Tornados to be axed?
By Mr Grim:
"[Quick Reaper flag wave: One of the advantages of Reaper is that whilst having over 10 times the persistence of Tornado with a larger weapons payload and more sensors it has a theatre footprint of about 2% of Tornado and that is the number everyone cares about]".
Now that is actually one of the most interesting pieces of info that has been posted on here in a long time.
If the UK want to deliver effects (whilst having little money!), then surely it should concentrate on things that it can do (almost) uniquely. So, we could withdraw Tornado & still play a significant role in coalition (& national) ops by an uplift of Reaper???
(keeping other assets such as Apache, ASaC7, Chinook etc in theatre as well)
"[Quick Reaper flag wave: One of the advantages of Reaper is that whilst having over 10 times the persistence of Tornado with a larger weapons payload and more sensors it has a theatre footprint of about 2% of Tornado and that is the number everyone cares about]".
Now that is actually one of the most interesting pieces of info that has been posted on here in a long time.
If the UK want to deliver effects (whilst having little money!), then surely it should concentrate on things that it can do (almost) uniquely. So, we could withdraw Tornado & still play a significant role in coalition (& national) ops by an uplift of Reaper???
(keeping other assets such as Apache, ASaC7, Chinook etc in theatre as well)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Grim,
I'm glad you feel better. I'd forgotten that I'd put my ATPL in my profile - how funny. I was determined not to let my Link-Up money go to waste.
As I dodge the spittle emanating from your (mini?) rant, a few points of clarification.
1. I am quite aware that fast jets can come to the aid of soldiers and marines. The majority of times, when ISAF troops die, they don't and couldn't have had any effect. That's not to suggest fast jets aren't important, just that they can't stop an AK47 round or 99% of IEDs. I am also aware that fast jets offer a range of effects from shows of presence (much safer than shows of force) to delivery of kinetic effect. I get it.
None of the above mandates that fast jet support needs to be provided by Tornado.
2. I'm not being derogatory towards Tornado aircrew. They are doing the best they can with their aircraft. I'm comfortable enough with my experience to acknowledge the difference between objective comment about the hardware we use and the reason for the Tornado Force being in theatre.
3. I didn't say Land could win without air, I said that you can't win a conflict with air but no land, you can the other way around. This was meant to try and help you understand that when our PM makes a decision to reduce forces and he's told by CDS that force density can not be reduced (because ISAF tells him this in case Capt P U G Wash is lurking) then he will look to reduce those assets that offer him redution without adversely impacting his Main Effort. Tornado maintainers don't do clear and hold operations. There are other nations (including increasing the ratio of total missions flown from US carriers in support of ISAF ops) that will fill the void.
4. The comment on your misunderstanding of air versus land: 'although if we had tried that route we wouldn't have 300 dead' - Did you really mean to write that? I hope that was you at the peak of your (mini) rant and that you don't really believe that.
5. Assuming you are genuinely something to do with UAV, (on the fast jet versus IED piece) you more than most should know that there are far better ways to detect and prosecute IED emplacers or IED locations than a Tornado with RAPTOR. It's not a reason to keep it in theatre above troops on the ground.
6. Reaper get's my vote. A mere 2% of Tornado footprint? Don't let CAS here you talking about such things. They'll burn you at the stake.
I'm glad you feel better. I'd forgotten that I'd put my ATPL in my profile - how funny. I was determined not to let my Link-Up money go to waste.
As I dodge the spittle emanating from your (mini?) rant, a few points of clarification.
1. I am quite aware that fast jets can come to the aid of soldiers and marines. The majority of times, when ISAF troops die, they don't and couldn't have had any effect. That's not to suggest fast jets aren't important, just that they can't stop an AK47 round or 99% of IEDs. I am also aware that fast jets offer a range of effects from shows of presence (much safer than shows of force) to delivery of kinetic effect. I get it.
None of the above mandates that fast jet support needs to be provided by Tornado.
2. I'm not being derogatory towards Tornado aircrew. They are doing the best they can with their aircraft. I'm comfortable enough with my experience to acknowledge the difference between objective comment about the hardware we use and the reason for the Tornado Force being in theatre.
