Defence is at a crossroads - The Times
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK- so we disband the junionr service and give all helos to the brown jobs and shirtlifter wafu's. We contract out AT to Dickie B and cadge all other options off the septics.
When (and believe me it is when, not if) the next war comes and we all get bombed to sh*t and lose the war as we have no Air Force what do we do then?
A salutory lesson would be GW1 where an intense bombing campaign = much less opposition ( Note I do not, and will not ever lessen or question the bravery and sacrifice of those involved. I merely said there was less of the enemy numerically than before)
You can jump up and down, stamp your feet and shout louder than me that the current war is more important - more important than what. A home? A nation where we can recoup, rearm and attack from again?
Do not be led down this blind folly that a COIN op ( against an enemy who may not even be there (Al Q) and we have been suckered into fighting the Afghan who will fight anyone who is there ) is the be all and end all for this nations forces.
As to those of you who doubt why we are in FI - Oil. FI gives us claim to Antarctica and the mineral wealth therein.
The bottom line is we should not be arguing about diverting all our defence budget to AFG but standing shoulder to shoulder and saying we MUST HAVE a bigger piece of pie.
This country is not broke. It has been mismanged to hell and all the money goes the wrong way.
If we do nothing and chop services we will eventually reap the whirlwind.
Most money spent in the defence does not get wasted - everything you buy and use has to be made. you all eat and drink. If we start buying more british produce we will help dig our nation out of the pooh.
When (and believe me it is when, not if) the next war comes and we all get bombed to sh*t and lose the war as we have no Air Force what do we do then?
A salutory lesson would be GW1 where an intense bombing campaign = much less opposition ( Note I do not, and will not ever lessen or question the bravery and sacrifice of those involved. I merely said there was less of the enemy numerically than before)
You can jump up and down, stamp your feet and shout louder than me that the current war is more important - more important than what. A home? A nation where we can recoup, rearm and attack from again?
Do not be led down this blind folly that a COIN op ( against an enemy who may not even be there (Al Q) and we have been suckered into fighting the Afghan who will fight anyone who is there ) is the be all and end all for this nations forces.
As to those of you who doubt why we are in FI - Oil. FI gives us claim to Antarctica and the mineral wealth therein.
The bottom line is we should not be arguing about diverting all our defence budget to AFG but standing shoulder to shoulder and saying we MUST HAVE a bigger piece of pie.
This country is not broke. It has been mismanged to hell and all the money goes the wrong way.
If we do nothing and chop services we will eventually reap the whirlwind.
Most money spent in the defence does not get wasted - everything you buy and use has to be made. you all eat and drink. If we start buying more british produce we will help dig our nation out of the pooh.
Perhaps the review ought to start with a long term review of our foreign policy & security objectives? Our priority should be to defend our territory not to put the world to rights. Sure, we should play our part in NATO and whatever joint forces Europe eventually decides to put together, but only as long as there is consensus on action and an equal shouldering of any commitment.
I wonder what condition the armed forces would have been in had we not opted to support America in Iraq? They would have been more than happy to invade without us.
I wonder what condition the armed forces would have been in had we not opted to support America in Iraq? They would have been more than happy to invade without us.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The reality - and it is reality, I'm sorry to say - is that there are painful cuts coming, irrespective of who wins the election. David Cameron was explicitly asked about this this morning at his launch of the Tory's national security strategy (nb, not defence) and replied that defence "was not ringfenced" and that "we will do more with less".
How much less? Malcolm Chalmers at RUSI (http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR_5.pdf) reckons that it could be 5% over the years to 2013/14 if we're lucky. His assumptions are in my view massively optimistic, and in line with the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the most likely scenario is a cut of about 15 or 16% - £5.5bn a year in 2013/14.
Full marks to Cameron for at least being honest. But it's going to be bloody, and the BBMF and the Reds are just the start. Remember, the RN's Historic Flight are privately funded(ish). It doesn't fill my heart with joy as a light blue, but make no mistake, many cows - sacred and otherwise - are going to get slotted over the next 18 months.
S41
The reality - and it is reality, I'm sorry to say - is that there are painful cuts coming, irrespective of who wins the election. David Cameron was explicitly asked about this this morning at his launch of the Tory's national security strategy (nb, not defence) and replied that defence "was not ringfenced" and that "we will do more with less".
