British Army’s most senior officer: UAV's over JSF?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: S England
Age: 54
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short sighted, parochial and badly informed. Aligning our forces to cope with our current set of circumstances and arrogantly assuming all future wars will be fought this way is beyond the pale
Of course we should plan for the future, but British Servicemen and Women are dieing NOW, because they haven't got what they need in enough numbers. Should we continue to sacrifice them, so that we are better equipped for a war that might never happen? It remindes me of those survival courses I/we did/do; Do you save water for future days (and then die of thirst), or do you take the water you need when you need it, in the hope you have some more later?
Maybe a little harsh. Just wonder to what extent the good General is air-educated
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 57 Mount Pleasant St
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with the posted article, or the sentiment of it at least. It's an old story but the truth of any conflict is that you need boots on the ground to hold it, changing that ground takes time and takes more boots. Supporting those boots has to be the priority..doesn't it?
I can understand the single service cries of unfair! and "how dare the thick Army bloke suggest such a thing" but when most people look slightly beyond their own (possibly) blinkered view I think that deep down they know that the most likely conflicts that our young men and women will be involved in are of the type that we currently have in AFG.
Just my opinion.
I can understand the single service cries of unfair! and "how dare the thick Army bloke suggest such a thing" but when most people look slightly beyond their own (possibly) blinkered view I think that deep down they know that the most likely conflicts that our young men and women will be involved in are of the type that we currently have in AFG.
Just my opinion.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 65
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the hell is CDS doing? Why is he allowing the various chiefs of the armed forces to slag each other's capabilities off? Why isn't he either more vocal in his leadership of the Armed Forces, or telling his subordinate commanders to STFU!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Wales
Age: 63
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you here would be interested in reading a 200+ page, glossy magazine, simply called “The British Army”.
There are many fascinating articles within the magazine on just about every aspect of the Army you can think of. However, of interest to this thread (and some others) are the following articles:
“Types of Campaigns the Army must be prepared to fight”
“Understanding the Different Service Perspectives”
“The Joint Force in Current and Future Campaigns”
“An Airman’s View”
I’m afraid that I cannot find anything on the web about the magazine; however the following information may be helpful in locating a copy:
The British Army – Editor Chris Donnelly – Published 2009
Printed by Buxton Press ISBN 978-1-906940-10-2
Published by NewsDesk Communications Ltd - Newsdesk Communications Ltd - Homepage
Failing that I would ask your GLO or any Army mate you might have.
I highly recommend the read if you can locate a copy!
There are many fascinating articles within the magazine on just about every aspect of the Army you can think of. However, of interest to this thread (and some others) are the following articles:
“Types of Campaigns the Army must be prepared to fight”
“Understanding the Different Service Perspectives”
“The Joint Force in Current and Future Campaigns”
“An Airman’s View”
I’m afraid that I cannot find anything on the web about the magazine; however the following information may be helpful in locating a copy:
The British Army – Editor Chris Donnelly – Published 2009
Printed by Buxton Press ISBN 978-1-906940-10-2
Published by NewsDesk Communications Ltd - Newsdesk Communications Ltd - Homepage
Failing that I would ask your GLO or any Army mate you might have.
I highly recommend the read if you can locate a copy!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Berks, UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chicken Leg, you might be right... but even if we were to spend the money now, we wouldn't get the capability until after we're supposed to be pulling out! By which point the conflict will most likely have changed, and we'll need different kit that we probably got rid of in the rush to pay for kit that we no longer need!
What is the UK military primarily for? To defend the UK and its dependancies and interests. Lets not lose sight of that! Because this high-level infighting is self-defeating, and all 3 services will lose out more than if they all pulled together!
What is the UK military primarily for? To defend the UK and its dependancies and interests. Lets not lose sight of that! Because this high-level infighting is self-defeating, and all 3 services will lose out more than if they all pulled together!
Gentleman Aviator
"Divide and conquer" eh? Politicians of all colours must be chuckling now at the in-fighting. CAS's turn next now he's finished writing to the papers about the Mull.......
Just about the right timing for the general public to get royally p!$$ed off with "Defence" and go along with massive Defence Cuts ......
Just about the right timing for the general public to get royally p!$$ed off with "Defence" and go along with massive Defence Cuts ......
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
CDS? Fighting to keep his job.
Defence of the Homeland? That will really bring the recruits flocking in.
Replace Tiffin with Guiness will really get people rushing to be pilots; well actually it probably would we there would be more
Defence of the Homeland? That will really bring the recruits flocking in.
