Tornados to be axed?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EL and Graham O,
The men you are looking for are the Defence Secretaries (and there were a few in this period) - they made the decisions and carried the can (or should have). But then they were watched by the PM and HMT, and they in turn were put under pressure by the opposition who howled every time somebody tried to underfund defence as it fought two simultaneous wars - neither of which met the grand design.
Can you blame the senior officers (who are mostly untrained in the dark arts of contracts and projects) for keeping their hand in the cookie jar whilst it was still open? Quite a few people in this country were doing the same in the years of (perceived) plenty.
Nobody has covered themselves in glory, but you can't just pin this on a few. The bankers p***ed more than this away in a few weeks - what happened to them?
The men you are looking for are the Defence Secretaries (and there were a few in this period) - they made the decisions and carried the can (or should have). But then they were watched by the PM and HMT, and they in turn were put under pressure by the opposition who howled every time somebody tried to underfund defence as it fought two simultaneous wars - neither of which met the grand design.
Can you blame the senior officers (who are mostly untrained in the dark arts of contracts and projects) for keeping their hand in the cookie jar whilst it was still open? Quite a few people in this country were doing the same in the years of (perceived) plenty.
Nobody has covered themselves in glory, but you can't just pin this on a few. The bankers p***ed more than this away in a few weeks - what happened to them?
@Capt P U G Wash
You are correct - blame if it can be called that sticks to all of us. We are all culpably guilty to some extent. My strength of feeling really comes not from a desire to apportion blame to one or more specific individuals, but to ensure that those who may try and blame everyone else except themselves, see that they are as culpable as the rest to some extent.
Those who cry, as an earlier post on another thread so did, that this countries defences have been weakened solely by nefarious politicians, need to recognise that some chaps in uniform were as equally responsible.
Yes, this countries defences have been weakened undoubtedly, but as to whether the fault lies in a reduction of available front line aircraft due to budget cutbacks at the whim of a politician or that the organisation that is responsible overall for defence is just a tad porky, in the wrong shape (too fat in some places and too skinny in others) and has eaten all the cakes and those of others, and subsequently cannot fit in the cockpit (read budget for this ) remains debatable.
You are correct - blame if it can be called that sticks to all of us. We are all culpably guilty to some extent. My strength of feeling really comes not from a desire to apportion blame to one or more specific individuals, but to ensure that those who may try and blame everyone else except themselves, see that they are as culpable as the rest to some extent.
Those who cry, as an earlier post on another thread so did, that this countries defences have been weakened solely by nefarious politicians, need to recognise that some chaps in uniform were as equally responsible.
Yes, this countries defences have been weakened undoubtedly, but as to whether the fault lies in a reduction of available front line aircraft due to budget cutbacks at the whim of a politician or that the organisation that is responsible overall for defence is just a tad porky, in the wrong shape (too fat in some places and too skinny in others) and has eaten all the cakes and those of others, and subsequently cannot fit in the cockpit (read budget for this ) remains debatable.
Unfortunately, GrahamO, your voice was entirely lacking from the Defence Board for the past decade. There was no-one around that table who looked at the (obvious) disparity between financial committment and expected funding and enforced change.
But hang on, there were people who had that mandate: first of all there were the 3 NEDs (OK, they're outsiders so no-one is going to listen to them). However, there WAS CDS and PUS.
In my view Boyce, Walker and (especially) Stirrup & Jeffrey spectacularly failed in their duty to identify a strategic threat to future military capability and take action. That this threat came from the protectionism and bad behaviour of the individual Service chiefs does not excuse their negligence.
But hang on, there were people who had that mandate: first of all there were the 3 NEDs (OK, they're outsiders so no-one is going to listen to them). However, there WAS CDS and PUS.
In my view Boyce, Walker and (especially) Stirrup & Jeffrey spectacularly failed in their duty to identify a strategic threat to future military capability and take action. That this threat came from the protectionism and bad behaviour of the individual Service chiefs does not excuse their negligence.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: beyond the hedge of reason
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RLE - good stuff.