How much less? Malcolm Chalmers at RUSI (http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR_5.pdf) reckons that it could be 5% over the years to 2013/14 if we're lucky. His assumptions are in my view massively optimistic, and in line with the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the most likely scenario is a cut of about 15 or 16% - £5.5bn a year in 2013/14.
Full marks to Cameron for at least being honest. But it's going to be bloody, and the BBMF and the Reds are just the start. Remember, the RN's Historic Flight are privately funded(ish). It doesn't fill my heart with joy as a light blue, but make no mistake, many cows - sacred and otherwise - are going to get slotted over the next 18 months.
S41
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Geehova
And the date:
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This country is not broke. It has been mismanged to hell and all the money goes the wrong way.
We will, like it or not, get hammered. Clearly we could look at cuts elsewhere, like stopping welfare payouts to those who are on the make, but with limited manufacturing base, we've got little to sell to make that money.
El Gordo really has cocked this one up in style (not just the recent shambles but the last 10+ yrs).
I don't agree that we should be in the business of cutting capabilities, but we clearly don't need 100s of Typhoon. Sell a load and let's get what our punters need-more SH and AT. 22 chinooks are a start, but that's at the price of the Merlins. We (and I'm saying this on a daily basis at the moment) need to remember we're in the business of supporting the troops on the ground; failure to do so will seal our fate.
The War is NOT the Air War. Make CAS a SH dude. CDS Army, not some irrelevant cold war FJ REMF.
Last edited by Farfrompuken; 17th Jan 2010 at 03:42.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Telegraph: Tories could use aid money for defence budget
Here is a story that may interest you concerning the future funding of Britain's armed forces.
David Cameron: Tories could use aid money for defence budget - Telegraph
A paragraph that captures the essence of the story:
David Cameron: Tories could use aid money for defence budget - Telegraph
A paragraph that captures the essence of the story:
"..some Tories believe the party can honour that pledge [ 0.7% of GNP on aid] by counting some spending done by the Ministry of Defence as development aid, since the work of the Armed Forces contributes to the development of countries like Afghanistan"
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the review ought to start with a long term review of our foreign policy & security objectives?
Army chief calls for more troops and fewer ships to fight wars against insurgents
Army chief calls for more troops and fewer ships to fight wars against insurgents - Telegraph
[QUOTE]The head of the Army has said that more troops and fewer ships are needed as the changing face of warfare requires the most radical changes to military tactics for more than 80 years.[/QUOTE]
So then, UBL has had SATCOM and broadband installed in Tora Bora and is going to nobble our electricity and gas supplies and air traffic systems is he? Well fair play to him if he has. But this does beg the question .... why Sir David, do we need thousands of more troops to defeat a cyber warfare savvy opponent? With all due respect to the incredibly dogged and brave troops slogging it out on a daily basis, if that is the threat we are facing in the future, thousands of regular infantry are exactly what we don't need.
If the way ahead is hi-tech cyber war, then I'm afraid the days of the regular infantry are limited and we are looking at hi-tech agencies, SF and intelligence led wars.
Care to re-think or have you really just shown the flaws in your Afghan army-centric thinking that most sane operators can see?
[QUOTE]The head of the Army has said that more troops and fewer ships are needed as the changing face of warfare requires the most radical changes to military tactics for more than 80 years.[/QUOTE]
General Sir David Richards, Chief of the General Staff, said that the rules of war had been rewritten by the challenges of fighting insurgents and the armed forces were now facing a new “horse versus tank moment” – when cavalry was phased out in favour of tanks in the First World War.
With a defence review set to follow a spring general election, Sir David said that it was time to rethink conventional “old-war fighting” involving heavy armour and ships.
Sir David suggested that more troops, unmanned spy planes and high-tech cyber-defences would have to be paid for by slashing the budget for ships and fighter jets.
"Soldiers give you the most choice and the most utility in today's sort of conflict”.
He continued: "People say I'm only talking about war with non-state actors [such as the Taliban]. I'm not. I'm saying this is how even war between states is more likely to be fought in the future."
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the military has faced a string of counterinsurgency or stabilisation operations in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sir David said: "In our heart of hearts, we thought that was an aberration and we'd go back to jolly old war-fighting like in the western desert or a hot version [with battle lines drawn] of the cold war."
But the general said the examples of Basra and Helmand have proved "unsophisticated opponents with very cheap weaponry" can pose severe threats – and said that future opponents were likely to use similar tactics.
