroads - The Times
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as I banter the girls of the Womens Auxilliary Balloon Corps, without the 'Fast Jet Flying Club' the Pongo's job would be much more difficult in Iraq and Afg. How many time do you hear 'Request CAS at Grid xxxxxxxx' on the airwaves? Sorry old chap, the flying club hasn't got enough members anymore!!
C0ck
C0ck
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny how some find it "trendy" to lose sight of the big picture...
Russian jet flies within 90 seconds of Hull - Telegraph
Russian jet flies within 90 seconds of Hull - Telegraph
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In your nav bag.
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's quite amusing to see the FJ indignance at the bandying-about of the 'flying club' banter. Methinks thou may protest too much?
It is, of course, absolutely correct that we should have a military equipped for all eventualities that may befall the shores or interests of this island, in the absence of any dependence on our allies, but unfortunately we are a few billion quid short of this mark, and insistant that we maintain the illusion of being a world player on the big stage.
Given that we are not likely to commit any further funds to our established obligations overseas, it does seem rather incongruous that we would divert funds that could be used for the here-and-now into yesterday...
Yes yes, you say that the Grey Arrow can be used as a strike aircraft. I'm sure it will be commensurately better at that job for its cost than other established ground-attack platforms. I'm sure that Terry and his mates will be all the more in awe of it killing them, given the fact that it could have transited to its holding position at several times the speed of sound, and was less likely to be detected on the way by the radars that they do not have.
Yes yes, if the Norwegians were really to fail to give us a bell as the Soviet bombers passed by, and they really did get within 90 seconds of bombing a sh*t-hole of a city back to the stone-age (or yesterday as they call it up there) then it would be nice to know that the crews who were waking up and pulling on the top halves of their goon-bags whilst the bombs were falling would have been jumping into a voice-activated jet, had they had enough time.
I agree that we should guard against becoming a one trick pony, but whilst we are being asked to perform only that trick, that pony has got to be the best we can make it before we start gilding the big-top.
It is, of course, absolutely correct that we should have a military equipped for all eventualities that may befall the shores or interests of this island, in the absence of any dependence on our allies, but unfortunately we are a few billion quid short of this mark, and insistant that we maintain the illusion of being a world player on the big stage.
Given that we are not likely to commit any further funds to our established obligations overseas, it does seem rather incongruous that we would divert funds that could be used for the here-and-now into yesterday...
Yes yes, you say that the Grey Arrow can be used as a strike aircraft. I'm sure it will be commensurately better at that job for its cost than other established ground-attack platforms. I'm sure that Terry and his mates will be all the more in awe of it killing them, given the fact that it could have transited to its holding position at several times the speed of sound, and was less likely to be detected on the way by the radars that they do not have.
Yes yes, if the Norwegians were really to fail to give us a bell as the Soviet bombers passed by, and they really did get within 90 seconds of bombing a sh*t-hole of a city back to the stone-age (or yesterday as they call it up there) then it would be nice to know that the crews who were waking up and pulling on the top halves of their goon-bags whilst the bombs were falling would have been jumping into a voice-activated jet, had they had enough time.
I agree that we should guard against becoming a one trick pony, but whilst we are being asked to perform only that trick, that pony has got to be the best we can make it before we start gilding the big-top.
The anti-Typhoon, GR4, Carrier, Type 45, Trident etc etc arguments all hinge on the proposition that neutralising the threat of Afghan-based terrorism is the be-all and end-all for the Armed Forces. This proposition seems to be gaining the lofty status of "FACT" in the media, which means it won't be long before the government agrees and acts accordingly. This obviously suits the Army (and malcontent non-members of the FJ "flying club"!) who are taking the opportunity to expand their slice of the Defence pie.
I believe this approach is a very dangerous one for the Army (and the malcontents) to take. I will temporarily accept the above proposition, before embarking on a tongue-in-cheek argument with a heavy dose of reductio ad absurdum. Doesn't make it any less valid though...
NEUTRALISING THE THREAT OF AFGHAN-BASED TERRORISM IS THE BE-ALL AND END-ALL OF THE UK ARMED FORCES
1) Army - F35, Harrier, Carriers, Type 45, Trident replacement, GR4, Typhoon are all irrelevant to the above aim. Chop them! Strategic Defence Review 2010 - OK then, if you say so. We didn't really have the money available anyway. Shall we get rid of the hopelessly fast-jet centric CDS as well?
