Britains Forces being brought to their knees
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Westerham, Kent
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Britains Forces being brought to their knees
An erudite article which warrants replication here on PPRuNe.
Britain's military is in a mess and the time has come to address this matter comprehensively and conclusively simply because to leave it any longer will be to have left it too late.
Britain's 'military might' has a direct bearing on our influence in international politics (something crucial in today's global village) and our involvement in the defence industry represents a vital component of our dwindling manufacturing sector.
What Britain needs is to make year-on-year increases (in real terms) to the defence budget so as to reinvigor our Armed Forces and stimulate our domestic defence and defence-related industries. This will sustain our political standing on the global stage and secure some stability for our now fragile defence industry. Properly managed an investment in defence could also see reductions to the number of unemployed.
Ministers, MP's, senior defence personnel and the public need to begin pushing for this now if we are to avert disaster.
Defence cuts: Our forces, brought to their knees - Telegraph
Britain's military is in a mess and the time has come to address this matter comprehensively and conclusively simply because to leave it any longer will be to have left it too late.
Britain's 'military might' has a direct bearing on our influence in international politics (something crucial in today's global village) and our involvement in the defence industry represents a vital component of our dwindling manufacturing sector.
What Britain needs is to make year-on-year increases (in real terms) to the defence budget so as to reinvigor our Armed Forces and stimulate our domestic defence and defence-related industries. This will sustain our political standing on the global stage and secure some stability for our now fragile defence industry. Properly managed an investment in defence could also see reductions to the number of unemployed.
Ministers, MP's, senior defence personnel and the public need to begin pushing for this now if we are to avert disaster.
When Lord West, former First Sea Lord and security minister in the Brown government, waved the flag for Britain last week, reminding the world that we are still a country to be reckoned with and “not like bloody Denmark or Belgium”, he presented Liam Fox with a gaping open goal. West, the Defence Secretary crowed, was guilty of crass insensitivity and should apologise. What about those plucky Danes in Afghanistan?
The old admiral, who had his ship sunk under him in the Falklands, may indeed have been less than diplomatic towards, let’s face it, two of our less weighty Nato allies, but everyone knows what he’s getting at. Britannia may have ceded rule of the waves to Uncle Sam sometime around 1943, but the United Kingdom has so far managed to cling to upper second division status in the global military league.
America, that creaking giant, still occupies the premier league on its own, with a defence budget matching the rest of the world. Then it’s the Chinese, then us and the French jostling for third place, with a bunch of old and new contenders – such as Russia, Japan, India and Brazil – breathing down our necks. So, yes, Britain should still be taken seriously as a military and military-industrial power (we are second only to America in arms exports), but for how long?
For how long, also, will the morale of the Armed Forces endure – on which Britain’s vaunted military excellence depends – in the face of £20 billion of cuts that are deemed vital by David Cameron and George Osborne?
No doubt Fox and his boss in Downing Street will wrap themselves in red, white and blue at the Conservative conference in Manchester this week, reminding the audience about who helped liberate Libya. But as they do so the P45s will be winging their way to the barracks, some to men and women who have no wish to give up what is more a way of life than a job.
Britain’s Armed Forces have become used to cuts – reviews they call them in the Ministry of Defence – but the latest round of redundancies and equipment losses, combined with cuts in defence manufacturing, threatens an irreversible decline in Britain’s ability to project military power and produce weapons.
The current blood-letting, known as the Strategic Defence and Security Review, involves slashing some 14,000 Army posts by 2020 and 5,000 Navy and 5,000 air force positions by 2015, leaving an Armed Forces establishment of just 140,000. The first tranche of Army and Royal Air Force redundancies have already been announced, and last week it was the Royal Navy’s turn. Roughly 1,020 officers and men are to leave the Senior Service in the first round, some 350 against their will. In addition, another 25,000 MoD civilian employees are to lose their jobs.