"Why would you not learn a lesson from that and think, 'Actually, that's how I would bring down great nations and great alliances, much more subtly, cleverly and at much less risk'?" he said.
Sir David, who is due to speak today at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said he lived in "the real world" and envisaged significant spending cuts in the defence review.
He insisted that Britain still needed ships, aircraft and tanks. But there may have to be fewer of them because more soldiers are required, along with more helicopters to carry them.
Last month the Government announced that a £900 million package of 22 new helicopters, body armour and other support for troops in Afghanistan would be funded by closing a Royal Air Force base and scrapping a squadron of Harrier jets. In addition, two Navy ships will be retired early.
The move led to former military chiefs questioning whether the focus on Afghanistan risked leaving Britain exposed to other threats.
Sir David, however, compared critics to the cavalry officers who insisted, long after the introduction of the tank in the first world war, that it would never replace horses.
He also said that Britain will need to develop better defensive and offensive measures to ward off cyber-attacks.
With a defence review set to follow a spring general election, Sir David said that it was time to rethink conventional “old-war fighting” involving heavy armour and ships.
Sir David suggested that more troops, unmanned spy planes and high-tech cyber-defences would have to be paid for by slashing the budget for ships and fighter jets.
"Soldiers give you the most choice and the most utility in today's sort of conflict”.
He continued: "People say I'm only talking about war with non-state actors [such as the Taliban]. I'm not. I'm saying this is how even war between states is more likely to be fought in the future."
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the military has faced a string of counterinsurgency or stabilisation operations in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sir David said: "In our heart of hearts, we thought that was an aberration and we'd go back to jolly old war-fighting like in the western desert or a hot version [with battle lines drawn] of the cold war."
But the general said the examples of Basra and Helmand have proved "unsophisticated opponents with very cheap weaponry" can pose severe threats – and said that future opponents were likely to use similar tactics.
"Why would you not learn a lesson from that and think, 'Actually, that's how I would bring down great nations and great alliances, much more subtly, cleverly and at much less risk'?" he said.
Sir David, who is due to speak today at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said he lived in "the real world" and envisaged significant spending cuts in the defence review.
He insisted that Britain still needed ships, aircraft and tanks. But there may have to be fewer of them because more soldiers are required, along with more helicopters to carry them.
Last month the Government announced that a £900 million package of 22 new helicopters, body armour and other support for troops in Afghanistan would be funded by closing a Royal Air Force base and scrapping a squadron of Harrier jets. In addition, two Navy ships will be retired early.
The move led to former military chiefs questioning whether the focus on Afghanistan risked leaving Britain exposed to other threats.
Sir David, however, compared critics to the cavalry officers who insisted, long after the introduction of the tank in the first world war, that it would never replace horses.
He also said that Britain will need to develop better defensive and offensive measures to ward off cyber-attacks.
If the way ahead is hi-tech cyber war, then I'm afraid the days of the regular infantry are limited and we are looking at hi-tech agencies, SF and intelligence led wars.
Care to re-think or have you really just shown the flaws in your Afghan army-centric thinking that most sane operators can see?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bury St Edmunds.
Age: 60
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just a civvy but I can see that there's some truth in what the General says. We do face different forms of threat but surely we have to cover all of the possibilities and that includes what some would call traditional threats.
I simply don't trust the politicians I'm afraid. Is there a conspiracy to reduce our forces at all costs as part of a carefully managed decline of this nation. Are they perceived as a drain on the public purse as money spent on them does not win votes. I would argue against that last point at this moment in our history as there's a massive appreciation out there now for what the military is doing for us.
Surely all in each of the services should not be arguing with each other as I frequently see on this forum. What should be happening is a one for all approach to ask why the hell is defence spending already too low and why the hell are further big cuts even being considered when we can send India £800m for their schools, afford to give banks billions, allow immigrants into the country at such a rate, send millions to Brussels every day, not trim 50 % of the fat from Health, Education, local authorites and every "centrally controlled" government department (including the MoD.)
Too much red tape, bureaucracy, too many regulations and the fact that we're over governed by politicians who are concerned that their importance will wither on the vine if they're not involved in every thing that we do.
God we've got it so wrong in the UK. Time for radical changes maybe. Take responsibility for funding the armed forcs away from politicians.
Less of my babble, too much highland juice affecting the brain.
Sorry to go on.