SOME TIME ELAPSES. FOUR BRIGADES HAVE BEEN AND GONE, AND EACH BRIGADIER HAS BEEN PROMOTED FOR REGAINING CONTROL OF A DISTRICT THAT HIS PREDECESSOR RELINQUISHED. AFGHANISTAN IS GENERALLY STABLE AND KARZAI IS STILL GIVING JOBS TO EX-WARLORDS WHO MIGHT DESTABILISE HIM IF NOT KEPT ONSIDE. HOWEVER, TERRORISM IS STILL IN THE NEWS JUST AS MUCH AS IT EVER WAS BEFORE.
2) Fed-up public finally see through the spin - We already know that Islamist terrorists are being trained and tasked from other locations - see for example the 2009 Christmas Day airline bombing attempt, originating from Yemen. Therefore attempts to stop terrorism simply by stabilising Afghanistan alone are futile.
GOVERNMENT (BRIEFLY) CONSIDERS THE IDEA OF EXPANDING MILITARY OPERATIONS TO COVER ALL POSSIBLE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIST TERRORISM...
3) Any organisation or individual with 2 brain cells to rub together - The international community is barely able (perhaps even unable) to bring a successful conclusion to the current operation in Afghanistan. The idea that Western nations could keep a lid on Islamist terrorism by simultaneously deploying ground forces to all possible terrorist havens is a non-starter.
THE ARMY, AND MALCONTENT NON-MEMBERS OF THE FJ "FLYING CLUB", FINALLY REALISE WHAT'S IN STORE. OOPS.
4) Government, keen to free up cash for tax cuts / welfare payments (delete as appropriate) to shore up its core vote - Given the futility of conventional (non-SF) military intervention in preventing terrorism in the West, it would make sense to adjust our posture. Withdraw from Afghanistan, declaring glorious victory. Wholesale cuts to all branches of the Armed Forces involved in Op HERRICK. Re-allocate the cash to defensive measures such as airport and port security (whole-body scanners cost peanuts compared to military forces), MI5 / GCHQ, domestic police, UK-based EOD, computer network security. Small-scale and extremely short-term offensive action to be carried out by SF in concert with MI6 where specifically required.
NOW WHAT? YOU CUT ALL OUR TRADITIONAL WAR-FIGHTING CAPABILITIES BACK IN 2010, AND NOW YOU'VE DECIDED THAT THE BEST WAY OF DEALING WITH TERRORISM DOESN'T INVOLVE US!
5) Government - don't worry! After all, state-on state warfare is dead! The traditional causes of international conflict - resource shortage; ideological, racial and religious differences; ancestral territorial disputes - all gone! Plus potential new causes of global unrest, such as climate change, are massively overblown (MoD assessment only. Treasury and Dept of Environment assessment may differ). We have coped OK without all those FJs and ships, and we'll now cope OK without the infantry and helicopters. What exactly are we supposed to do with them in a non-interventionist world?
BUGGER.
It's late at night so I'm sure my language could be dismantled fairly easily. However, I think the underlying "drift" could easily be shaped to pass the public opinion test over the space of a couple of years. What do you all think?
I believe this approach is a very dangerous one for the Army (and the malcontents) to take. I will temporarily accept the above proposition, before embarking on a tongue-in-cheek argument with a heavy dose of reductio ad absurdum. Doesn't make it any less valid though...
NEUTRALISING THE THREAT OF AFGHAN-BASED TERRORISM IS THE BE-ALL AND END-ALL OF THE UK ARMED FORCES
1) Army - F35, Harrier, Carriers, Type 45, Trident replacement, GR4, Typhoon are all irrelevant to the above aim. Chop them! Strategic Defence Review 2010 - OK then, if you say so. We didn't really have the money available anyway. Shall we get rid of the hopelessly fast-jet centric CDS as well?
SOME TIME ELAPSES. FOUR BRIGADES HAVE BEEN AND GONE, AND EACH BRIGADIER HAS BEEN PROMOTED FOR REGAINING CONTROL OF A DISTRICT THAT HIS PREDECESSOR RELINQUISHED. AFGHANISTAN IS GENERALLY STABLE AND KARZAI IS STILL GIVING JOBS TO EX-WARLORDS WHO MIGHT DESTABILISE HIM IF NOT KEPT ONSIDE. HOWEVER, TERRORISM IS STILL IN THE NEWS JUST AS MUCH AS IT EVER WAS BEFORE.
2) Fed-up public finally see through the spin - We already know that Islamist terrorists are being trained and tasked from other locations - see for example the 2009 Christmas Day airline bombing attempt, originating from Yemen. Therefore attempts to stop terrorism simply by stabilising Afghanistan alone are futile.
