Defence Review Result at End of October

[minigundiplomat]

"Fox has based his strategy on giving Britain lots of big guns without knowing what to do with them.”

As opposed to giving Britain lots of little guns without knowing what to do with them.

[Army Mover]

Originally Posted by rich2010

Since when were the army the soothsayers of national defence. '...the army says no carriers, the army says no Typhoon/ F-35...'

Do the government chaps really listen to army generals regarding floaty/ flying things? Surely they'd listen to the respective heads about their respective bits and bobs, rather than they don't need/ they'd be better off with... How about they stick to their own business.

They listen no more to the Army than they do the RAF or the Navy; they DO listen to the person who is saying the things they want to hear.

[Exnomad]

Defence review

The thing that upsets me about the defence review is the thought that an allegedly competent government cannot find 2.7% of GDP for defence of the realm. Speaking as a younger sibling who had to older siblings serve in WW2

[Occasional Aviator]

I am always surprised at the Army's claim that carriers are a "WW3 platform". Would anyone like to remind them where that majority of CAS in Afghanistan comes from....US Carriers in the Indian Ocean.

Errr... no.

A small amount of the CAS in Afghanstan comes from the carriers. Most comes from land-based air inside the country. In fact, even during the initial op in 2002, more than 80% of the ordnance dropped was from aircraft that took off from US airbases [Mainly CONUS, but counting Diego Garcia].

Carriers are a vital element of power projection and a great influnce tool, but I wouldn't want to tie up too muchof the country's air power on them...

[colonel cluster]

Stats and Damned Lies

Occ Aviator, whilst in terms of tonnage, I agree about those US assets based in CONUS or DG, in terms of CAS sorties on a daily basis, whether they drop ordnance or not, I would warrant that the stats show a singificant contribution from embarked assets. Note i do not say all, but they are more than just there to justify Carrier aviation!

[AutoBit]

Occasional Aviator,

Err no.....

I don't want to get into an argument about exact %'s but the simple fact is that the Carrier contributes a significent proportion of the CAS in theater. Talk to any BALO about the issues they have when the Carrier has a RAS day.

[johnnypaveway]

As an aforementioned BASO (apparently we don't have BALOs anymore - although every conversation would go along the lines of 'hi I am Sqn Ldr JPW, I'm the Bde Air Staff Officer...... - Whats that? Is it like the BALO?.......alright I'm the BALO[In a Jeff Vader voice])

The contribution of the carrier group is significant, that said the majority of assets alocated to the org formerly known as TFH was invariably GR-4, A-10 heavy.

Bottom line - It is a team game

Kindest Regards
JPW

[Finningley Boy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich2010
Since when were the army the soothsayers of national defence. '...the army says no carriers, the army says no Typhoon/ F-35...'

Do the government chaps really listen to army generals regarding floaty/ flying things? Surely they'd listen to the respective heads about their respective bits and bobs, rather than they don't need/ they'd be better off with... How about they stick to their own business.

They listen no more to the Army than they do the RAF or the Navy; they DO listen to the person who is saying the things they want to hear.

I have read in the FT Weekend today that the Army people are hopping mad that Dr B Brush isn't giving the Navy and the R.A.F. the asset stripping style good hiding which they fell is richly deserved.

FB

[Compressorstall]

According to the Sunday Times today, the Army will have hardly any cutbacks whilst the RN and the RAF bear the majority. The story claims the RAF is to lose half the FJ, scrap the Puma upgrade, close RAF Benson, reduce the new Chinook buy to 12 whilst the RN keep the carriers, but they will have a much smaller air group. The RAF and the RN are to lose 10000 personnel each, Allegedly it has all been argued by the incoming CDS that the Army is fighting the current war in Afghanistan and things like the Chinooks won't be in service before our committment ends. Whilst Afghanistan is massively important, only the naive must imagine that we won't be involved in something else afterwards as war often comes as something as a surprise.

However, the speculation and leaks is wearing to organisations who already have quite a lot to deal with. The in-fighting between services is also tiring.

[Melchett01]

Allegedly it has all been argued by the incoming CDS that the Army is fighting the current war in Afghanistan

And when we pull out of Afghanistan, then what? The Army can't keep beating the RAF and RN with that stick indefinitely.

Once our Afghan adventure is over, with limited capability left, no money and even less political and public will for further fighting, the Army will be left to train for the next conflict, which given those issues, we may not have a part to play in. However, the RAF and the RN will still be carrying out their primary functions defending the UK's airspace and sea lines of communications.