I simply don't trust the politicians I'm afraid. Is there a conspiracy to reduce our forces at all costs as part of a carefully managed decline of this nation. Are they perceived as a drain on the public purse as money spent on them does not win votes. I would argue against that last point at this moment in our history as there's a massive appreciation out there now for what the military is doing for us.
Surely all in each of the services should not be arguing with each other as I frequently see on this forum. What should be happening is a one for all approach to ask why the hell is defence spending already too low and why the hell are further big cuts even being considered when we can send India £800m for their schools, afford to give banks billions, allow immigrants into the country at such a rate, send millions to Brussels every day, not trim 50 % of the fat from Health, Education, local authorites and every "centrally controlled" government department (including the MoD.)
Too much red tape, bureaucracy, too many regulations and the fact that we're over governed by politicians who are concerned that their importance will wither on the vine if they're not involved in every thing that we do.
God we've got it so wrong in the UK. Time for radical changes maybe. Take responsibility for funding the armed forcs away from politicians.
Less of my babble, too much highland juice affecting the brain.
Sorry to go on.
General Richard's comments does highlight the muddled thinking in the higher echelons of the armed forces - it sounds like he's been told about cyber-warfare by one of his staff but has absolutely no idea what it is. Perhaps he's planning to procure Modern Warfare 2 to get his troops up to speed?
Cameron's comment about dipping into the aid budget is a bit left-field as well. The military have found a useful role in supporting humanitarian operations however it shouldn't be their primary raison d'etre (as the army would have you believe watching their TV ads). There are plenty of NGOs who can do these jobs, probably at a fraction of the cost.
Cameron's comment about dipping into the aid budget is a bit left-field as well. The military have found a useful role in supporting humanitarian operations however it shouldn't be their primary raison d'etre (as the army would have you believe watching their TV ads). There are plenty of NGOs who can do these jobs, probably at a fraction of the cost.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Berks, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe it is a horses Vs tanks moment, but I read his statement almost as advocating replacing tanks with horses, rather than the other way around! You'd never guess he was an Army man, would you...
Guzlin, I'd agree about not trusting politicians, but I'd argue that the senior ranks are as political as the worst of politicians now.
Defence needs more money. Full stop. We need to fight the war we're fighting, yes! We also need to protect the bloody country and remember what the point of defence is! Why the hell generals / admirals / air marshals are trying to get one over on each other and even offering cuts in baseline capability god only knows! Man up, pull together, and say NO to the bloody politicians! Defence is peanuts now in the grand scheme of things!
It strikes me that this country, and the organisations and companies in it (and I count my ex-employer in that list) have failed and completely lost sight of their core business and reason for being, and got completely distracted by fluff and triviality and targets and mission statements and crap!
Guzlin, I'd agree about not trusting politicians, but I'd argue that the senior ranks are as political as the worst of politicians now.
Defence needs more money. Full stop. We need to fight the war we're fighting, yes! We also need to protect the bloody country and remember what the point of defence is! Why the hell generals / admirals / air marshals are trying to get one over on each other and even offering cuts in baseline capability god only knows! Man up, pull together, and say NO to the bloody politicians! Defence is peanuts now in the grand scheme of things!
It strikes me that this country, and the organisations and companies in it (and I count my ex-employer in that list) have failed and completely lost sight of their core business and reason for being, and got completely distracted by fluff and triviality and targets and mission statements and crap!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one who sees this as slightly single service centric for a potential future CDS?
His arguments may have a few flaws:
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the military has faced a string of counterinsurgency or stabilisation operations in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. Didn't the Balkans and Iraq campaigns start with a "minor" contribution by Air?
Britain will need to develop better defensive and offensive measures to ward off cyber-attacks. I'd be interested to see the Army plans for Cyber and I don't mean Military Influence.
Britain still needed ships, aircraft and tanks. But there may have to be fewer of them because more soldiers are required, along with more helicopters to carry them. Does that mean a large mobile army with no air or maritime capacity. Are they planning to walk to the next theatre of ops. And I won't get back onto air superiority over the battlefield.
Hi ho........
His arguments may have a few flaws:
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the military has faced a string of counterinsurgency or stabilisation operations in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. Didn't the Balkans and Iraq campaigns start with a "minor" contribution by Air?
Britain will need to develop better defensive and offensive measures to ward off cyber-attacks. I'd be interested to see the Army plans for Cyber and I don't mean Military Influence.