3. I didn't say Land could win without air, I said that you can't win a conflict with air but no land, you can the other way around. This was meant to try and help you understand that when our PM makes a decision to reduce forces and he's told by CDS that force density can not be reduced (because ISAF tells him this in case Capt P U G Wash is lurking) then he will look to reduce those assets that offer him redution without adversely impacting his Main Effort. Tornado maintainers don't do clear and hold operations. There are other nations (including increasing the ratio of total missions flown from US carriers in support of ISAF ops) that will fill the void.
4. The comment on your misunderstanding of air versus land: 'although if we had tried that route we wouldn't have 300 dead' - Did you really mean to write that? I hope that was you at the peak of your (mini) rant and that you don't really believe that.
5. Assuming you are genuinely something to do with UAV, (on the fast jet versus IED piece) you more than most should know that there are far better ways to detect and prosecute IED emplacers or IED locations than a Tornado with RAPTOR. It's not a reason to keep it in theatre above troops on the ground.
6. Reaper get's my vote. A mere 2% of Tornado footprint? Don't let CAS here you talking about such things. They'll burn you at the stake.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, let us just for one minute assume that this is about the correct operational decision rather than financial politics back at home (which of course it is, and that is the tragedy of this thread)
The decision to transition is an operational decision, which has now been hijacked by politics. No soldier, airman or sailor would set a date for victory!
What is clear, however, is that the key to transition is a hand off to Afghan Security Forces (ANSF) (with a suitably democratic government in charge – and that may be the tricky bit). Last time I looked the ANSF are lacking a few key capabilities – boots is not one of them. Unless you want to recreate the Alamo all over the country, the way that you de-risk transition is to provide those capabilities for them. Now that the UK is in charge of just 3 districts, and that they are the one’s likely to transition early (because they are the key population and wealth generating areas in Helmand), then the logic flow is that it is troop numbers that go first; the enablers will take a lot longer, because they will need to enable someone else.
Unless of course you declare a false victory and leave the Afghans to themselves (or the US to clear up the mess) – now when would we ever do that!
As for FB’s specific points:
1. The presence of fast air forces behaviours in the enemy which allow us to fight the way we do – we are not the ones hiding in other countries and behind women and children. If you remove it he gets more freedom of action – beware unintended consequences. One of the challenges for air is proving what happens when you don’t do something – gutsy move Mav! Ask the Taliban what scares them the most and it will probably be Special Forces and air strikes from “nowhere”. Tornado does that better than most and buys us huge respect as a result.
2. They have turned it into one of the most capable and respected platforms in theatre despite the limitations on design.
3. Your black and white: air vs land comparisons are old school and airmen made a similar mistake the other way around after the Gulf War. The fact is that the balance is dependent on the situation. I suggest a land locked, large country with poor communication networks absolutely needs air. You forget how we defeated the Taliban regime. If soldiers don’t need air support perhaps they should stop putting in more requests than we can meet. I accept that the UK can decide unilaterally and we could behave like those countries you mentioned – is that were you think we should head – in which case why are we taking a disproportionate number of casualties (let’s stop that as well if that is your thesis). You seem to imply that 150 UK soldiers will have a greater coalition impact than 8 fast jets – I just plain disagree.
4. As I said above, you will never know what might have happened if something was different. However, perhaps you can explain why air support was called for so many times to disengage if the troops could have just walked away. Do you honestly believe that the casualty count and the delays to live saving MEDEVAC would have been the same?
5. There are lots of ways to detect all sorts of things (and an IED is one of the trickiest), but you make the false assumption that the device is the only target in the chain…. If you know your sensors, then you will know how good it is compared to anything else out there…..period.
6. 2% of UK in theatre maybe, but a very big footprint and cost elsewhere and totally reliant on US assistance. That said, it is a superb system for this theatre; however they are too slow to react to many of the target sets and too few to cover the requests. In addition, CAS knows how good they are, they are his. He likes the blend of capabilities they provide and wants more; but he also knows what fast air brings, just as our US cousins do. One thing that is underplayed is the benefit of fast air based in country; they provide 24/7 alert capabilities with a quick response. UAVs and Carrier air in the Indian Ocean do neither. If it is flexible and agile you want, you have to accept that fast air provides.