GOVERNMENT (BRIEFLY) CONSIDERS THE IDEA OF EXPANDING MILITARY OPERATIONS TO COVER ALL POSSIBLE ORIGINS OF ISLAMIST TERRORISM...
3) Any organisation or individual with 2 brain cells to rub together - The international community is barely able (perhaps even unable) to bring a successful conclusion to the current operation in Afghanistan. The idea that Western nations could keep a lid on Islamist terrorism by simultaneously deploying ground forces to all possible terrorist havens is a non-starter.
THE ARMY, AND MALCONTENT NON-MEMBERS OF THE FJ "FLYING CLUB", FINALLY REALISE WHAT'S IN STORE. OOPS.
4) Government, keen to free up cash for tax cuts / welfare payments (delete as appropriate) to shore up its core vote - Given the futility of conventional (non-SF) military intervention in preventing terrorism in the West, it would make sense to adjust our posture. Withdraw from Afghanistan, declaring glorious victory. Wholesale cuts to all branches of the Armed Forces involved in Op HERRICK. Re-allocate the cash to defensive measures such as airport and port security (whole-body scanners cost peanuts compared to military forces), MI5 / GCHQ, domestic police, UK-based EOD, computer network security. Small-scale and extremely short-term offensive action to be carried out by SF in concert with MI6 where specifically required.
NOW WHAT? YOU CUT ALL OUR TRADITIONAL WAR-FIGHTING CAPABILITIES BACK IN 2010, AND NOW YOU'VE DECIDED THAT THE BEST WAY OF DEALING WITH TERRORISM DOESN'T INVOLVE US!
5) Government - don't worry! After all, state-on state warfare is dead! The traditional causes of international conflict - resource shortage; ideological, racial and religious differences; ancestral territorial disputes - all gone! Plus potential new causes of global unrest, such as climate change, are massively overblown (MoD assessment only. Treasury and Dept of Environment assessment may differ). We have coped OK without all those FJs and ships, and we'll now cope OK without the infantry and helicopters. What exactly are we supposed to do with them in a non-interventionist world?
BUGGER.
It's late at night so I'm sure my language could be dismantled fairly easily. However, I think the underlying "drift" could easily be shaped to pass the public opinion test over the space of a couple of years. What do you all think?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In your nav bag.
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
malcontent non-members of the FJ "flying club"
I don't think anyone has suggested that Afghan is the "be all and end all", perhaps a head-rectum removal is required! The fact of the matter remains that the first priority with limited resources has to be current commitments, with future plans remaining a firm second until that priority is firmly met.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have we all drawn breath, ladies? Feeling better after a cup of tea and a lie down?
Disclaimer I'm an Armoured Corps officer, but RAAC, not RAC, and I'm not a tankie.
Many have fallen into the trap of attacking BRIG Mallison's utterances by putting up their own ignorance-driven bogymen (although a couple of rants veered dangerously close to ad hominem attacks). Questioning the efficacy of Chally II, or of MBTs in general, is as silly as BRIG Mallison's nonsense.
Gainesy & Cows, not having a go at you, but using your posts to help mine, hope you don't mind.
The MBT can fit perfectly into the combined arms team, not just for REGT or BDE - sized thundering around Northern Europe. In complex terrain, urban or rural, COIN or Three Block War, nothing matches the MBT as a versatile, responsive, intimate blend of hardened, networked firepower. It has comms, it can provide cover, it can carry stores, it has sensors. Nothing matches it in that final, terrifyingly lethal last 300m - which is a universal condition of every battlefield.
I should add that AIR is also a part of the mix; it's purple.
And quite right Gainesy, don't sleep under 'em, nor behind 'em, and don't get in front of 'em
Ivan, couldn't go without one last dig
Maybe the Army should get all the RW lift capability then 
Disclaimer I'm an Armoured Corps officer, but RAAC, not RAC, and I'm not a tankie.
Many have fallen into the trap of attacking BRIG Mallison's utterances by putting up their own ignorance-driven bogymen (although a couple of rants veered dangerously close to ad hominem attacks). Questioning the efficacy of Chally II, or of MBTs in general, is as silly as BRIG Mallison's nonsense.
Gainesy & Cows, not having a go at you, but using your posts to help mine, hope you don't mind.
Originally Posted by Gainesy
I understand its tank doctrine to not go solo but in formations, so send enough to do formations.