Replace Tiffin with Guiness will really get people rushing to be pilots; well actually it probably would we there would be more
Sounds like BCW (Boot Centric Warfare) to me: "If I can't see it from where I'm standing, it doesn't exist."
Or the USAF "space warrior" joke about the Marine out in the hills of Iraq: "What do I need space assets for? All I need is my rifle and this" (holding up his GPS).
The Tucano idea will last as long as it did last time (armed T-28Ds in Vietnam), which is until some talented Dead-Eye Dick figures out how to teach his buddies to hit it. (It won't shoot anything bigger than a .50-cal at the outside, and as the adage has it, if the enemy is in range, so are you.) Bang, bang, and now Woopert on the ground has no CAS and two hostages to worry about.
Or the USAF "space warrior" joke about the Marine out in the hills of Iraq: "What do I need space assets for? All I need is my rifle and this" (holding up his GPS).
The Tucano idea will last as long as it did last time (armed T-28Ds in Vietnam), which is until some talented Dead-Eye Dick figures out how to teach his buddies to hit it. (It won't shoot anything bigger than a .50-cal at the outside, and as the adage has it, if the enemy is in range, so are you.) Bang, bang, and now Woopert on the ground has no CAS and two hostages to worry about.
Crewroom discussion led to the following conclusion - We're not in favour of our guys on the ground not having the right gear. But to do so right now we mortgage defence for the next 10>20 years. Not acceptable so either a) increase funding (unlikely!) or b) pull out of afghan warfighting and leave it to someone who can afford to fight there(or c accept that there will be more casualties (not acceptable!))
Back to the Falklands. Just check the share price of Desire Oil (who hold a lot of exploration rights around our beloved islands) - its risen a lot recently indicating that commercial exploitation may not be far off. May prompt someone in Buenos Aires to become interested again to restore national pride and fix the economy in one fell swoop......
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabba:
"We'd end up giving the islands back to the Argentinians."
As far as I'm aware, the Falklands were British before Argentina even existed, so less of the 'give them back' drivel please!
"We'd end up giving the islands back to the Argentinians."
As far as I'm aware, the Falklands were British before Argentina even existed, so less of the 'give them back' drivel please!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Tucano idea will last as long as it did last time (armed T-28Ds in Vietnam), which is until some talented Dead-Eye Dick figures out how to teach his buddies to hit it. (It won't shoot anything bigger than a .50-cal at the outside, and as the adage has it, if the enemy is in range, so are you.) Bang, bang, and now Woopert on the ground has no CAS and two hostages to worry about.
If you wanted to go further down the food chain, you could actually look at the mighty AAC Defender - already available, decent mid-level loiter time, and can (you might laugh) carry up to 1100lbs of external stores on wing hardpoints, including cannon-pods and rocket launcher pods, as well as kit to serve in ISR/comms role during loiter, plus flexible enough for other roles too.
Another step down (and bridging the felxibility gap with UAVs - albeit cheaper) could be the DA42M, with which can carry stand-off hellfire missiles, and has a mid-level loiter time limited mainly by pilot endurance, and virtually no infra-red or radar signature. DA42M also much more reliable than UAVs, and has genuine all-weather capability.
They're cheap and evidently capability-handicapped options compared to the full-monty RAF fantasy options which we can't afford - but perhaps they could at least provide some sort of round-the-clock cover until Apache can arrive.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile, an equal if not greater number of Taliban are pissing themselves laughing because they're winning the war armed with nothing more than $50 AK47s....
How long does it take a Tornado to get from standby at Kandahar to target on a call for CAS? How long would it take a light COIN aircraft, with decent loiter time above the target to descend from FL100 to engagement?
How long does it take a Tornado to get from standby at Kandahar to target on a call for CAS? How long would it take a light COIN aircraft, with decent loiter time above the target to descend from FL100 to engagement?
Hit a soft spot?
Various media outlets have reported on speeches given by First Sea Lord (1SL), Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, today, and Chief of the General Staff (CGS), General Sir David Richards, yesterday, comparing their visions of future defence requirements.
Some reports have suggested that the speeches reveal a rift between the Services on the subjects of balance and flexibility of forces, and what threats we are likely to face. The speeches in fact share much common ground, with the two chiefs agreeing on a number of issues from their individual perspectives.
CGS and 1SL agree that the strategic context has changed fundamentally and that the result of the next Strategic Defence Review (SDR) must be to produce a balanced force structure with capabilities that are most relevant to the future. The Armed Forces must continue to be flexible and agile enough to adapt to a variety of threats, including some that cannot be predicted.