This thread is not really about Tornado options (which would be barking mad to take), it is about the future of UK defence capabilities. Perhaps the armchair theorists and even some retired (may be even serving) soldiers have operated under total air supremacy for too long. At this rate we better start reading the Taliban tactics manual because we will need it.
The decision to transition is an operational decision, which has now been hijacked by politics. No soldier, airman or sailor would set a date for victory!
What is clear, however, is that the key to transition is a hand off to Afghan Security Forces (ANSF) (with a suitably democratic government in charge – and that may be the tricky bit). Last time I looked the ANSF are lacking a few key capabilities – boots is not one of them. Unless you want to recreate the Alamo all over the country, the way that you de-risk transition is to provide those capabilities for them. Now that the UK is in charge of just 3 districts, and that they are the one’s likely to transition early (because they are the key population and wealth generating areas in Helmand), then the logic flow is that it is troop numbers that go first; the enablers will take a lot longer, because they will need to enable someone else.
Unless of course you declare a false victory and leave the Afghans to themselves (or the US to clear up the mess) – now when would we ever do that!
As for FB’s specific points:
1. The presence of fast air forces behaviours in the enemy which allow us to fight the way we do – we are not the ones hiding in other countries and behind women and children. If you remove it he gets more freedom of action – beware unintended consequences. One of the challenges for air is proving what happens when you don’t do something – gutsy move Mav! Ask the Taliban what scares them the most and it will probably be Special Forces and air strikes from “nowhere”. Tornado does that better than most and buys us huge respect as a result.
2. They have turned it into one of the most capable and respected platforms in theatre despite the limitations on design.
3. Your black and white: air vs land comparisons are old school and airmen made a similar mistake the other way around after the Gulf War. The fact is that the balance is dependent on the situation. I suggest a land locked, large country with poor communication networks absolutely needs air. You forget how we defeated the Taliban regime. If soldiers don’t need air support perhaps they should stop putting in more requests than we can meet. I accept that the UK can decide unilaterally and we could behave like those countries you mentioned – is that were you think we should head – in which case why are we taking a disproportionate number of casualties (let’s stop that as well if that is your thesis). You seem to imply that 150 UK soldiers will have a greater coalition impact than 8 fast jets – I just plain disagree.
4. As I said above, you will never know what might have happened if something was different. However, perhaps you can explain why air support was called for so many times to disengage if the troops could have just walked away. Do you honestly believe that the casualty count and the delays to live saving MEDEVAC would have been the same?
5. There are lots of ways to detect all sorts of things (and an IED is one of the trickiest), but you make the false assumption that the device is the only target in the chain…. If you know your sensors, then you will know how good it is compared to anything else out there…..period.
6. 2% of UK in theatre maybe, but a very big footprint and cost elsewhere and totally reliant on US assistance. That said, it is a superb system for this theatre; however they are too slow to react to many of the target sets and too few to cover the requests. In addition, CAS knows how good they are, they are his. He likes the blend of capabilities they provide and wants more; but he also knows what fast air brings, just as our US cousins do. One thing that is underplayed is the benefit of fast air based in country; they provide 24/7 alert capabilities with a quick response. UAVs and Carrier air in the Indian Ocean do neither. If it is flexible and agile you want, you have to accept that fast air provides.
This thread is not really about Tornado options (which would be barking mad to take), it is about the future of UK defence capabilities. Perhaps the armchair theorists and even some retired (may be even serving) soldiers have operated under total air supremacy for too long. At this rate we better start reading the Taliban tactics manual because we will need it.
It has nothing to do with capabilities and everything to do with politics.
The combined numbers of the RAF and RN, post cuts, would not fill a single Premiership Football Stadium.
M&S employs more people then the RAF.
Dave Cameron wants nothing more than a basic UK Defence Force. He wants that to guard against terrorist attack. He wants that because he knows that a major attack at home will bring his Government down. He cares about obtaining power and keeping it. Nothing more. He is a politician and that's his job.
So keep talking about capabilities, Covenants, Morale, respect and Fast Air etc all you want.
They are not listening.
They don't really care.
The combined numbers of the RAF and RN, post cuts, would not fill a single Premiership Football Stadium.
M&S employs more people then the RAF.
Dave Cameron wants nothing more than a basic UK Defence Force. He wants that to guard against terrorist attack. He wants that because he knows that a major attack at home will bring his Government down. He cares about obtaining power and keeping it. Nothing more. He is a politician and that's his job.
