10 Downing St Plan To Cut RAF By 50%
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 Downing St Plan To Cut RAF By 50%
THE prime minister is threatening Liam Fox, the defence secretary, with a new round of cuts that would slash the RAF by half and the Royal Navy’s surface fleet by a third once British troops are out of Afghanistan.
Downing Street is considering plans for the RAF that would see its attack aircraft cut from 220 to about 80, and the navy’s surface fleet by a third from 19 destroyers and frigates to 12.
At least one, if not both, of the armed forces’ top combat brigades, 3 Commando Brigade and 16 Air Assault Brigade, which have led operations in Afghanistan, would be axed.
The plans, which officials say are being considered by No 10, the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence, would leave the RAF with only two frontline squadrons fully trained for immediate operations.
It now has eight, compared to the 22 it had when the Tories left power in 1997 and the 17 it had only 10 years ago.
The move would see both the RAF and the navy cut to their lowest levels in history and the armed forces reduced from one of the world’s largest to smaller than those of Greece.
“The ludicrous nature of these cuts is difficult to believe,” one senior defence source said. “The argument against them is obvious but the prime minister’s hatchet men don’t care.”
Officials said the plans were not designed to take place before 2015 and would be in addition to cuts already being devised as part of a “three-month review” designed to eliminate a £38 billion black hole in the defence budget.
David Cameron has sent in the cabinet office ministers Francis Maude and Oliver Letwin to ensure that the review, which began last month, is a “rigorous exercise”. An MoD spokesman said: “Work is still ongoing and no decisions have yet been taken.”
Downing Street is considering plans for the RAF that would see its attack aircraft cut from 220 to about 80, and the navy’s surface fleet by a third from 19 destroyers and frigates to 12.
At least one, if not both, of the armed forces’ top combat brigades, 3 Commando Brigade and 16 Air Assault Brigade, which have led operations in Afghanistan, would be axed.
The plans, which officials say are being considered by No 10, the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence, would leave the RAF with only two frontline squadrons fully trained for immediate operations.
It now has eight, compared to the 22 it had when the Tories left power in 1997 and the 17 it had only 10 years ago.
The move would see both the RAF and the navy cut to their lowest levels in history and the armed forces reduced from one of the world’s largest to smaller than those of Greece.
“The ludicrous nature of these cuts is difficult to believe,” one senior defence source said. “The argument against them is obvious but the prime minister’s hatchet men don’t care.”
Officials said the plans were not designed to take place before 2015 and would be in addition to cuts already being devised as part of a “three-month review” designed to eliminate a £38 billion black hole in the defence budget.
David Cameron has sent in the cabinet office ministers Francis Maude and Oliver Letwin to ensure that the review, which began last month, is a “rigorous exercise”. An MoD spokesman said: “Work is still ongoing and no decisions have yet been taken.”
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolute rubbish. It is probably the Army propaganda machine churning that drivel out. For they are the ones who are papping themselves about the next round of cuts in 2015 when they won't have Afghanistan to ring fence assets for. They are playing dirty and trying to shift the emphasis of cuts to the RAF and RN who have already been pared to the bone.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is complete arse. Google news search reveals no articles out there whatsoever.
Looks like a complete wind up. If any service is going to get hammered post 2015, its not going to be the raf or navy.
Looks like a complete wind up. If any service is going to get hammered post 2015, its not going to be the raf or navy.
Only 8 Sqns!
It now has eight, compared to the 22 it had when the Tories left power in 1997
Mick Smith traditionally does fairly poorly sourced drivel with some low grade sourcing. It sounds like someone has shown him the worst case doom and gloom cuts if everything happened all at once paper and taken it from there.
The biggest problem at the moment is that No10 is allegedly rejecting all guidance from MOD that the Army needs to be massively reduced in size (allegedly). If you believe rumours circulating, its mainly due to CDS's daughter working as a key Cameron aide and Cameron being brainwashed into thinking that reducing the Army to a level which the nation can afford would somehow be a bad thing...
The biggest problem at the moment is that No10 is allegedly rejecting all guidance from MOD that the Army needs to be massively reduced in size (allegedly). If you believe rumours circulating, its mainly due to CDS's daughter working as a key Cameron aide and Cameron being brainwashed into thinking that reducing the Army to a level which the nation can afford would somehow be a bad thing...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same old truculent Crabs. You don't like the subject, therefore the report must be crap!
It is inevitable that there is a 'nuclear option' on the table for all the services. Whether or not they are likely to be enabled is a moot point, that they are being discussed is not, we were told this last year.
Whilst I can't see a 50% cut in the RAF or the RN going through, as noted, it will be one of many 'nuclear' options being thrashed out. Unfortunately, whilst the 'nuclear' option might not be taken, that doesn't mean to say that the sub-nuclear option won't be taken with a view to then making it seem like we got off lightly.
Then again, the question of viability and numbers does come into it; it you chop the RAF and RN by 50%, both services will be combat non-effective, a bit like Belgium, and you are then into the realm of us becoming a heavily armed 21st century Home Guard; that probably sits well with the Europhiles, but would make us a laughing stock (even more so) with the US military and would no doubt breach our requirement for a minimum proportion of GDP to be spent on defence for NATO purposes. If UK defence goes down the tubes, that will have significant implications within NATO, and I really can't see Cameron wanting to be the man to go down in history as achieving what the Soviets spent half a century trying to achieve. Even Cameron isn't that big a muppet.