CDS can stamp his feet all he likes - the more he does, the more he makes it seem that the Army's glass house is built on very thin ice. All we can hope is that the other Service chiefs articulate that in a cogent and coherent manner that is impossible to ignore and that the SoS Defence actually does what is right and not what is easy.

[Finningley Boy]

In the Daily Mail today the story is that the R.A.F. and R.N. will bear the brunt of the cuts. Evidently, Sir David Richards has managed to convince David Cameron that the Army and Afghanistan are the future!

This is in order to spare 20'000 troops needed in Afghanistan?

However, the good Doctor is still insistant on the Carriers and Trident.

Then again the Liberal Democrats are still trying to seek a cheaper alternative to Trident?!?!?!?!?

FB

[Gnd]

If the conversation has gone to American Air Power and American Aircraft doing CAS, does that mean the Typhoon is dead and the Russians aren’t knocking at our back door or was that just a non-argument that was being spouted in the spirit of ‘defensism’ against logic!!!
It would seem the Army case is correct or the RAF have just given up (as quoted above)?????

[LFFC]

Armed Forces chiefs to lose manor houses and servants in defence cuts

Telegraph - 27 Sep 10

As part of the New Employment Model to be introduced in the defence review both officers and other ranks will find it increasingly hard to claim boarding school allowance that can account for 90 per cent of fees but costs £140 million a year.

I guess this was always going to be a target, but at least it sounds like it won't stop immediately.

I wonder what else is included in the New Employment Model?

[Whenurhappy]

CEA

We claimed CEA as it was the only way to get a reasonable standard of education for our son given our frequent moves. However, there were/are quite a large number of Naval Service personnel who claimed CEA on the basis of being 'mobile', yet the kids went to school within spitting distance of home. There was also the scam of some Army personnel submitting the 'extras' bill to the Regtl Accounting Officer, who 'would sort it out'.

The 90% myth of CEA annoys me. With exception of Duke of York's and Queen Victoria's school, CEA might pay half of the fees, something that the Telegraph article failed to mention.

Certainly of CEA was restricted any further, I suspect that there would be a fair few middle/senior ranked personnel who would head for the door - I know I would...

[Aeronut]

Just think of all those poor kids that will end up leaving private schools for comprehensives - like Will from the Inbetweeners!

[Whenurhappy]

You are right - it would be the kids who would be the victims if CEA is withdrawn.


If we could have guaranteed access to decent state-funded schools on each posting without having to jump through pointless local-authority hoops we would have taken it.

Anyway I don't want my son to be a Chav...

[500days2do]

Trident...The Emperors New Clothes

Trident...why bother, not going to deter a terrorist attack...not independant....not legal....massive cost for no bang...never understood the military need for it....But if we are talking politics and a seat at the big boys table...well, if they want it, make them pay for it...let the politicians stand up and tell the country that we have spent the nations wealth on an invite to the party and that we would like to close/cancel and cut enough to do so for the next 20+ years...

5d2d

[Wrathmonk]

The whole issue of CEA has been looked at as a 'savings measure' in the same way as the Red Arrows has over the years.

I think it will be a tightening of the 'rules' rather than a complete removal. With the reduction in bases (and this includes the Army returning from Germany as much as the RAF and RN) there may be less in the way of 'postings' and therefore less requirement for CEA (after all, CEA is there to stop multiple school moves as parents 'follow the flag' rather than to give a so-called 'better' education).

Unfortunately it is the small minority who have been located at the same unit for 10+ years, perhaps live in their own house and send the kids to boarding school who have attracted the unwanted attention of the 'bean counters' (and before I get flamed I agree that most people would, quite rightly, buy their own house rather than live in MQs - has any attempt to stop Home To Duty from private reidences or remove disturbance/moving allowance been raised yet - probably need to wait till the Army move back from Germany before that one gets 'leaked' from Army RP....). Granted, you may be 'available' to be posted elsewhere but there are many, many people who have stayed in one place for a long, long time. We may find Manning being forced to 'press to test' a few of these such "availability to move declerations" - decline to move and lose your CEA perhaps?

And there are schools aside from DofY and QV (i.e non 'military' schools) where CEA covered 90% of the fees (and the claim to start with was less than 50% of the entitlement!)

[Aeronut]

I take it that you have been stationed somewhere for a long time and have not had to make use of CEA?

Au contraire!

Is his Dad in the forces?

Will is known as "briefcase w@nker"! He had to leave a posh private school for a comprehensive school because of his parent's money problems.

This is my fear for some if CEA were to be cut.

It should remain at least until the current children are 18 for existing claimants.

[minigundiplomat]

Really Annoyed possibly doesn't understand Will's predicament fully, as he has no briefcase.