Originally Posted by Cows getting bigger
In fact, short of having another go at Rommell in N. Africa or being sacrificed on the N. German Plain, tanks should be melted down and made into more bayonets.
I should add that AIR is also a part of the mix; it's purple.
And quite right Gainesy, don't sleep under 'em, nor behind 'em, and don't get in front of 'em
Ivan, couldn't go without one last dig
Originally Posted by Ivan Rogov
...sure there are many individuals in the Army that do but as an organisation they just want to be moved from A to B.
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, thank you, that pretty much answers my question, so why are the tanks not out there? (MBTs, did see some Warriors in AFg footage t'other day}. One or two at each FOB maybe?
As to the IEDs even the Army spokesfolk are describing them a s "Roadside Bombs", now, is this just dumbing down for Joe public or are they, as I took it literally, firing slugs sideways from a roadside location as in the latter throws of Iraq, rather than buried in the road as per conventional landmine?
(I doubt this is an opsec thing as the gits know how they set them up).
As to the IEDs even the Army spokesfolk are describing them a s "Roadside Bombs", now, is this just dumbing down for Joe public or are they, as I took it literally, firing slugs sideways from a roadside location as in the latter throws of Iraq, rather than buried in the road as per conventional landmine?
(I doubt this is an opsec thing as the gits know how they set them up).
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WhizzzWheel
The fact of the matter remains that the first priority with limited resources has to be current commitments, with future plans remaining a firm second until that priority is firmly met.
Having, clearly, comprehended the objective of HERRICK, perhaps you would share and define it for the rest of us? That would, incidentally, place you as a significantly better communicator than HM’s Government.
I’m also impressed with your agreement with the Government on “future plans remaining a firm second”. What particularly interests me is how the numerous “gapped” capabilities will be “ungapped”, once (or if) they are considered affordable again.
The harsh evidence points to a Government (and political Party) that has no interest in the Military other than providing the diplomatic means of keeping up with the Transatlantic Joneses. What they don’t want to do, on the other hand, is pay for it. What we should be transmitting to the Government, wall to wall fives, is that they should be increasing the Budget, not mortgaging the assets and capabilities that are essential to an island Nation with significant possessions and responsibilities overseas. To that, we often hear the parrot squawk “we’re broke and can’t afford it”. I would strongly suggest that is bollox. As a Nation, we can but won’t. That would require honesty with the British people and some sacrifice. How a Government that has based its existence on posturing and “spin” could find that so difficult is beyond my understanding. For those who might think I’m being partisan, I would also advise Mr Cameron to get his poo in one sock with regard to military imperatives.
In summary, if we gap the capabilities many of these informed people are proposing, it will be hell’s own job to get them back. If we do get them back, it may be too late for when we might need them.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRT were used to great effect in Iraq by Coalition forces. The Canadians found them very useful in Afg too, so much so they are buying "new" ones - Leopard 1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(See the Canada entry and links)
LT-DT Purple works at the coal face because we need to rely on each other, but further up the the ranks the Services just don't trust each other and it is obvious, far too much political manouvreing and positioning going on to secure their slice of the pie
Lets hope those at the top work together on the SDR for the good of defence and not just their Service.
Re the dig, I know it was slightly in jest but why should the Army get all RW lift? How would they be better placed to provide it than the RAF, who's job it is to understand and operate in the Air battlespace.
(See the Canada entry and links)
LT-DT Purple works at the coal face because we need to rely on each other, but further up the the ranks the Services just don't trust each other and it is obvious, far too much political manouvreing and positioning going on to secure their slice of the pie
Lets hope those at the top work together on the SDR for the good of defence and not just their Service.Re the dig, I know it was slightly in jest but why should the Army get all RW lift? How would they be better placed to provide it than the RAF, who's job it is to understand and operate in the Air battlespace.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ivan
Sorry, it's a bit of a running joke (or open sore?) in Oz since RAAF handed over the new S-70s to Army in the late 1980s.
Quite agree, senior officers squabbling over their slice of the pie is an unedifying sight. When the pie is either shrinking, or is perceived to be shrinking, the worst in people is brought out.
For what it's worth I think taking eyes off what may give us the fright of our lives 10 years from now is a poor course of action. Do we want to take the fight to the baddies under friendly skies, or hand over supremacy of the air to the other team?
Sorry, it's a bit of a running joke (or open sore?) in Oz since RAAF handed over the new S-70s to Army in the late 1980s.
Quite agree, senior officers squabbling over their slice of the pie is an unedifying sight. When the pie is either shrinking, or is perceived to be shrinking, the worst in people is brought out.