CGS and 1SL are both agreed about the need to develop flexible forces, involving all three Services, that are capable of meeting a variety of threats.
Below are excerpts of the two speeches and display how both CGS and 1SL are agreed on the future of the two Services:
CGS: "This is not, as is often suggested, a matter of where the balance of investment should lie between the three Services. Rather this is about ensuring we achieve a balance, across all three and with allies, between our ability to fight a traditional war of air, maritime and ground kinetic manoeuvre and being able to conduct a far more difficult one amongst, with and for the people."
1SL: "A continued emphasis on further developing joint engagement, by which I mean land, sea and air elements, and operations that involve and maximise the contributions of military forces with other agencies and countries, will be increasingly important in a globalised world."
1SL and CGS both emphasised the need to work with and within international alliances and organisations in order to achieve our aims:
CGS: "Alliances are the principal means to compensate for our inability to resource military capability that is less needed in the future but cannot be completely discarded; this is how perceived risk in any particular capability area should be mitigated."
ISL: "Our forces should therefore also be able to be deployed globally and engage in long-term reassurance, stabilisation, training and prevention missions. And they must also have the means to work alongside others - international partners, government departments, civilian agencies and the civilian population. Such forces can do good for the taxpayer on a daily basis."
Both CGS and 1SL are arguing that the SDR will be the means by which the future shape and size of UK defence is decided. That this should be a Foreign-Policy-led process, and that once we have agreed what the nation's security interests are, it will then be necessary to agree how meeting those interests can be accomplished. At this point, the required capability will need to be matched to available resources:
CGS: "Spending on future defence capability is invariably about managing risk, not eliminating it. This thinking shapes rightly our strategic posture. It is how we prioritise some equipment over others, some intelligence and technological advances over others, and some force elements over others. Like any insurance, what this needs is an understanding of what must be covered fully and what can be taken at risk on the basis of alliance or likelihood."
1SL: "In conclusion, I believe that the Defence Review needs to consider focusing on UK Armed Forces, whether maritime, air or land, which are able to be configured to deliver the necessary combat power, but have utility to be able to support the protection and promotion of the national interest more widely."
CGS: "Defence must respond to the new strategic, and indeed economic, environment by ensuring much more ruthlessly that our Armed Forces are appropriate and relevant to the context in which they will operate rather than the one they might have expected to fight in in previous eras. Too much emphasis is still placed on what Secretary Gates calls 'exquisite' and hugely expensive equipment."
1SL: "Alongside a greater understanding of the strategic effect of using our forces more widely, we must also recognise that in an uncertain future where we can’t afford everything we might need, we must instead strive for forces that are flexible - and able, between them, to adapt to operate successfully across the entire spectrum of tasks that might be demanded of them."
Additionally, 1SL had this to say this morning during his speech at the Berwin Leighton Paisner Defence Breakfast:
"Much of what General Richards said last night resonates with what I'm saying today. He speaks about a hi-tech future and the need for cyber-defence, I absolutely support that. That is a battleground this nation needs to be ready to be engaged in in the future far more effectively than we are today. He speaks of flexibility, hybrid warfare and this business of high intensity warfare being a mixture of old style force-on-force and hybrid underplaying of activity. Yes, absolutely right.
"He talks about the need for a wider debate - that's why I am here, to stimulate a wider debate and discussion. He advocates a clear understanding within that debate on how much we can afford to put into defence, I absolutely agree. So whilst there is a desire to show a split between us and feed a frenzy of 'the chiefs are again at loggerheads' - we are not. We are trying to pursue a clear, well-articulated debate on what defence means."
-ends-
(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued Jan. 19, 2010)
Some reports have suggested that the speeches reveal a rift between the Services on the subjects of balance and flexibility of forces, and what threats we are likely to face. The speeches in fact share much common ground, with the two chiefs agreeing on a number of issues from their individual perspectives.
CGS and 1SL agree that the strategic context has changed fundamentally and that the result of the next Strategic Defence Review (SDR) must be to produce a balanced force structure with capabilities that are most relevant to the future. The Armed Forces must continue to be flexible and agile enough to adapt to a variety of threats, including some that cannot be predicted.
CGS and 1SL are both agreed about the need to develop flexible forces, involving all three Services, that are capable of meeting a variety of threats.