Spreading or sharing blame or citing 'the system' is a typical response of the political classes. The real problem is that the military and the civil service have become politicised to an obscene degree over the last 30 years. It was probably ever thus but it started sticking in my throat in the early 80s. It might seem obvious but politics is an ignoble pattern of behaviour and is well below the standards that should be expected of officers.
I read, from time to time, in the press and blogs, that there are inter-service rivalries. In my last job, it was quite strong at the SO 1 and 2 level and I was always keen to point it out. If it goes on at the level of the men you mention, it is a disgrace. Their duty is to stamp that stupidity out.
The responsibility for the state of UK defence lies squarely with, as you say, defence chiefs and the senior ministers. In some cases, notably Brown, the deliberate destruction is, IMHO, tantamount to treason.
One would wish that there is hope but, sadly, we have a publicity obsessed government who do not share my shame at the pathetic state of our defences. What can you say to somebody when they say, about Libya - 'Where were the RAF?'?
Spreading or sharing blame or citing 'the system' is a typical response of the political classes. The real problem is that the military and the civil service have become politicised to an obscene degree over the last 30 years. It was probably ever thus but it started sticking in my throat in the early 80s. It might seem obvious but politics is an ignoble pattern of behaviour and is well below the standards that should be expected of officers.
I read, from time to time, in the press and blogs, that there are inter-service rivalries. In my last job, it was quite strong at the SO 1 and 2 level and I was always keen to point it out. If it goes on at the level of the men you mention, it is a disgrace. Their duty is to stamp that stupidity out.
The responsibility for the state of UK defence lies squarely with, as you say, defence chiefs and the senior ministers. In some cases, notably Brown, the deliberate destruction is, IMHO, tantamount to treason.
One would wish that there is hope but, sadly, we have a publicity obsessed government who do not share my shame at the pathetic state of our defences. What can you say to somebody when they say, about Libya - 'Where were the RAF?'?
E L Whisty : "If it goes on at the level of the men you mention, it is a disgrace. Their duty is to stamp that stupidity out."
Very well said. The senior officers reponsible for this shambles should be ashamed. Disgraces to their uniforms in my view - their duty was to do the best for the troops whose interests they represented and to ensure that their country had & continued to have the best possible defence consistent with perceived and predicted threats and budgetary constraints.
Once the military become politicised at high level - as with the Civil Service, it seems duty becomes secondary to self interest.
Very well said. The senior officers reponsible for this shambles should be ashamed. Disgraces to their uniforms in my view - their duty was to do the best for the troops whose interests they represented and to ensure that their country had & continued to have the best possible defence consistent with perceived and predicted threats and budgetary constraints.
Once the military become politicised at high level - as with the Civil Service, it seems duty becomes secondary to self interest.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just a civvy, but from where I'm sat the destruction of the armed forces over the last decade is an outrage.
Forgive my ignorance on such matters, but when we lose just about the entire RAF front line to an 18% cut in budgets, where the hell is the other 82% of the budget going?!
There are plenty of other things that could be cut or taxed first in order to reduce the deficit. So what if a tax on bankers mean they leave the country! I say GOOD - they destroyed this place - we don't need them around!
The PM doesn't pay tax on his income - that should be corrected immediately. Next, a 50% cut in salary for all MPs, and scrap the expenses. That will sort out who really wants the job, and we might end up with people who give a damn about the country instead.
Cutting the public sector is a welcome move, but they are targetting the wrong people. Cuts should start at the top with the managers that are earning £200,000/year to not do very much. If they were paid £50,000/year it would still be too much.
As it is, it would appear the defense cuts have affected the British response to getting people out of Libya. My opinion there is get air superiority and get our people out. Unfortunately we are engaged in wars we don't need to be engaged in, and so can't defend our people against a real threat.
This turned into a bit of a rant.
