Two services in ten years 'entirely plausible', says Sir Jock

[Exnomad]

Two Services

If there is to be a combining of services, I just hope someone has the sense to talk to the Canadians. They made an awful cock-up originally, but I gather it worked in the end.

[Lima Juliet]

I gather it worked in the end

Yes, but their Air Force got that shocking Dark-Turquoise uniform instead of the old "crab fat" blue - what a shocker!

[Two's in]

I gather it worked in the end

If by "worked" you mean left it completely ineffectual at procuring anything that costs more than a bullet; and completely at the mercy of whichever shower is camped out in the Parliament building in Ottawa (the Canucks are worse than the Italians at changing Governments), yes, it worked splendidly.

[Dengue_Dude]

What's more . . . you'll have to move your brevet from the left to the right . . . one wonders if that is deeply Freudian . . .

[pasptoo]

In these dark days of "extreme bean counting" and HESS programs to aline with civil industry standards will it be a case of last in first out? Or will there be a big redundancy pay out with jobs found for the upper management? I'd speak to the union about it...........


Doesn't the Army require to be 100000 or greater to retain it world status as a 1st Class Army?

PAS

[Melchett01]

IIRC, modern doctrine puts an Army at anywhere between 60-100,000 personnel. Just as well there is a bit of flex these days otherwise the British Army would theoretically become a Corps in terms of pure numbers.

I suspect that might be somewhat politically embarrassing though and might be frowned on by CGS. If nothing else, they'd have to re-do all their advertising and stationery to reflect the changes! And can you imagine trying to recruit for the British Corps? Sounds like some sort of 1930s Mosley-esque organisation!

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by knowitall

"Two services in ten years 'entirely plausible', says Sir Jock"

aparently not

Defence News: Defence in the Media: 3 February 2010

CDS on Services
It is being misreported by some media outlets that Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, said today that it was 'plausible' that there could be only two Armed Services. This is not the case. The following question was asked: "With regard to the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review and the requirement to save a lot of money, do you think it's plausible that we will have three Armed Services?" CDS replied to this question by saying: "Certainly it's plausible." He was not saying that the idea of two Services was plausible.

OTOH . . .

But at what cost?

The cost of all the new hats, caps, beret, gloves, shoes, socks etc. Lucky to get any change out of £1000 per officer and not much less per WO/SNCO. You need to change the uniform if you are to do what Mountbatten started all those years ago.

Anyone for purple pants?

[SirToppamHat]

PN

Thanks for clearing that up, but let's not make a habit of having the truth impinge on future threads!

I spent a couple of weeks with the CAF after they'd gone through the big change, and ISTR the CAF achieved their uniform colour by blending green, light blue and dark blue in proportion with the number of pers in each service. This resulted in more of a dark green verging on black colour rather than turquoise (but I agree it was a disgusting result).

Back to the thread. I would like to see the British Army merge into one Service before merging the rest of us ...

STH

[Doors Off]

I'm not quite sure that you understand the concept or requirement of camouflage.

This is bad camouflage

I never said it was bad camouflage, I just said it looked terrible.

I understand the requirement. After being forced to wear DPM in the Desert and one of my muckas being annoyed that he we was being shot at because he looked like a tree, in a treeless desert. About time HM Squaddies got something they wanted.

[Jack Stohl]

Chaps,

Hate to get off topic but there have been a number of factually incorrect ststements made about the new MTP to be fielded from this year (ops only).
It is derived from the Crye Precision Multicam and was actually designed by Crye for the UK to incorporate the existing DPM pattern. Crye Multicam is already used by 'others' and it was ONLY because of their persistence with DC DT that MTP became a reality. Whilst it will initially be fielded on ops only in the current fit/form/function of existing CS95, it will eventually be rolled out as part of the PECOC programme in due course.
It is an excellent cam replacement - fact. This has been proven by a combination of scientific research, user trials, operational feedback from 'others' as well as applying that good old fashioned sound military judgement. At a distance of approx 5 metres, there is no discernible difference between MTP and Multicam (pattern is not as important as colour and contrast).
Happy to field any further queries relating to MTP should you wish - I know a little bit about it.

...Right...back to the original thread

[Melchett01]

At a distance of approx 5 metres, there is no discernible difference between MTP and Multicam (pattern is not as important as colour and contrast).

How does it fair a little further out than 5m .... say for example the range of a Taliban fighter with an AK-47? Does it still work well then? Having been on Salisbury Plain this week with 4 Mech, in various moments of extreme tedium, this was one of the topics that cropped up and one of the SO2s there - having been drafted back in to the field from DSTL / QQ (I forget which - I was cold and bored by this stage), apparently what we are getting is not what we origianlly ordered / wanted. Allegedly the company couldn't deliver the colour / pattern combinations we originally asked for so we ended up with a fudge solution.

Not sure if this is correct, and a bit of thread creep, but as ever, there are probably 2 sides to the story.

[rmac]

Jack Stohl,

I like the cam, I really do and it makes sense, similar to what the US has done...

However,

Did the chap in the BBC interview really lead with the concept of the corporate image as the first point

Although maybe he has a point if you consider that the new US cam looks suspicously like WW2 waffen SS DP cam, which coupled with the coal scuttle helmets gives out an interesting corporate image

[Impiger]

Outrageous Thread Drift!