Below are excerpts of the two speeches and display how both CGS and 1SL are agreed on the future of the two Services:
CGS: "This is not, as is often suggested, a matter of where the balance of investment should lie between the three Services. Rather this is about ensuring we achieve a balance, across all three and with allies, between our ability to fight a traditional war of air, maritime and ground kinetic manoeuvre and being able to conduct a far more difficult one amongst, with and for the people."
1SL: "A continued emphasis on further developing joint engagement, by which I mean land, sea and air elements, and operations that involve and maximise the contributions of military forces with other agencies and countries, will be increasingly important in a globalised world."
1SL and CGS both emphasised the need to work with and within international alliances and organisations in order to achieve our aims:
CGS: "Alliances are the principal means to compensate for our inability to resource military capability that is less needed in the future but cannot be completely discarded; this is how perceived risk in any particular capability area should be mitigated."
ISL: "Our forces should therefore also be able to be deployed globally and engage in long-term reassurance, stabilisation, training and prevention missions. And they must also have the means to work alongside others - international partners, government departments, civilian agencies and the civilian population. Such forces can do good for the taxpayer on a daily basis."
Both CGS and 1SL are arguing that the SDR will be the means by which the future shape and size of UK defence is decided. That this should be a Foreign-Policy-led process, and that once we have agreed what the nation's security interests are, it will then be necessary to agree how meeting those interests can be accomplished. At this point, the required capability will need to be matched to available resources:
CGS: "Spending on future defence capability is invariably about managing risk, not eliminating it. This thinking shapes rightly our strategic posture. It is how we prioritise some equipment over others, some intelligence and technological advances over others, and some force elements over others. Like any insurance, what this needs is an understanding of what must be covered fully and what can be taken at risk on the basis of alliance or likelihood."
1SL: "In conclusion, I believe that the Defence Review needs to consider focusing on UK Armed Forces, whether maritime, air or land, which are able to be configured to deliver the necessary combat power, but have utility to be able to support the protection and promotion of the national interest more widely."
CGS: "Defence must respond to the new strategic, and indeed economic, environment by ensuring much more ruthlessly that our Armed Forces are appropriate and relevant to the context in which they will operate rather than the one they might have expected to fight in in previous eras. Too much emphasis is still placed on what Secretary Gates calls 'exquisite' and hugely expensive equipment."
1SL: "Alongside a greater understanding of the strategic effect of using our forces more widely, we must also recognise that in an uncertain future where we can’t afford everything we might need, we must instead strive for forces that are flexible - and able, between them, to adapt to operate successfully across the entire spectrum of tasks that might be demanded of them."
Additionally, 1SL had this to say this morning during his speech at the Berwin Leighton Paisner Defence Breakfast:
"Much of what General Richards said last night resonates with what I'm saying today. He speaks about a hi-tech future and the need for cyber-defence, I absolutely support that. That is a battleground this nation needs to be ready to be engaged in in the future far more effectively than we are today. He speaks of flexibility, hybrid warfare and this business of high intensity warfare being a mixture of old style force-on-force and hybrid underplaying of activity. Yes, absolutely right.
"He talks about the need for a wider debate - that's why I am here, to stimulate a wider debate and discussion. He advocates a clear understanding within that debate on how much we can afford to put into defence, I absolutely agree. So whilst there is a desire to show a split between us and feed a frenzy of 'the chiefs are again at loggerheads' - we are not. We are trying to pursue a clear, well-articulated debate on what defence means."
-ends-
(Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued Jan. 19, 2010)
Some reports have suggested that the speeches reveal a rift
plus finally:
the Berwin Leighton Paisner Defence Breakfast
airsound
Last edited by airsound; 20th Jan 2010 at 20:07. Reason: Hit a soft spot?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought;
as Iraq is now 'under control' ( I considered it for a holiday or timeshare, but maybe UK South Coast this year ) - and massive U.S. kit in Afghanistan,
how about we concentrate on the Somali pirates - taking the gloves off a little, if that isn't what already happens unofficially - while the U.S. considers yet another war, with Yemen, and we supply support to the ' Stan with UCAV's as the nice American chap says - would save a lot of good people ?!
Incidentally, I heard an interesting piece the other day on Radio 4 by a British ship captain who'd successfully fended off Somali pirates, saying the Somali fishermen are really p'd off with the local pirates for giving them a bad press; I'd heard earlier on seemingly much more authorative military grounds that the pirates are local heroes, distributing undreamt of wealth and actually funding building projects - not that the Somali's actually feel like building anything.