The whole way this country has been run over the last decade and a bit has culminated in the mess we are in now, and the present Conservative government (I know it is a coalition but we are only kidding ourselves if we think the Lib Dems have any real say in this) are doing a dandy job of finishing it off.
ECAM Actions.
Forgive my ignorance on such matters, but when we lose just about the entire RAF front line to an 18% cut in budgets, where the hell is the other 82% of the budget going?!
There are plenty of other things that could be cut or taxed first in order to reduce the deficit. So what if a tax on bankers mean they leave the country! I say GOOD - they destroyed this place - we don't need them around!
The PM doesn't pay tax on his income - that should be corrected immediately. Next, a 50% cut in salary for all MPs, and scrap the expenses. That will sort out who really wants the job, and we might end up with people who give a damn about the country instead.
Cutting the public sector is a welcome move, but they are targetting the wrong people. Cuts should start at the top with the managers that are earning £200,000/year to not do very much. If they were paid £50,000/year it would still be too much.
As it is, it would appear the defense cuts have affected the British response to getting people out of Libya. My opinion there is get air superiority and get our people out. Unfortunately we are engaged in wars we don't need to be engaged in, and so can't defend our people against a real threat.
This turned into a bit of a rant.
The whole way this country has been run over the last decade and a bit has culminated in the mess we are in now, and the present Conservative government (I know it is a coalition but we are only kidding ourselves if we think the Lib Dems have any real say in this) are doing a dandy job of finishing it off.
ECAM Actions.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ECAM Actions
Unfortunatley there is no evidence of this at all. There is nothing to suggest that the UK Armed Forces have been unable to meet any request made my the FCO to support the FCO-led evacuation operation. The first option in any evacuation is to use civilian means the last is the use of military assets. From the open source evidence available, the current criticism has more to do with the FCO's civil contingeny plan and/or decision making process than it does with the UK military involvement.
As it is, it would appear the defense cuts have affected the British response to getting people out of Libya.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for stating the obvious Phil R... I'm just lost for words.
That is true. Though we couldn't park a fleet of Harriers off the coast even if we wanted to. According to some British who are out there, talking on the radio this morning, the people in Libya generally want to help anyone who is not Libyan get out safely. The problem is those who couldn't care less. At least if we had some credible force waiting they might just think twice before doing anything (though it would seem at present, they haven't, fortunately).
ECAM Actions.
From the open source evidence available, the current criticism has more to do with the FCO's civil contingency plan and/or decision making process than it does with the UK military involvement.
ECAM Actions.
I would have thought in my uninformed way, that an evacuation plan using civilian assets requires some kind of NFZ as any Insurance company would refuse to insure a repatriation flight into a potentially hostile zone ? Would you lend your aircraft to someoen to fly into potentially hostile skies, or land at an airport controlled by the less than stable?
Would it matter if there are a dozen civilian aircraft on the UK tarmac waiting to go, if their owners refuse to let the government use them without insurance ? Somehow I doubt the government would want to take the risk themselves ?
Would it matter if there are a dozen civilian aircraft on the UK tarmac waiting to go, if their owners refuse to let the government use them without insurance ? Somehow I doubt the government would want to take the risk themselves ?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: beyond the hedge of reason
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climebear, sorry, bollocks!
Yesterday, Hague was saying that 2 civvy lines declined to accept an invitation to fly to Tripoli. The 3rd option had a sick jet that took 10 hours to fix.
Ergo, civvy options ran out.
In a '**** together operation' there would have been military assets ready to take over, immediately, in case 'contractors' ran out of trust / patriotism / backbone / technical competence.
The plain facts are that UK government could not organise a pissup in a brewery, dependence on civilian contractors is a Blairite con and the MoD does not have the resources to do much other than the outrageously stretching tasks they are already assigned.
I am outraged and ashamed that a nation that I have loved and served has been allowed to become a laughing stock. Banana republic is a distant aspiration!
So back to the point, the reason we do not have enough jets, boats, tanks, guns, highly trained psychos who smash up bars in seconds and BFO stuff that makes johnny foreigner tremble in fear is because our politicians are immoral arses and our military leaders are too cowardly to tell them so!