The defence industry, which directly employs 121,000 people in the UK, is expected to lose about 40,000 jobs in the next four years as projects are cancelled, scaled back or completed. Last week saw some 3,000 redundancies at BAE Systems factories in Lancashire and on Humberside as military aircraft production is reduced. British manned aircraft production could have ceased entirely by the end of the decade, together with the manufacture of heavy armoured vehicles and military helicopters.
“We have not seen anything like this since the end of the Second World War,” says Tim Ripley of Jane’s Defence Weekly. “By the end of the decade, under the plan envisaged by the Coalition government, the ability of the British Armed Forces to engage in sustained high-intensity combat will be greatly diminished. The Army, for example, will be merely a specialised counter-insurgency and peacekeeping force, equipped with only token armoured units. Mass manufacture of key defence hardware, ships, jets and tanks, will have ended. By design or accident Britain’s 'hard’ military power will be a thing of the past.”
The cost in morale is more subtle but becoming clear. The MoD runs something called the Armed Forces Continuous Attitudes Survey that monitors opinion in the ranks. Findings published this month make bleak reading. When asked how they rated morale in their service, only 18 per cent of all servicemen considered it high, while 44 per cent thought it low. Worst was the Royal Air Force: only nine per cent of airmen judged morale in the RAF to be high, against 62 per cent thinking it low. Only nine per cent of Royal Navy personnel thought morale high in their service, compared with 56 per cent for low.
Even more worrying were the figures for officers. Just 10 per cent of all commissioned servicemen thought morale high, compared with 55 per cent saying it was low. A minuscule two per cent of RAF officers believe morale was high, as opposed to 70 per cent in the “low” camp. The figure for naval officers was six and 59 per cent respectively. The Army produced a more positive outcome but pessimists still easily outnumbered optimists.
Graham Edmonds served 42 years in the Navy before his retirement in 2009. “Morale in the Royal Navy has plummeted,” he says. “The Treasury hates people because they are expensive: salaries, accommodation, pensions, national insurance. The easiest way to save money is to get rid of people.
“For the Navy, it is very depressing. Back in the 1980s many people in government had Armed Forces’ experience, and of war. Their decisions reflected that. Now, we have a government and a bunch of MPs who have no military experience.
“People in the Armed Forces are profoundly angry that their lives can be put on the line by incompetent and off-the-cuff decision-making. The Army is depressed, the RAF is fed up and the Navy aghast.”
Capability is going the way of jobs. Long-range maritime reconnaissance has gone with the cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4, battlefield surveillance will be lost with the early retirement of the Sentinel aircraft, and air defence of fleet, post-Harrier, resides almost solely on half a dozen Type 45 destroyers which, despite their £1 billion-a-piece price tag, have no long-range land-attack or anti-ship missile capacity.
Mr Fox has tried to blame these cuts on the over-ambitious procurement policy of Labour, and on the chronic incompetence of the MoD and service chiefs when buying equipment. There is truth in this but the price is being paid by ordinary servicemen and their families, facing a harsh economic landscape in civilian life. Many of those losing their jobs in uniform over the coming years would have found work in the defence industry, but that path is now being closed to them.
Kim Richards, head of the association that represents naval families, says in an address to members: “It isn’t just a job; it is a way of life. As a family, leaving service-provided accommodation, looking for a new home, moving to a new area, children changing schools, hunting for jobs, finding a GP and dentist may have to be on your radar over the next 12 months. It may seem daunting.”
Commander Nigel “Sharkey” Ward, a former Fleet Air Arm pilot who flew the Sea Harrier to great effect over the Falklands, is more direct. “The three services are in a state of 'lockdown’ at the moment at the behest of our less-than-illustrious Prime Minister, who wishes to hide completely illogical and damaging decisions from the public. What has happened has destroyed morale in the Armed Forces.
“We have a partly political, rotten game going on. All the lads can see it; all the officers and all the men – these good guys who put their lives on the line. Some would be much better off out of the services and away from this stupidity, this almost complete lack of loyalty.”
Not Belgium yet. But some would say we’re getting there.