So is it all bluster? Probably. Is it worrying? Definitely. As Jimlad suggested, from a light blue political perspective, there are worryingly close links between the Army and Cameron through Dannatt and members of his family. Then again, given Jock's performance as CDS, maybe Cameron considers the RAF to be too close to Noo Labour and as such we have be tarred with our own brush and thus ripe for the chop.
Then again, the question of viability and numbers does come into it; it you chop the RAF and RN by 50%, both services will be combat non-effective, a bit like Belgium, and you are then into the realm of us becoming a heavily armed 21st century Home Guard; that probably sits well with the Europhiles, but would make us a laughing stock (even more so) with the US military and would no doubt breach our requirement for a minimum proportion of GDP to be spent on defence for NATO purposes. If UK defence goes down the tubes, that will have significant implications within NATO, and I really can't see Cameron wanting to be the man to go down in history as achieving what the Soviets spent half a century trying to achieve. Even Cameron isn't that big a muppet.
So is it all bluster? Probably. Is it worrying? Definitely. As Jimlad suggested, from a light blue political perspective, there are worryingly close links between the Army and Cameron through Dannatt and members of his family. Then again, given Jock's performance as CDS, maybe Cameron considers the RAF to be too close to Noo Labour and as such we have be tarred with our own brush and thus ripe for the chop.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would leave the RAF with only two frontline squadrons fully trained for immediate operations.
In full, the report in the Times suggests:
1. Loss of GR4 in toto around 2015 (a reduction of FJ to about 80 from 220, which I've interpreted here as losing 136 GR4)
2. Disbandment of one or both of 3Cdo and 16 AA Bdes
3. RN DD/FF strength to 12 hulls
I've also seen a suggestion somewhere (have to find it, might have been JDW) that this review also proposes turning the Army into pretty much a COIN-only force, which would be ironic, of course, since the bid by certain generals to get the govt to focus upon COIN was to protect the numbers of boots available to go on the ground, not to actually convince them to turn the Army into a COIN-only force shorne of tanks, GMLRS, etc.
Another rumour I've heard from a reasonably decent source (if one can count a member of the coalition with whom one attended university as such) is a 'if it flies, it's RAF, if it sails, it's RN and if it fights on the land (bar protecting airfields) it's Army' approach has not gone away...
1. Loss of GR4 in toto around 2015 (a reduction of FJ to about 80 from 220, which I've interpreted here as losing 136 GR4)
2. Disbandment of one or both of 3Cdo and 16 AA Bdes
3. RN DD/FF strength to 12 hulls
I've also seen a suggestion somewhere (have to find it, might have been JDW) that this review also proposes turning the Army into pretty much a COIN-only force, which would be ironic, of course, since the bid by certain generals to get the govt to focus upon COIN was to protect the numbers of boots available to go on the ground, not to actually convince them to turn the Army into a COIN-only force shorne of tanks, GMLRS, etc.
Another rumour I've heard from a reasonably decent source (if one can count a member of the coalition with whom one attended university as such) is a 'if it flies, it's RAF, if it sails, it's RN and if it fights on the land (bar protecting airfields) it's Army' approach has not gone away...
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Archimedes, well we got rid of the RAF boats a while back . . .
AFAIK the Army still has boats and aircraft and the Navy still has aircraft and boots.
AFAIK the Army still has boats and aircraft and the Navy still has aircraft and boots.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Melchett wrote
Ah, the famous 2% of GDP. Currently only the US, the UK, France and Greece meet 2%, and a rumour I heard (a rumour site after all, no?) was that the UK have only "met" the 2% over the budgetary period with some smoke and mirrors on operational spending in Afghanland being included, and this at the last minute before Hilary Clinton pitched up.
Retiring Secretary Gates is spot on in his criticism, as is the Economist this week:Charlemagne: On target | The Economist
So let's see. I think that the idea that this will happen is unlikely. It must, however, be being considered, along with all of the other "impossible options" in PR11 / PR 12.
S41
would make us a laughing stock (even more so) with the US military and would no doubt breach our requirement for a minimum proportion of GDP to be spent on defence for NATO purposes
Retiring Secretary Gates is spot on in his criticism, as is the Economist this week:Charlemagne: On target | The Economist
So let's see. I think that the idea that this will happen is unlikely. It must, however, be being considered, along with all of the other "impossible options" in PR11 / PR 12.
S41
The US should withdraw all support for NATO immediately and leave those in Europe to fend for themselves. They have blood sucked the USA for 50+ years...
Stand on your own two feet....
Stand on your own two feet....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The US should withdraw all support for NATO immediately and leave those in Europe to fend for themselves. They have blood sucked the USA for 50+ years...
Stand on your own two feet....
"
They can't, as has been so ably demonstrated with the Libya actions.
.
Stand on your own two feet....
"They can't, as has been so ably demonstrated with the Libya actions.
.
Ah, the famous 2% of GDP. Currently only the US, the UK, France and Greece meet 2%, and a rumour I heard (a rumour site after all, no?) was that the UK have only "met" the 2% over the budgetary period with some smoke and mirrors
I still think the US' reluctance to come and play in Libya was all about Obama making a point to Europe that they need to pull their finger out. It's frankly embarrassing not being able to stand up for yourself, smacks of being back in the playground and running off to teacher whenever someone does something you don't like.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The chopping in toto of the GR4 is an Army led point. They are trying to protect themselves by suggesting other forces get binned first. This is from a trustworthy source.