Yesterday, Hague was saying that 2 civvy lines declined to accept an invitation to fly to Tripoli. The 3rd option had a sick jet that took 10 hours to fix.
Ergo, civvy options ran out.
In a '**** together operation' there would have been military assets ready to take over, immediately, in case 'contractors' ran out of trust / patriotism / backbone / technical competence.
The plain facts are that UK government could not organise a pissup in a brewery, dependence on civilian contractors is a Blairite con and the MoD does not have the resources to do much other than the outrageously stretching tasks they are already assigned.
I am outraged and ashamed that a nation that I have loved and served has been allowed to become a laughing stock. Banana republic is a distant aspiration!
So back to the point, the reason we do not have enough jets, boats, tanks, guns, highly trained psychos who smash up bars in seconds and BFO stuff that makes johnny foreigner tremble in fear is because our politicians are immoral arses and our military leaders are too cowardly to tell them so!
GrahamO
Have a read of this - click here (it's long and very dull!)
Can't guarantee its the latest version (it is from the MOD online library after all) but it will answer all your questions (although it is written from the military perspective). Key to it is :
It also states
And in theory this is still a 'peaceful' evacuation so whatever non-military plans were in place have clearly failed. Stand by for a willy waving contest between the FCO and the MoD!!
Perhpas the previous government, having sucked up to Col G, thought Libya was a stable country!!
Have a read of this - click here (it's long and very dull!)
Can't guarantee its the latest version (it is from the MOD online library after all) but it will answer all your questions (although it is written from the military perspective). Key to it is :
HMG discharges its responsibilities for the protection of British citizens overseas through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) assisted by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) as required.
The military option is invariably seen as the last resort and thus any FCO request to deploy a JTF may not, from a military perspective, be the best timing
Perhpas the previous government, having sucked up to Col G, thought Libya was a stable country!!
Good grief, Wrathmonk - that is some document. No wonder they can't get anything done. Is that verbosity typical?
By the time they've hauled that out, dusted it off, worked through it, figured it out, dealt with the caveats and slopy shouldering, and sorted the correct thing to do, the emergency will be ancient history !
Meantime, our French colleagues had their military nip in, pick up anyone standing under a French flag at Tripoli, plus anyone else who wanted on the plane, and legged it back out smartish. As did the Dutch - and perhaps the Germans ? Seems to me we look pretty stupid.
Thanks Messrs Cameron & Hague.....
"A willy waving contest" - nice one - and probably what will happen.
By the time they've hauled that out, dusted it off, worked through it, figured it out, dealt with the caveats and slopy shouldering, and sorted the correct thing to do, the emergency will be ancient history !
Meantime, our French colleagues had their military nip in, pick up anyone standing under a French flag at Tripoli, plus anyone else who wanted on the plane, and legged it back out smartish. As did the Dutch - and perhaps the Germans ? Seems to me we look pretty stupid.
Thanks Messrs Cameron & Hague.....
"A willy waving contest" - nice one - and probably what will happen.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Several miles SSW of Watford Gap
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OFF TOPIC
ECAM Actions
True but then neither can Poland and they still managed to evacuate their nationals (and some of ours) before the UK. I agree I doubt that we would have the assets to conduct a NEO in an all but permissive environment or anything like an intervention in another nation's affairs. However, (as far as I know) the UK Government is not intending to conduct either of these. The UK military is doing (as it has in the past) what is required of it by the UK government.
E L Whisty
What a delightful turn of phrase. Your point that nothing was ready to go when the civvy options ran out (although, I note, the other nations and the oil companies still managed to get charter aircraft to fly in and out of Tripoli) confirms my point that this demonstrates in failures of the 'FCO's civil contingeny plan and/or decision making process'.
Of course you may my sit on the COBRA committee or be part of the DCMO and know better; however, from the evidence available through open source it would appear that the UK Armed Forces provided the capability that was requested by the FCO when the FCO requested it.