For what it's worth I think taking eyes off what may give us the fright of our lives 10 years from now is a poor course of action. Do we want to take the fight to the baddies under friendly skies, or hand over supremacy of the air to the other team?
Also, the Americans are now operating in Afghanistan with a date set to begin drawdown. It is not obvious that this is the right moment to massacre the rest of the UK's key capabilities to pour money into "Afg kit"...
Did you hear the one about the two shipwrecked sailors on a raft? One said to the other - "So who did win the cyberwar?" But the other one had died of hypothermia after the ship sank, so he couldn't answer.
Did you hear the one about the two shipwrecked sailors on a raft? One said to the other - "So who did win the cyberwar?" But the other one had died of hypothermia after the ship sank, so he couldn't answer.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd also add that it's interesting to see how Government priorities change.
You may be interested to read how a previous Government (Labour again) had neglected the Country's conventional defences. Happily the subsequent investment meant that we won the Cold War.
It's a good job we have more than 74 air defence aircraft to deploy (ergo defend the UK) nowadays (tongue in cheek BTW) ..................................... But I suppose we'll never face a resurgent Russia with over 200 conventional aircraft. They're our friends after all.
And the date:
You may be interested to read how a previous Government (Labour again) had neglected the Country's conventional defences. Happily the subsequent investment meant that we won the Cold War.
It's a good job we have more than 74 air defence aircraft to deploy (ergo defend the UK) nowadays (tongue in cheek BTW) ..................................... But I suppose we'll never face a resurgent Russia with over 200 conventional aircraft. They're our friends after all.
And the date:
Last edited by Geehovah; 16th Jan 2010 at 14:04.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite agree, senior officers squabbling over their slice of the pie is an unedifying sight. When the pie is either shrinking, or is perceived to be shrinking, the worst in people is brought out.
Seems like nothing has really changed.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Eastbourne, UK
Age: 99
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cutbacks
From today's Daily Mail I understand that the Government is also considering cutting back the funding of the BBMF. What a disgrace! The cost of the BBMF is £3,000,000, less than 0.1% of the MoD's £36.9 billion budget and 1% of the £300 million paid in bonuses to civil servants in the Whitehall ministry. I hope all of you will be prepared with your strong protests if this should be planned.
All passengers on the outrage bus, please alight at the next stop!
Daily Mail Article - BBMF News
Battle of Britain Memorial Flight - News
'You may have seen the article in the Daily Mail today speculating about the future of the BBMF. Air Command have advised us that the potential demise of the BBMF as a cost saving measure is untrue;
There is no plan to cut any funding from the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. We routinely review all spending to balance our resources and focus on the highest priority - operations in Afghanistan. A wide range of options are always considered in each annual planning round but not all of these are taken.'
TJ
Daily Mail Article - BBMF News
Battle of Britain Memorial Flight - News
'You may have seen the article in the Daily Mail today speculating about the future of the BBMF. Air Command have advised us that the potential demise of the BBMF as a cost saving measure is untrue;
There is no plan to cut any funding from the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. We routinely review all spending to balance our resources and focus on the highest priority - operations in Afghanistan. A wide range of options are always considered in each annual planning round but not all of these are taken.'
TJ
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A spokesman said in a statement: “We are satisfied we have the flexibility to launch as many aircraft as the situation requires.”
Don't you just love them... the "spokesmen"
£3m for the BBMF? Sounds like an awful lot of money to keep these planes flying. I'm sure OFMC or TFC could do the job for a lot less, and get some serious sponsorship into the bargain. Listen chaps, when you're flat broke you can't be sentimental about these things. Everything should be up for grabs.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTDT, I may have been a little petulant in my MBT/bayonet anaology but far less than a retired one-star who should be mature enough not to call the RAF a flying club; I wonder which particular staff college he went to. 
The fact is that the MBTs aren't being used. Nor have they been used for anything other than one or two phases of any campaign. Meanwhile, the stuff that is there throughout (ISTAR, CAS, CAP, AT, SH, AH, Warrior, infantry, logistics (lots of), signals, medics etc) are all suffering. It may surprise you that I agree there should be far more teeth arm troops. But maybe the focus for rationalisation should be spread across all three services rather than only having a pop at the RN and RAF.