So keep talking about capabilities, Covenants, Morale, respect and Fast Air etc all you want.
They are not listening.
They don't really care.
Wyler, unfortunately I agree with you. 
Mr Grim...agree with what you say, but statistics can be misleading: "10 times the persistence of Tornado". Well I flew over 6 hours in theatre (others have flown longer), so does the Reaper have a 60-hour loiter capability? Don't answer that, I know it's classified.
There are (as always) a lot of folk posting here who know bugger-all about what's going on in theatre, or about the processes involved yet sounding as if they are an informed opinion. Yet another sign of the gradual demise of this forum.
Mr Grim...agree with what you say, but statistics can be misleading: "10 times the persistence of Tornado". Well I flew over 6 hours in theatre (others have flown longer), so does the Reaper have a 60-hour loiter capability? Don't answer that, I know it's classified.
There are (as always) a lot of folk posting here who know bugger-all about what's going on in theatre, or about the processes involved yet sounding as if they are an informed opinion. Yet another sign of the gradual demise of this forum.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GrahamO
"I rest my case - blaming everyone after that in the chain and then somehow claiming nobody in the 'service' in involved simply is not true. Perhaps if the military wrote down what they actually wanted in sufficient detail to avoid ambiguity it might be simpler ? I know thats the hard bit but other parts of wider industry seem to manage okay."
I've worked on both sides of the fence and the rules are different. Unless you are buying on an MOD contract, you can buy what you need. Otherwise, you have to comptete it. If left to the military, the URD would state something like " Get me 24 F-15E, the same model as USAF". However, the rules do not allow that and the URD has to provide capability based statements. You might have an 8 setting dinner set in mind when you set your URD but get provided with an ASDA party pack after the trading, dilution and intepretation of the URD.
"I rest my case - blaming everyone after that in the chain and then somehow claiming nobody in the 'service' in involved simply is not true. Perhaps if the military wrote down what they actually wanted in sufficient detail to avoid ambiguity it might be simpler ? I know thats the hard bit but other parts of wider industry seem to manage okay."
I've worked on both sides of the fence and the rules are different. Unless you are buying on an MOD contract, you can buy what you need. Otherwise, you have to comptete it. If left to the military, the URD would state something like " Get me 24 F-15E, the same model as USAF". However, the rules do not allow that and the URD has to provide capability based statements. You might have an 8 setting dinner set in mind when you set your URD but get provided with an ASDA party pack after the trading, dilution and intepretation of the URD.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is really hard work.
Capt P U G Wash,
Do you run the Media Handling Course? Your ability to answer - bridge and communicate away from the points I raise to sell Tornado is quite alarming (do you see what I did there?)
You general comments about transition are all super. What capabilities we will be allowed to leave behind once combat ops cease (due to cost and what the emerging Defence Strategic Direction guides us towards) may or may not include fast jets. As a balanced force, of course it should. They do not need to be Tornado.
Your points:
1. I agree. They don't need to be Tornado. There are plenty of other aircraft that deliver munitions from nowhere. Folks reading might think that you're over egging Tornado capability.
2. Good for them. But they don't need to be in theatre.
3. It's not my doctrine. I'm not suggesting anyone be so blinkered as to be black and white about anything. I'm not saying that you don't need aircraft. The point of me entering this debate was to hopefully have a more intelligent debate than someone spouting AP3000 at me. When the Army are asked what they lose first, their response will be that as long as they get fast jet support - or just air support of any kind that fulfils their requirements for fires - from someone they'd prefer to lose non-combat personnel before they lose combat numbers. Go and speak to an Army bloke, he's the one that drives UK doctrine whether the RAF or Navy like it or not.
I'm glad you disagree with the (incorrect) assertion that 150 troops gives the same or better effect as 8 GR4. I disagree too. It is clearly not comparing apples with apples and you have misunderstood the point and ABC'd to a whole new bit of PR.
4. I agree. I've never disagreed. But they don't need to be Tornado.
5. I'm not making a false assumption - where did I say it was the only device in the chain? Tornado being in theatre is not the reason we're successful against IEDs.