For my part I do agree that we are taking enormous risks with our - lack of - military capability. However, this particular instance does not demonstrate it. Until we can, then the Treasury will continue to cut. Unfortunately the country is broke; therefore, the Government has decided to cut expenditure in order to balance the books. In doing so it has had to accept that it does so at risk. ie:
Back in 1988 a young Climebear played a very minor part in Exercise PURPLE WARRIOR in West Scotland that was based on a NEO involving a naval task group, 2 brigades (3 Cdo Bde and 5 (AB) Bde), significant air (C130s, numerours helicopters, 1(F) Sqn Harriers, 43(F) Sqn Phantoms...), quite an undertaking. Fast forward to 2006 when an older and more cynical Climebear is involved in the contingency planning for a real NEO (albeit that it wasn't required in the end) he finds that he only has one ship (albeit a big one) with a handful of RMs and a few small boats, 1 infantry battallion (with additional combat support elements), and (perhaps) a handful fo helicopters to play with. I would imagine that the same planner today would have significantly fewer assets.
The military fall back is not, therefore, the get-out-of-jail-free card that it once was; I would contend that it may well never be again. This is similar to the vast majority of countries around the world. Therefore, the UK will need to adjust its mindset accordingly and either make decisions to evacuate earlier and use civil means(even if this could compromise strategic intent), or work with other nations (though this too has its problems - it's hard enough getting the UK government to decide to call an evacuation, just imagine, say, trying to get all of the EU governments (each with their own levels of strategic interest in the subject country) to decide). I just hope that the UK Armed Forces don't find themselves involved in a NEO in a hostile environment; but, until we get to the situation when our Chiefs have to say no, then the Government isn't going worry about the level of risk it is currently carrying.
OFF TOPIC
ECAM Actions
Though we couldn't park a fleet of Harriers off the coast even if we wanted to.
E L Whisty
What a delightful turn of phrase. Your point that nothing was ready to go when the civvy options ran out (although, I note, the other nations and the oil companies still managed to get charter aircraft to fly in and out of Tripoli) confirms my point that this demonstrates in failures of the 'FCO's civil contingeny plan and/or decision making process'.
Of course you may my sit on the COBRA committee or be part of the DCMO and know better; however, from the evidence available through open source it would appear that the UK Armed Forces provided the capability that was requested by the FCO when the FCO requested it.
For my part I do agree that we are taking enormous risks with our - lack of - military capability. However, this particular instance does not demonstrate it. Until we can, then the Treasury will continue to cut. Unfortunately the country is broke; therefore, the Government has decided to cut expenditure in order to balance the books. In doing so it has had to accept that it does so at risk. ie:
a. fewer FCO people to organise evacuations.
b. fewer military assets to conduct evacuations when civil contingeny plans prove insuficient (possibly as a result of a.).
The nasty thing about 'risks' (things that may happen) is that they have an annoying habbit of becoming 'issues' (things that are happening). If you can't afford to mitigate a risk then you, invariably, end up spending a lot more to put right an issue.b. fewer military assets to conduct evacuations when civil contingeny plans prove insuficient (possibly as a result of a.).
Back in 1988 a young Climebear played a very minor part in Exercise PURPLE WARRIOR in West Scotland that was based on a NEO involving a naval task group, 2 brigades (3 Cdo Bde and 5 (AB) Bde), significant air (C130s, numerours helicopters, 1(F) Sqn Harriers, 43(F) Sqn Phantoms...), quite an undertaking. Fast forward to 2006 when an older and more cynical Climebear is involved in the contingency planning for a real NEO (albeit that it wasn't required in the end) he finds that he only has one ship (albeit a big one) with a handful of RMs and a few small boats, 1 infantry battallion (with additional combat support elements), and (perhaps) a handful fo helicopters to play with. I would imagine that the same planner today would have significantly fewer assets.