The old admiral, who had his ship sunk under him in the Falklands, may indeed have been less than diplomatic towards, let’s face it, two of our less weighty Nato allies, but everyone knows what he’s getting at. Britannia may have ceded rule of the waves to Uncle Sam sometime around 1943, but the United Kingdom has so far managed to cling to upper second division status in the global military league.
America, that creaking giant, still occupies the premier league on its own, with a defence budget matching the rest of the world. Then it’s the Chinese, then us and the French jostling for third place, with a bunch of old and new contenders – such as Russia, Japan, India and Brazil – breathing down our necks. So, yes, Britain should still be taken seriously as a military and military-industrial power (we are second only to America in arms exports), but for how long?
For how long, also, will the morale of the Armed Forces endure – on which Britain’s vaunted military excellence depends – in the face of £20 billion of cuts that are deemed vital by David Cameron and George Osborne?
No doubt Fox and his boss in Downing Street will wrap themselves in red, white and blue at the Conservative conference in Manchester this week, reminding the audience about who helped liberate Libya. But as they do so the P45s will be winging their way to the barracks, some to men and women who have no wish to give up what is more a way of life than a job.
Britain’s Armed Forces have become used to cuts – reviews they call them in the Ministry of Defence – but the latest round of redundancies and equipment losses, combined with cuts in defence manufacturing, threatens an irreversible decline in Britain’s ability to project military power and produce weapons.
The current blood-letting, known as the Strategic Defence and Security Review, involves slashing some 14,000 Army posts by 2020 and 5,000 Navy and 5,000 air force positions by 2015, leaving an Armed Forces establishment of just 140,000. The first tranche of Army and Royal Air Force redundancies have already been announced, and last week it was the Royal Navy’s turn. Roughly 1,020 officers and men are to leave the Senior Service in the first round, some 350 against their will. In addition, another 25,000 MoD civilian employees are to lose their jobs.
The defence industry, which directly employs 121,000 people in the UK, is expected to lose about 40,000 jobs in the next four years as projects are cancelled, scaled back or completed. Last week saw some 3,000 redundancies at BAE Systems factories in Lancashire and on Humberside as military aircraft production is reduced. British manned aircraft production could have ceased entirely by the end of the decade, together with the manufacture of heavy armoured vehicles and military helicopters.
“We have not seen anything like this since the end of the Second World War,” says Tim Ripley of Jane’s Defence Weekly. “By the end of the decade, under the plan envisaged by the Coalition government, the ability of the British Armed Forces to engage in sustained high-intensity combat will be greatly diminished. The Army, for example, will be merely a specialised counter-insurgency and peacekeeping force, equipped with only token armoured units. Mass manufacture of key defence hardware, ships, jets and tanks, will have ended. By design or accident Britain’s 'hard’ military power will be a thing of the past.”
The cost in morale is more subtle but becoming clear. The MoD runs something called the Armed Forces Continuous Attitudes Survey that monitors opinion in the ranks. Findings published this month make bleak reading. When asked how they rated morale in their service, only 18 per cent of all servicemen considered it high, while 44 per cent thought it low. Worst was the Royal Air Force: only nine per cent of airmen judged morale in the RAF to be high, against 62 per cent thinking it low. Only nine per cent of Royal Navy personnel thought morale high in their service, compared with 56 per cent for low.
Even more worrying were the figures for officers. Just 10 per cent of all commissioned servicemen thought morale high, compared with 55 per cent saying it was low. A minuscule two per cent of RAF officers believe morale was high, as opposed to 70 per cent in the “low” camp. The figure for naval officers was six and 59 per cent respectively. The Army produced a more positive outcome but pessimists still easily outnumbered optimists.
Graham Edmonds served 42 years in the Navy before his retirement in 2009. “Morale in the Royal Navy has plummeted,” he says. “The Treasury hates people because they are expensive: salaries, accommodation, pensions, national insurance. The easiest way to save money is to get rid of people.