Britain still needed ships, aircraft and tanks. But there may have to be fewer of them because more soldiers are required, along with more helicopters to carry them. Does that mean a large mobile army with no air or maritime capacity. Are they planning to walk to the next theatre of ops. And I won't get back onto air superiority over the battlefield.
Hi ho........
I have got to say, that my blood is boiling! I thought with the departure of the last CAS and CNS that the MOD had entered a new era of trying to work together to save the collective skin. How naive of me! His comments totally omit many of the other tasks and interests that the UK has around the world, especially economic ones. The earthquake in Haiti has shown quite clearly the utility of both strategic air transport and naval forces in situation other than warfighting. I echo the sentiments above. How does the good general think his troops are going to get to theatre, how will they get fed and supplied with fuel and ammunition, who will provide them with CAS and ISTAR? Certainly not the many Challenger IIs sat in hangars in Germany. What will the UK do when we are competing for mineral and food resources in remote parts of the world such as Antarctica and around all those other, very valuable little bits of rock that we have around the world.
He has declared his hand very early and publicly and his comments are not helpful in the current situation, with an SDR and a new Government on the way. The other services would do well to sit up and note!
He has declared his hand very early and publicly and his comments are not helpful in the current situation, with an SDR and a new Government on the way. The other services would do well to sit up and note!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would love to see his opinions on the growing threat from global piracy and how we protect our future energy requirements in the future, especially in his brown job world lots more troops is the answer?
Resource war anyone? Likely to be fought as a proxy war in a far flung land with state sponsorship of a despot regime. Like to see how useful thousands of extra troops will be without the mobility offered by Sea, force projection offered by a Sea/Air mix and air superiority provided. He would be well advised to read monty's comments on this issue for a start.
What concerns me most is the fact the article in the telegraph makes it blatantly clear he has not idea of where the most likely threat to UK security will come from.
Lots of extra boots on the ground might be cheap and impressive on paper (great for politicians) unfortunately, its F*ck all use to protect out way of life, especially with the way the world is going over the next 50 years.
Resource war anyone? Likely to be fought as a proxy war in a far flung land with state sponsorship of a despot regime. Like to see how useful thousands of extra troops will be without the mobility offered by Sea, force projection offered by a Sea/Air mix and air superiority provided. He would be well advised to read monty's comments on this issue for a start.
What concerns me most is the fact the article in the telegraph makes it blatantly clear he has not idea of where the most likely threat to UK security will come from.
Lots of extra boots on the ground might be cheap and impressive on paper (great for politicians) unfortunately, its F*ck all use to protect out way of life, especially with the way the world is going over the next 50 years.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WhizzzWheel. Clearly I did misunderstand you and misattributed to you a gift for comedy. Sorry about that.
You see, to be comprehended, you really need to avoid writing things like
in close formation with
To my, no doubt, simple loggie mind, that averages out as pretty negative and will result in "gaps". To that, my salient point remains
That was my answer to the question you had not yet asked
Now if I could be tedious and re-ask my earlier question, prompted by your
What is the prime objective in the ‘Stan that makes everything else secondary?
You see, to be comprehended, you really need to avoid writing things like
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
unfortunately we are a few billion quid short of this mark
To my, no doubt, simple loggie mind, that averages out as pretty negative and will result in "gaps". To that, my salient point remains
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.
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 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.
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU; 18th Jan 2010 at 15:16.
Untitled
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Transatlantic
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Response to General Richards forthcoming:
Military strength vital: Navy chief - Yahoo! News UK
Military strength vital: Navy chief
The head of the Royal Navy will warn that Britain must maintain its military capabilities if it is to retain its influence in the world.
In what appears to indicate significant differences with the chief of the Army, First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope will stress the continued importance of the UK's "hard power".
His comments follow General Sir David Richards' call for a "radical" shift in priorities, away from "hugely expensive" equipment towards getting more troops on the ground.
The Chief of the General Staff said future conflicts would require an unprecedented focus on hearts and minds initiatives rather than conventional military might.
But, amid fears that major defence equipment programmes may be on the line, Admiral Stanhope will insist that Britain needs a fleet that can handle "high-intensity warfare".
Arguing that the Armed Forces needs to win wars with "hard power", he will say: "We must look beyond Afghanistan... we must be prepared for surprises and strategic shocks.
"The Falklands war was such an event. It came in from left-field."