6. Couldn't agree more. Which is why (I assume) the USMC is investing in heavily in Bastion to ensure that its fast air is really on the doorstep where it's needed (as opposed to being XX minutes away.)
"This thread is not really about Tornado options..." Oh, I thought it was. ('Tornados to be axed' is the name of the thread?)
What this thread most certainly is not about is a PR campaign to keep Tornado in theatre by spinning capabilities that can and will be achieved by other platforms if the tough decisions on manpower reductions need to be made.
I reiterate: If we could keep UK fast jets in theatre, we should keep them. But let's not for a minute pretend that other assets couldn't mitigate the capabilities provided by Tornado even if that increased some risk.
Capt P U G Wash,
Do you run the Media Handling Course? Your ability to answer - bridge and communicate away from the points I raise to sell Tornado is quite alarming (do you see what I did there?)
You general comments about transition are all super. What capabilities we will be allowed to leave behind once combat ops cease (due to cost and what the emerging Defence Strategic Direction guides us towards) may or may not include fast jets. As a balanced force, of course it should. They do not need to be Tornado.
Your points:
1. I agree. They don't need to be Tornado. There are plenty of other aircraft that deliver munitions from nowhere. Folks reading might think that you're over egging Tornado capability.
2. Good for them. But they don't need to be in theatre.
3. It's not my doctrine. I'm not suggesting anyone be so blinkered as to be black and white about anything. I'm not saying that you don't need aircraft. The point of me entering this debate was to hopefully have a more intelligent debate than someone spouting AP3000 at me. When the Army are asked what they lose first, their response will be that as long as they get fast jet support - or just air support of any kind that fulfils their requirements for fires - from someone they'd prefer to lose non-combat personnel before they lose combat numbers. Go and speak to an Army bloke, he's the one that drives UK doctrine whether the RAF or Navy like it or not.
I'm glad you disagree with the (incorrect) assertion that 150 troops gives the same or better effect as 8 GR4. I disagree too. It is clearly not comparing apples with apples and you have misunderstood the point and ABC'd to a whole new bit of PR.
4. I agree. I've never disagreed. But they don't need to be Tornado.
5. I'm not making a false assumption - where did I say it was the only device in the chain? Tornado being in theatre is not the reason we're successful against IEDs.
6. Couldn't agree more. Which is why (I assume) the USMC is investing in heavily in Bastion to ensure that its fast air is really on the doorstep where it's needed (as opposed to being XX minutes away.)
"This thread is not really about Tornado options..." Oh, I thought it was. ('Tornados to be axed' is the name of the thread?)
What this thread most certainly is not about is a PR campaign to keep Tornado in theatre by spinning capabilities that can and will be achieved by other platforms if the tough decisions on manpower reductions need to be made.
I reiterate: If we could keep UK fast jets in theatre, we should keep them. But let's not for a minute pretend that other assets couldn't mitigate the capabilities provided by Tornado even if that increased some risk.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am glad I am making it hard for you, but that is the point it should be hard rather than the simplistic arguments that make the press. A bit more time and a bit more thinking and our lords and masters won't make the wrong long term decision. I hope!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't say Land could win without air, I said that you can't win a conflict with air but no land, you can the other way around
But, why are we in Afghanistan? Perhaps the valid reason for going in was to stop the Taleban providing support for Al Qaeda... The revisionist policy to start nation-building, enhance womens' rights etc (for which we need boots on the ground) is all very laudable but isn't why we are there, except when the government is trying to sell our efforts to a doubting public. I think we probably achieved the original objective a long time ago, and will probably never achieve the second. So can we afford to care if the Taleban run Afghanistan? I would argue not, as long as they don't support terrorist networks. I am no personal expert on the Taleban, but I have heard some interesting arguments from those that are that the Taleban per se have no particular ambitions outside of the AFPAK tribal areas.
So (oversimplifying a little!) why don't we just use a mix of fast + persistent air to ensure our interests as best we can and get boots out? Perhaps SF would be useful as well, but essentially I am suggesting no permanent boots on the ground. And then pursue much the same policy in Yemen, Somalia or wherever we really need to be to deal with the threat. To do that (and other conflicts where we will need boots, or don't yet know what we need), we need a balanced mix of sea, land and air power.