“For the Navy, it is very depressing. Back in the 1980s many people in government had Armed Forces’ experience, and of war. Their decisions reflected that. Now, we have a government and a bunch of MPs who have no military experience.
“People in the Armed Forces are profoundly angry that their lives can be put on the line by incompetent and off-the-cuff decision-making. The Army is depressed, the RAF is fed up and the Navy aghast.”
Capability is going the way of jobs. Long-range maritime reconnaissance has gone with the cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4, battlefield surveillance will be lost with the early retirement of the Sentinel aircraft, and air defence of fleet, post-Harrier, resides almost solely on half a dozen Type 45 destroyers which, despite their £1 billion-a-piece price tag, have no long-range land-attack or anti-ship missile capacity.
Mr Fox has tried to blame these cuts on the over-ambitious procurement policy of Labour, and on the chronic incompetence of the MoD and service chiefs when buying equipment. There is truth in this but the price is being paid by ordinary servicemen and their families, facing a harsh economic landscape in civilian life. Many of those losing their jobs in uniform over the coming years would have found work in the defence industry, but that path is now being closed to them.
Kim Richards, head of the association that represents naval families, says in an address to members: “It isn’t just a job; it is a way of life. As a family, leaving service-provided accommodation, looking for a new home, moving to a new area, children changing schools, hunting for jobs, finding a GP and dentist may have to be on your radar over the next 12 months. It may seem daunting.”
Commander Nigel “Sharkey” Ward, a former Fleet Air Arm pilot who flew the Sea Harrier to great effect over the Falklands, is more direct. “The three services are in a state of 'lockdown’ at the moment at the behest of our less-than-illustrious Prime Minister, who wishes to hide completely illogical and damaging decisions from the public. What has happened has destroyed morale in the Armed Forces.
“We have a partly political, rotten game going on. All the lads can see it; all the officers and all the men – these good guys who put their lives on the line. Some would be much better off out of the services and away from this stupidity, this almost complete lack of loyalty.”
Not Belgium yet. But some would say we’re getting there.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So lets play devils advocate here, should we just carry on spending? buy all the jets,tanks, and carriers that the Services want? what then? we end up like bloody Greece staring down the barrel!
All sectors are taking the cuts not just defence, with leadership comes tough decisions and someone has to make them, they were brushed under the carpet by the last incumbents and look where that got us?
All sectors are taking the cuts not just defence, with leadership comes tough decisions and someone has to make them, they were brushed under the carpet by the last incumbents and look where that got us?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,034
Received 2,902 Likes
on
1,243 Posts
Problem with that and ceasing buying equipment Jayand is once you go down the route of cancelling and destroying the likes of the Nimrods and reducing previous orders, BAe the only real military supplier left shuts the plants down and lays off the workforce, your skill base and Design knowledge on producing such things along with the facilities then rapidly vanishes over night never to be seen again.
This means you ultimately end up being reliant on buying your military equipment from abroad, and as in the case of the Chinook Mk 3 they refuse to divulge the software coding so you are up the creek without an expensive paddle so too speak, something that is also rumoured to be happening to the F35's source code as well, so any future "UK" modifications will need the US approval and changes..... It's okay being pally with the US, but it only takes something to destroy that supposed "special relationship" and they can refuse to sell arms to us....... and then were would we be, having destroyed our own industry? I suppose we could buy Russian..
Additionally your sales of reburbished aircraft to other countries after the RAF are done with them to generate some revenue higher than the scrap value, such as we did with the Hunter etc would not be allowed and the said aircraft would have to be scrapped... (think Phantom.)
I think a lot of this went wrong many moons ago when the Labour (?) Government of the day decided to merge all the great companies in the UK in to one, true it may have been expensive, but one wonders how much more competition and variety there would have been if the likes of English Electric, Hawker Siddley etc were still independant and able to sell their wares, and without the monopoly if it would have been cheaper.