The difference of emphasis between the two services chiefs comes amid a review of defence policy.
Initial proposals are due to be published in a Green Paper early this year.
General Richards told the International Institute for Strategic Studies: "Future wars of mass manoeuvre are more likely to be fought through the minds of millions of people looking at computer and television screens than on some modern equivalent of the Cold War's North German Plain."
The head of the Royal Navy will warn that Britain must maintain its military capabilities if it is to retain its influence in the world.
In what appears to indicate significant differences with the chief of the Army, First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope will stress the continued importance of the UK's "hard power".
His comments follow General Sir David Richards' call for a "radical" shift in priorities, away from "hugely expensive" equipment towards getting more troops on the ground.
The Chief of the General Staff said future conflicts would require an unprecedented focus on hearts and minds initiatives rather than conventional military might.
But, amid fears that major defence equipment programmes may be on the line, Admiral Stanhope will insist that Britain needs a fleet that can handle "high-intensity warfare".
Arguing that the Armed Forces needs to win wars with "hard power", he will say: "We must look beyond Afghanistan... we must be prepared for surprises and strategic shocks.
"The Falklands war was such an event. It came in from left-field."
The difference of emphasis between the two services chiefs comes amid a review of defence policy.
Initial proposals are due to be published in a Green Paper early this year.
General Richards told the International Institute for Strategic Studies: "Future wars of mass manoeuvre are more likely to be fought through the minds of millions of people looking at computer and television screens than on some modern equivalent of the Cold War's North German Plain."
Personally, I find it quite sad that our very senior officers see fit to air their dirty washing in public this way. Maybe I am missing something.
I think Afghanistan is the last Hurrah for the forseeable future. The resources will be given, for the shortest possible time, to to allow the Government to get out of the situation and 'spin' it to declare it a roaring success.
Thereafter Cameron will in no way wish to repeat the same mistakes as Blair. He will not want to be tarnished in History for commiting the country to unwinnable/unpopular/illegal(?) wars at the behest of America.
Consequently his focus is on 'different approaches' to International troubles and concentrating on 'the home front'. In other words, I am not going to use you unless hell freezes over. That means there are deep cuts to be made.
I think it will be the same if Labour is returned.
What a desperate situation.
I think Afghanistan is the last Hurrah for the forseeable future. The resources will be given, for the shortest possible time, to to allow the Government to get out of the situation and 'spin' it to declare it a roaring success.
Thereafter Cameron will in no way wish to repeat the same mistakes as Blair. He will not want to be tarnished in History for commiting the country to unwinnable/unpopular/illegal(?) wars at the behest of America.
Consequently his focus is on 'different approaches' to International troubles and concentrating on 'the home front'. In other words, I am not going to use you unless hell freezes over. That means there are deep cuts to be made.
I think it will be the same if Labour is returned.
What a desperate situation.
Wyler,
Why is it a desperate situation?
If you think that neither political party is going to be deploying armed forces for the foreseeable future then cuts are the right thing to do, especially as we need to reduce public expenditure pretty rapidly.
You can't just exist for the sake of existing you know.
Why is it a desperate situation?
If you think that neither political party is going to be deploying armed forces for the foreseeable future then cuts are the right thing to do, especially as we need to reduce public expenditure pretty rapidly.
You can't just exist for the sake of existing you know.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pr00ne. Are you suggesting that HM’s Armed Forces should only exist if they are actually being used to do stuff? The whole point is that they are needed in case they might have to do stuff.
It’s been likened previously to an insurance policy. They are pretty tedious and expensive; until they day you need it and find that being un or underinsured wasn’t your brightest household finance move.
It’s been likened previously to an insurance policy. They are pretty tedious and expensive; until they day you need it and find that being un or underinsured wasn’t your brightest household finance move.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The last time someone made cuts olong those currently proposed was the Geddes Committee in 1921. The result was the "RAF Flying Club" of the late 20s and early 30s.
Unfortunately we don't have the Schneider cup to keep development going, and ramping up production when needed takes a lot longer than 1-2 years as well.
As for being able to see 10-20 years ahead, who foresaw the fall of the USSR, the Falklands war, the first Gulf war etc.
Unfortunately we don't have the Schneider cup to keep development going, and ramping up production when needed takes a lot longer than 1-2 years as well.
As for being able to see 10-20 years ahead, who foresaw the fall of the USSR, the Falklands war, the first Gulf war etc.