So I am not making an argument for Tornado over another type of fast air, or RAF over RN or army. I could equally happily make an argument for sea power, especially with regards to Yemen and Somalia. I am instead saying that this boots-on-the-ground philosophy has its place but it is beginning to sound more like dogma than doctrine. It's expensive in lives and cash, and it's right that it should be debated. I find it worrying that those who dare to do so are quite often met with ridicule rather than reasoned debate.
Finally, this afternoon I heard a discussion on R4 about a proposed no-fly zone over Libya... Unlikely, but perhaps SHAR, carriers, Typhoon, AAR and AWACS might be useful, all assets we have either cut or have been belittled incessantly recently. But not boots. Point? We never know what is going to happen next, and we need balanced forces within a realistic budget to be ready for that.
FB11
I think you'll find there is no "spin" on capabilities. The capabilities provided by Tornado cannot be achieved by other platforms - RAPTOR, Brimstone, canon and PWIV. Other platforms can provide similar but not to the same degree in a combined effect - REAPER has PWIV and Hellfire, but once they're used as I understand it the platform doesn't return for a re-load, it stays on various other tasks. Whether you like it or not, it offers a fast, layered and multi-effect capability. And the bottom line, is that should GR4 be pulled form Theatre there will be a gap across the board.
There is also a more strategic part to this. It may only be 8 ac (alongside the AH, CH47, SKASaCs, C130 etc) but it actually allows the UK significant access and leverage at key levels with-in the CAOC and higher. It is not just about a (relatively) large number of people only providing a (relatively) small number of fast jets. Same deal for the Army too - Nick Carter as Comd RC(S) last year for example. That would have been a large number of HQ staff that could have been used for combat ops, but the strategic leverage it gives UK plc means you have to balance.
Pull GR4, replace by Typhoon offering the same capability, replace by Harrier, replace by F15E, F18 or the like, but don't pull the GR4 and lose all of the above.
....keep Tornado in theatre by spinning capabilities that can and will be achieved by other platforms if the tough decisions on manpower reductions need to be made.
I reiterate: If we could keep UK fast jets in theatre, we should keep them. But let's not for a minute pretend that other assets couldn't mitigate the capabilities provided by Tornado even if that increased some risk.
Pull GR4, replace by Typhoon offering the same capability, replace by Harrier, replace by F15E, F18 or the like, but don't pull the GR4 and lose all of the above.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Odd that no-one mentioned scrapping The Red Arrows, considering they offer precisely zero to the defense of this country, and is just an expensive, exclusive club for The Few.
Could save an instant £10 Million plus per year by scrapping that lot!
Will also do wonders for the environment by not spewing tons of diesel all over the countryside every year. Global warming anyone?
ECAM Actions.
Could save an instant £10 Million plus per year by scrapping that lot!
Will also do wonders for the environment by not spewing tons of diesel all over the countryside every year. Global warming anyone?
ECAM Actions.
Last edited by ECAM_Actions; 23rd Feb 2011 at 15:44.
FB11 - you do talk complete cock!
30mRad - agreed, but the point is, none of those platforms offers what GR4 does. But if those who make these decisions are prepared to accept the risk, that's their choice (responsibility).
30mRad - agreed, but the point is, none of those platforms offers what GR4 does. But if those who make these decisions are prepared to accept the risk, that's their choice (responsibility).
ust Another Jocky
I fully agree - and tried to make that point more subtely (clearly failed 
) Wouldn't it be nice if someone was prepared to take that responsibility publicly rather than hide behind spin 
30mRad - agreed, but the point is, none of those platforms offers what GR4 does. But if those who make these decisions are prepared to accept the risk, that's their choice (responsibility).
) Wouldn't it be nice if someone was prepared to take that responsibility publicly rather than hide behind spin
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Go and speak to an Army bloke, he's the one that drives UK doctrine whether the RAF or Navy like it or not."
If that was true, ships and aircraft would be getting mothballed and scrapped. Ok I see your point.
If that was true, ships and aircraft would be getting mothballed and scrapped. Ok I see your point.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely we cant just increase reapers at the drop of a hat there must come a point were we run out of satellite band width and it cost rather a lot for one of those satellites unless weve stashed one down the back of the sofa and not told anyone. We can deploy FJ without such considerations is that not part of there selling point.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: beyond the hedge of reason
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am wondering whether this thread illustrates the point of why the MoD is so utterly incompetent. Wandering off the point, arrogant point scoring, intellectual posing - I know more about how the system works better than you do - do us a favour and grow up, some of you!