This means you ultimately end up being reliant on buying your military equipment from abroad, and as in the case of the Chinook Mk 3 they refuse to divulge the software coding so you are up the creek without an expensive paddle so too speak, something that is also rumoured to be happening to the F35's source code as well, so any future "UK" modifications will need the US approval and changes..... It's okay being pally with the US, but it only takes something to destroy that supposed "special relationship" and they can refuse to sell arms to us....... and then were would we be, having destroyed our own industry? I suppose we could buy Russian..
Additionally your sales of reburbished aircraft to other countries after the RAF are done with them to generate some revenue higher than the scrap value, such as we did with the Hunter etc would not be allowed and the said aircraft would have to be scrapped... (think Phantom.)
I think a lot of this went wrong many moons ago when the Labour (?) Government of the day decided to merge all the great companies in the UK in to one, true it may have been expensive, but one wonders how much more competition and variety there would have been if the likes of English Electric, Hawker Siddley etc were still independant and able to sell their wares, and without the monopoly if it would have been cheaper.
Commander Nigel “Sharkey” Ward, a former Fleet Air Arm pilot who flew the Sea Harrier to great effect over the Falklands, is more direct. “The three services are in a state of 'lockdown’ at the moment at the behest of our less-than-illustrious Prime Minister, who wishes to hide completely illogical and damaging decisions from the public. What has happened has destroyed morale in the Armed Forces.
“We have a partly political, rotten game going on. All the lads can see it; all the officers and all the men – these good guys who put their lives on the line. Some would be much better off out of the services and away from this stupidity, this almost complete lack of loyalty.”
“We have a partly political, rotten game going on. All the lads can see it; all the officers and all the men – these good guys who put their lives on the line. Some would be much better off out of the services and away from this stupidity, this almost complete lack of loyalty.”
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Westerham, Kent
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So lets play devils advocate here, should we just carry on spending, buy all the jets,tanks, and carriers that the services want, what then, we end up like bloody Greece staring down the barrel?
Making real term increases to the defence budget is not supposed to be an act of mindless spending from non-existent resources but a conscious decision based on a clear understanding of what will be achieved.
In my original comment I recommend an investment with a two-pronged approach to .."reinvigor our Armed Forces and stimulate our domestic defence and defence-related industries."
Reinvigoring the Armed Forces also means maintaining servicemen and perhaps increasing the numbers of servicemen where appropriate. It may mean bolstering numbers of some of the lower ranks in a completely new initiative which would see unemployed gainfully secured in some form of military service which would directly support local community or perhaps even commercial enterprise. We will need to be forward-thinking and flexible to get out of this mess and new (preferably inspired) initiatives will be required. Britain will have to become tougher (much tougher) for a start and there would need to be a preference among all to seeing 'Joe Bloggs' signed-up to some form of useful public service as opposed to sitting at home on benefit eating crisps in front of the telly - for starters.
Stimulating (and sustaining) our domestic defence industry is crucial and NutLoose in his comment above displays some understanding of this. You will see that Tim Ripley (from Jane's) has confirmed that the UK is the world's second largest defence exporter - now I don't have the figures which indicate what these export earnings represent (if anyone has an idea I'd be keen to know) in terms of economic benefit to Britain but I suspect that it is mildly substantial.
Both these steps, reinvigoring the Armed Forces and sustaining our defence industry are vital to our mid-to-long-term well being - both political and economic. Any Minister, MP, senior defence staff or 'Joe' should be able to perceive that to endorse cut-backs in our circumstances will ultimately result in us having to pay a price we never wanted to pay in terms of subordination (politically) and suffering (economically).
An inspired, perceptive and strong leader would be able to see and understand that an investment in servicemen could help Britain at this time and I am absolutely suggesting that some of this bill will be taken from the unemployment benefits budget. Similarly, remaining 'in the game' and refining (making more competitive) our defence industry will provide desperately needed economic shoring.
There was a time when political leaders could think straight, what the hell has happened?
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
It may mean bolstering numbers of some of the lower ranks in a completely new initiative which would see unemployed gainfully secured in some form of military service which would directly support local community or perhaps even commercial enterprise.