The bad guys in Afghanistan & Yemen / Pakistan need to be taken out for sure, and I'm more than equally sure the flesh is willing, but we only have so many people, and so much kit, so need to do it on our terms / capabilities, not toe to toe on theirs ?
I am still worried by the Army top chap's lack of airpower knowledge though, and before anyone carps up that someone in that position must fully understand, well during 1982 Sandy Woodward was a highly experienced submariner, and one only has to read his and other books to realise he didn't fully comprehend his air assets...
It really needs another kick up the arse for our NATO ' colleagues '.
as Iraq is now 'under control' ( I considered it for a holiday or timeshare, but maybe UK South Coast this year ) - and massive U.S. kit in Afghanistan,
how about we concentrate on the Somali pirates - taking the gloves off a little, if that isn't what already happens unofficially - while the U.S. considers yet another war, with Yemen, and we supply support to the ' Stan with UCAV's as the nice American chap says - would save a lot of good people ?!
Incidentally, I heard an interesting piece the other day on Radio 4 by a British ship captain who'd successfully fended off Somali pirates, saying the Somali fishermen are really p'd off with the local pirates for giving them a bad press; I'd heard earlier on seemingly much more authorative military grounds that the pirates are local heroes, distributing undreamt of wealth and actually funding building projects - not that the Somali's actually feel like building anything.
The bad guys in Afghanistan & Yemen / Pakistan need to be taken out for sure, and I'm more than equally sure the flesh is willing, but we only have so many people, and so much kit, so need to do it on our terms / capabilities, not toe to toe on theirs ?
I am still worried by the Army top chap's lack of airpower knowledge though, and before anyone carps up that someone in that position must fully understand, well during 1982 Sandy Woodward was a highly experienced submariner, and one only has to read his and other books to realise he didn't fully comprehend his air assets...
It really needs another kick up the arse for our NATO ' colleagues '.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Desert mainly, occasionally arctic and rarely jungle
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
both CGS and 1SL are agreed
That they should scrap the RAF and let their respective services deal with their air power needs......
both CGS and 1SL are agreed
That they should scrap the RAF and let their respective services deal with their air power needs......
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, if I get this right....
The top Army chap says that the Army is a priority and that there's no need for aircraft carriers
The head Navy guy says that the Navy is a priority and we don't need Eurofighters
The Chief RAF man says that the RAF is a priority and why does the Army need so much money
At least the service chiefs are standing up for their respective services (although in fighting isn't going to help the overall cause).
The MoD continues to plunder resources by spending on stuff that's not wanted/needed or by tying in to contracts that benefit the supplier and not the customer
The government has sold off/contracted out many of the critical R&D capabilities that supported the forces in order to raise a bit of money
Gordon Brown sold off the UK's gold bullion reserves when gold was at a low price on the market
The UK spends billions each year on EEU subsidies
The UK will need to budget for coping with up to an extra 10 million immigrants in the next 15 years
Meanwhile the armed forces continue to align themselves (and their spending) with past threats because no one can figure out what future threats will be. Well, at this rate it's not going to be the Chinese, Russians, Japanese or Al-Q but is more likely to be an internal threat as the public turn on the inept government (by which I mean the civil servants as well as the poiliticians). So, lots of spending needed on internal security - CCTV, police, surveillance, UAV's, etc. Oh, hang on, they're doing that already...
Steps off soapbox.....
The top Army chap says that the Army is a priority and that there's no need for aircraft carriers
The head Navy guy says that the Navy is a priority and we don't need Eurofighters
The Chief RAF man says that the RAF is a priority and why does the Army need so much money
At least the service chiefs are standing up for their respective services (although in fighting isn't going to help the overall cause).
The MoD continues to plunder resources by spending on stuff that's not wanted/needed or by tying in to contracts that benefit the supplier and not the customer
The government has sold off/contracted out many of the critical R&D capabilities that supported the forces in order to raise a bit of money
Gordon Brown sold off the UK's gold bullion reserves when gold was at a low price on the market
The UK spends billions each year on EEU subsidies
The UK will need to budget for coping with up to an extra 10 million immigrants in the next 15 years
Meanwhile the armed forces continue to align themselves (and their spending) with past threats because no one can figure out what future threats will be. Well, at this rate it's not going to be the Chinese, Russians, Japanese or Al-Q but is more likely to be an internal threat as the public turn on the inept government (by which I mean the civil servants as well as the poiliticians). So, lots of spending needed on internal security - CCTV, police, surveillance, UAV's, etc. Oh, hang on, they're doing that already...
Steps off soapbox.....