The reason that we might lose GR4s, have lost Harriers, carriers, a shed load of other stuff and lack the military capability to rescue Brits from Libya is because the MoD has overspent by £38 billion and that is because...?
Nothing to do with the most wicked, mendacious, selfish, arrogant, corrupt and spiteful government ever, getting us into a **** load of wars and then refusing to pay for them? All because a public school educated toff and spiv wanted Mick Jagger's job but figured the best way to get rich was to take over the Labour party. He lies through his teeth as first, through to last, resort but depends on a one eyed Scottish psycho who hates everything but especially the forces, in order to avoid confrontation with the real commies in his party. (Plus Prescott but then every king needs his fool). So 'show me the money' Bliar does as he is told and delivers calculated insult upon insult by appointing a succession of their most gullible 'useful idiots' to be Secretary of State for (not giving money to) Defence.
And the forces, most culpably their senior commanders, put up with this for 13 years and now, boo hoo, we can't afford the kit so we blame each other. Where were the resignations? Youngsters can die for our country but careers are sacrosanct. The leadership in the armed forces was abandoned decades ago and was replaced by something much more useful (career wise) - management.
The defence of this realm is not in peril - it has been destroyed. By a lot of spineless careerists who would not be able to find 'principle' in the index of a 4 page book entitled 'Stuff That Real Leaders Need to Know' by B Aldrick, Wibble Press, publishers, BlackAdder & Sons.
The reason that we might lose GR4s, have lost Harriers, carriers, a shed load of other stuff and lack the military capability to rescue Brits from Libya is because the MoD has overspent by £38 billion and that is because...?
Nothing to do with the most wicked, mendacious, selfish, arrogant, corrupt and spiteful government ever, getting us into a **** load of wars and then refusing to pay for them? All because a public school educated toff and spiv wanted Mick Jagger's job but figured the best way to get rich was to take over the Labour party. He lies through his teeth as first, through to last, resort but depends on a one eyed Scottish psycho who hates everything but especially the forces, in order to avoid confrontation with the real commies in his party. (Plus Prescott but then every king needs his fool). So 'show me the money' Bliar does as he is told and delivers calculated insult upon insult by appointing a succession of their most gullible 'useful idiots' to be Secretary of State for (not giving money to) Defence.
And the forces, most culpably their senior commanders, put up with this for 13 years and now, boo hoo, we can't afford the kit so we blame each other. Where were the resignations? Youngsters can die for our country but careers are sacrosanct. The leadership in the armed forces was abandoned decades ago and was replaced by something much more useful (career wise) - management.
The defence of this realm is not in peril - it has been destroyed. By a lot of spineless careerists who would not be able to find 'principle' in the index of a 4 page book entitled 'Stuff That Real Leaders Need to Know' by B Aldrick, Wibble Press, publishers, BlackAdder & Sons.
@E L Wisty
So at what point does it become the fault of the people who overspent by the £38 billion ? The £38 billion is not the cost of operations in the wars to which you allude - most overspend is entirely unrelated I understand ?
Your point about politicians is possibly accurate but they didn't actually order more than they could afford or could actually be delivered ? Whilst they may be guilty by omission of not controlling the spending of others, they did not actually cause the waste to be spent.
Its like blaming a cake shop owner for allowing a fat bloke to buy cake and make himself obese.
Those that stuff their face with cake that they cannot afford, or have the money with which to pay, cannot blame the person who takes away their credit cards and puts them on a diet.
So at what point does it become the fault of the people who overspent by the £38 billion ? The £38 billion is not the cost of operations in the wars to which you allude - most overspend is entirely unrelated I understand ?
Your point about politicians is possibly accurate but they didn't actually order more than they could afford or could actually be delivered ? Whilst they may be guilty by omission of not controlling the spending of others, they did not actually cause the waste to be spent.
Its like blaming a cake shop owner for allowing a fat bloke to buy cake and make himself obese.
Those that stuff their face with cake that they cannot afford, or have the money with which to pay, cannot blame the person who takes away their credit cards and puts them on a diet.