The military fall back is not, therefore, the get-out-of-jail-free card that it once was; I would contend that it may well never be again. This is similar to the vast majority of countries around the world. Therefore, the UK will need to adjust its mindset accordingly and either make decisions to evacuate earlier and use civil means(even if this could compromise strategic intent), or work with other nations (though this too has its problems - it's hard enough getting the UK government to decide to call an evacuation, just imagine, say, trying to get all of the EU governments (each with their own levels of strategic interest in the subject country) to decide). I just hope that the UK Armed Forces don't find themselves involved in a NEO in a hostile environment; but, until we get to the situation when our Chiefs have to say no, then the Government isn't going worry about the level of risk it is currently carrying.
OFF TOPIC
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a '**** together operation' there would have been military assets ready to take over, immediately,
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: beyond the hedge of reason
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NURSE - keep wondering. Meanwhile, those of us who have post-grad degrees in the blindingly bleeding obvious will tell you that governments negotiate contracts with privately owned companies. On the other hand, tasty dudes in uniforms respond instantly to orders. (Sorry - I understand that you were being subtle).
UG - it tells you that the FCO is utterly incompetent and is led by a posing Yorkshire twerp who has built a career on impressive rhetoric but bugger all achievement. A foreign secretary who has as his 'leader', I have come to realise, a silly little boy whose only function in life was to become a template for 'Tim Nice but Dim'. Jeez, what a shower of 'administrative genius with a mastery of detail'.
Climebear - the last time a senior officer used the 'delightful turn of phrase' dit to me, he meant that my career was about to reach its limit. He was wrong but he did rise to 3 star and was one of the 'military' lackeys who allowed the political shysters to destroy the defence of this realm. So, I am sorry if 'bollocks' makes you splutter into your lemon tea but I get really, seriously, dismayed about living in a nation that invades other countries because of lies, destabilises them, resulting in the deaths of thousands of children just so that some underachieving arseh*les can think that they are 'great men'. And then they, deliberately, renege on the deal to pay for what they have bought.
So, in the great scheme of things, writing 'bollocks' on a publicly accessible internet forum, is, IMHO, a little less offensive to human culture than what we have allowed our 'leaders' to do to our, once great nation.
UG - it tells you that the FCO is utterly incompetent and is led by a posing Yorkshire twerp who has built a career on impressive rhetoric but bugger all achievement. A foreign secretary who has as his 'leader', I have come to realise, a silly little boy whose only function in life was to become a template for 'Tim Nice but Dim'. Jeez, what a shower of 'administrative genius with a mastery of detail'.
Climebear - the last time a senior officer used the 'delightful turn of phrase' dit to me, he meant that my career was about to reach its limit. He was wrong but he did rise to 3 star and was one of the 'military' lackeys who allowed the political shysters to destroy the defence of this realm. So, I am sorry if 'bollocks' makes you splutter into your lemon tea but I get really, seriously, dismayed about living in a nation that invades other countries because of lies, destabilises them, resulting in the deaths of thousands of children just so that some underachieving arseh*les can think that they are 'great men'. And then they, deliberately, renege on the deal to pay for what they have bought.
So, in the great scheme of things, writing 'bollocks' on a publicly accessible internet forum, is, IMHO, a little less offensive to human culture than what we have allowed our 'leaders' to do to our, once great nation.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have some issues with all this panic about evacuating Brits from Libya
No-one, and I mean no-one, ever went to Libya without knowing what sort of place they were going to - the oil field trash (the correct technical term within the oil business I hasten to add) especially
They decided to go and they are/were very well remunerated for the risks - and most of them try and avoid UK tax on it too
When the brown stuff hits the fan it ill becomes them to squawk and scream for help IMHO
No-one, and I mean no-one, ever went to Libya without knowing what sort of place they were going to - the oil field trash (the correct technical term within the oil business I hasten to add) especially
They decided to go and they are/were very well remunerated for the risks - and most of them try and avoid UK tax on it too
When the brown stuff hits the fan it ill becomes them to squawk and scream for help IMHO