I used to work with the Army (as an SH chap) and the bit that really grated was their inability to be flexible as far as unit formation was concerned (at the time concepts such as combined arms or joint fires were looked upon as a massively new and exciting whereas those of us in the RAF just looked upon them as common sense and nothing new). Call it regimental cap-badge arrogance or just plain ignorance, I don't know. What I do know is that we in the RAF made the effort to understand the needs, requirements and capabilities of the Army; we tried to be purple. I rarely saw anything other than an aloof, "you're here to support us" attitude in return. Sure, we had a pecking order in the RAF but the bottom line was that everyone actually realised where the priorities lay. In particular, I became most disillusioned at Staff College where many of my fellow students paid lip service to learning about the two blue services; we were most definitely looked upon third class citizens. Later I saw sycophantic colonels running around operational Div/Corps HQs trying to please their lords and masters with endless, beautifully scribed estimates whilst constantly manoeuvring to undermine their compatriots, almost completely losing sight of the actual task. For an equal ranked/status 'blue job' to offer a view was scorned upon; we were G3 Air and should only talk when talked to. Pity really as the other fighting troops I worked with (Royal Marines) were the epitome of intelligent, informed, fierce warriors who had a far greater understanding of the overall, Joint dynamic. It was a delight to work with them.
Anyway, the rantings of this particular retired RAF officer probably will not make much of a difference. I suppose it is time for a sherry.
The fact is that the MBTs aren't being used. Nor have they been used for anything other than one or two phases of any campaign. Meanwhile, the stuff that is there throughout (ISTAR, CAS, CAP, AT, SH, AH, Warrior, infantry, logistics (lots of), signals, medics etc) are all suffering. It may surprise you that I agree there should be far more teeth arm troops. But maybe the focus for rationalisation should be spread across all three services rather than only having a pop at the RN and RAF.
I used to work with the Army (as an SH chap) and the bit that really grated was their inability to be flexible as far as unit formation was concerned (at the time concepts such as combined arms or joint fires were looked upon as a massively new and exciting whereas those of us in the RAF just looked upon them as common sense and nothing new). Call it regimental cap-badge arrogance or just plain ignorance, I don't know. What I do know is that we in the RAF made the effort to understand the needs, requirements and capabilities of the Army; we tried to be purple. I rarely saw anything other than an aloof, "you're here to support us" attitude in return. Sure, we had a pecking order in the RAF but the bottom line was that everyone actually realised where the priorities lay. In particular, I became most disillusioned at Staff College where many of my fellow students paid lip service to learning about the two blue services; we were most definitely looked upon third class citizens. Later I saw sycophantic colonels running around operational Div/Corps HQs trying to please their lords and masters with endless, beautifully scribed estimates whilst constantly manoeuvring to undermine their compatriots, almost completely losing sight of the actual task. For an equal ranked/status 'blue job' to offer a view was scorned upon; we were G3 Air and should only talk when talked to. Pity really as the other fighting troops I worked with (Royal Marines) were the epitome of intelligent, informed, fierce warriors who had a far greater understanding of the overall, Joint dynamic. It was a delight to work with them.
Anyway, the rantings of this particular retired RAF officer probably will not make much of a difference. I suppose it is time for a sherry.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In your nav bag.
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GBZ, in the apparent absence of proper comprehension/reading, I'll spell it out a little clearer.
I'd be interested to know where exactly you think I have suggested gapping any capabilities. In fact I explicitly said quite the opposite:
I'd also like to know your take on the allocation of (insufficient) funding, would you find it preferable to hamstring current ops in order to prepare for a potential/imagined threat?
The fact of the matter is that we need to get value for our meagre resources, though more resources would be preferable! Reducing commitments would help enormously, but neglecting them would not!
I wonder how many aircraft would be required to deal with the situation of a bucket of sunshine having already been dropped on the lovely seaside resort of Hull. The fact of the matter remains that right now AD is a flying club. Sure they may cease to be in the future, and whether that day comes before pilotless fighters are the norm will only be known with the passage of time.
I'd be interested to know where exactly you think I have suggested gapping any capabilities. In fact I explicitly said quite the opposite:
It is, of course, absolutely correct that we should have a military equipped for all eventualities that may befall the shores or interests of this island, in the absence of any dependence on our allies
The fact of the matter is that we need to get value for our meagre resources, though more resources would be preferable! Reducing commitments would help enormously, but neglecting them would not!
I wonder how many aircraft would be required to deal with the situation of a bucket of sunshine having already been dropped on the lovely seaside resort of Hull. The fact of the matter remains that right now AD is a flying club. Sure they may cease to be in the future, and whether that day comes before pilotless fighters are the norm will only be known with the passage of time.