One piece of misreporting by Mick Smith of the Telegraph and you chaps drift off on a rant about camoflague kit!

Surely if there is to be a question about how many Services there should be it should be handled incrementally:

First - lets have only one Army (sorry Rocks and Bootnecks); then only one naval service (bang goes the RLC Port Sqn etc) and only one air force (sorry FAA, AAC, JHC, RA UAV Regt, and the Royal Marine Air Wing or whatever they call themselves).

Once we've got that squared away we can then look at combining all three in to one after a decent interval - say another 100 years or so.

At the same time HMT should ask why we have so many separate Police Forces, Ambulance Services, Fire Services - there are plenty of potential amalgamations out there which would all save a bit of dosh to spend on buying votes at the General Election - or paying some more allowances and expenses to our democratically elected representatives.

[Ivan Rogov]

Impiger I was thinking exactly the same thing earlier today and just about to make a post, some other minor nations have already done it!
As for all this talk of what constitutes a Force, Corp etc. I don't give a stuff, virtually every established nation has 3 arms to its services, Force is just a name (NZ Air FORCE is 2,500ish personnel and there are many other small Air FORCES). Many of them have already made painful cuts to match their Forces to the real world too, maybe we should study their experiences a little to avoid making the same mistakes.

[JFZ90]

misreporting by Mick Smith of the Telegraph

LOL - Mick will appreciate that. Probably who he should be writing for.

Do you think he misheard what CDS said (and doesn't feel inclined to correct his error), or do you think he really feels the kind of spin he put on the statement (without explaining that spin to his readers) is acceptable?

[Bismark]

Problem is Impiger, neither the FAA nor AAC have any desire to fall in under the RAF and its way of doing business. Whilst I am sure both organisation hold RAF aircrew and engineers in very high regard, something happens to RAF officers once they reach Group Captain and above. They seem to have a brain implant which says "hate the FAA and AAC, they are out to shaft us so we had better shaft them first!" It starts at the top and all below follow like lambs.

[Impiger]

Whoops

Journalists aren't the only ones who get it wrong! In my defence he was writing for the Telegraph before his current role with the Sunday Times but I'm blaming it on the lunchtime claret!

The mis-reporting of CDS isn't really the issue - its all about camoflague apparently!

[Mick Smith]

I'm sorry guys I was just reporting what one of my colleagues from another outlet had rushed to the telephone to tell me and what the BBC was initially reporting. I was not actually there because the press briefing was called too late for me to cancel what I was planning. But even if he said precisely what the MoD later claimed he was saying - and there are still those disputing that - it was scarcely 'dont be silly of course there will still be three services'. As I said very early on in this thread, and again today in the STimes, I think he was deliberately letting the idea be out there so that it could be rubbished by others as stupid. I'm told, though I havent seen it, that there is a clip around of him being asked immediately after the briefing by the BBC's Caroline Wyatt about the possibility of there only being two services and him very definitely not saying, no you misunderstood me that is not what I was saying.

The story was around all week and there is no doubt that there are people out there lobbying for it, not with my backing I might add!

Writing for the Telegraph is of course not an insult, it's what I used to do!

[JFZ90]

In my defence he was writing for the Telegraph before his current role with the Sunday Times

I thought it was a subtle dig - you could have got away with that!

[MaroonMan4]

Some interesting posts - some drivel I am afraid (and still I am trying to work out what the uniform aspects of the thread added to the discussion?)

But however my heart makes me proud of my own service, the people I serve with and the aircraft I operate, my head knows that Mr Osborne's words in Parliament last week sadly made me recognise that whatever we discuss on this thread is pure semantics.

I believe that we have been de-sensitised by the figure £178 billion, Mr Osborne helped me recognise the reality in that this figure equates to a debt being run up at the 'rate of £1.2 million per day since the birth of Christ'.

I am apolitical, and a true servant of H M Queen, but even I know that this is a truly amazing figure that will result in us all reviewing our previous paradigms, including single services. Lets be honest here (in the myopic but topical world of JHC), anyone post DHFS is already joined up, it is only some of the more senior officers (and admittedly Bismark,above Group Captain is where the line appears to be across all 3 services (not in all cases-but certainly a trend).

Taking this stark reality and truth to the next level, the rumours circulating that the Fisheads are actually getting our mighty wokka instead of the Freak's Merlin is a tough pill to swallow, although I can see the financial sense (in that why re-train our Merlin force onto Chinook and then re-train the Fisheads onto Merlin, when the relatively quicker and cheaper option is to just take the Fisheads straight from their current flying shed direct onto the new Chinooks inbound?).

I dont like it anymore than the next man/woman, but if the Times article has any truth in that the second new carrier will be used in the helicopter role, then if it means I do not have to go to sea then it is a bitter pill that I can swallow.

As to going Army - again, aren't we (JHC) already under Army/Land control - and however much I long for the Gutersloh/RAFG days,they have gone I am currently spending the majority of my working life in DPM anyway (already mentioned in previous posts) . So again semantics I am afraid as I do not think that H M Treasury care 2 hoots what any of us think - all they want is to cut that £178 billion debt and do not really care how they go about doing it - and will be colour blind for single service colours and agendas.