Another issue and reason for UK plant closures is the practice of Offsets and Licensed Production.
Many 2/3rd World nations demand these when procuring new equipment as it allows for job creation and transfer of technologies to these lesser nations. Famous cases of this include the Belgian and Norwegian F16 production that was all done in specially built factories in Europe.
BAe cite the closure of their Hawk factory in the UK is down to offsets or licensed production. This practise is very common in the Defence industry but not in many others.
The UK Defence Industry actually has disproportionate lobbying power when compared to its direct portion of GDP input. It does however have a strong multiplier effect (where the payback associated with initial investment is increased)
"A £100 million investment in the defence industry generates an increase in gross output of £227 million, and increases Exchequer revenues by £11.5 million. This means the industry has an output multiplier of 2.3, ranking it above the median of the sectors considered. This
reflects both a strong UK based supply chain and a relatively high wage level paid to workers"
http://www.defencematters.co.uk/getd...cs-report.aspx
...whilst at the same time the UK consumer is being taken for a ride with 'sticky' petrol prices - quite why petrol remains at this price level when crude oil prices have come off some 30% from their peak really grates me. But then most of this is taxation so the UK Government has a vested interest in keeping petrol prices high
Many 2/3rd World nations demand these when procuring new equipment as it allows for job creation and transfer of technologies to these lesser nations. Famous cases of this include the Belgian and Norwegian F16 production that was all done in specially built factories in Europe.
BAe cite the closure of their Hawk factory in the UK is down to offsets or licensed production. This practise is very common in the Defence industry but not in many others.
The UK Defence Industry actually has disproportionate lobbying power when compared to its direct portion of GDP input. It does however have a strong multiplier effect (where the payback associated with initial investment is increased)
"A £100 million investment in the defence industry generates an increase in gross output of £227 million, and increases Exchequer revenues by £11.5 million. This means the industry has an output multiplier of 2.3, ranking it above the median of the sectors considered. This
reflects both a strong UK based supply chain and a relatively high wage level paid to workers"
http://www.defencematters.co.uk/getd...cs-report.aspx
...whilst at the same time the UK consumer is being taken for a ride with 'sticky' petrol prices - quite why petrol remains at this price level when crude oil prices have come off some 30% from their peak really grates me. But then most of this is taxation so the UK Government has a vested interest in keeping petrol prices high
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That latest crass Army advert says it all:
Army Infantry, No ordinary career.
Quite. The survivors will find they're made redundant on the whim of politicians who are talking up their particular viewpoint.
A more accurate advert would be:
Join the Forces, be a political pawn
(doesn't have the same ring of implied glory does it? For all its accuracy)
Army Infantry, No ordinary career.
Quite. The survivors will find they're made redundant on the whim of politicians who are talking up their particular viewpoint.
A more accurate advert would be:
Join the Forces, be a political pawn
(doesn't have the same ring of implied glory does it? For all its accuracy)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Goodwood, Sussex, UK
Age: 70
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... or working hard in a civilian job.
Either way I agree with you CG, something has to be done and it should not be at the expense of the Forces or the defence industry as that has been done to death already.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like some of you are falling out of love with this Tory government (ok...coalition if you prefer, because we all know what a difference that makes.)
I mean, it's not like anybody on Pprune was sounding a note of caution amongst all the triumphant rhetoric of two years ago. Words to the effect of..."If you think an incoming Tory government is good news for the Armed Forces you gotta be out of your tiny mind".
Maybe food for thought for May 2015? I will be going with the Monster Raving Looney Party....again.
I mean, it's not like anybody on Pprune was sounding a note of caution amongst all the triumphant rhetoric of two years ago. Words to the effect of..."If you think an incoming Tory government is good news for the Armed Forces you gotta be out of your tiny mind".
Maybe food for thought for May 2015? I will be going with the Monster Raving Looney Party....again.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very well written thread.
The Tories convieniently forget that it was them who ordered the
Nimrod MRA4 in 1996. So who is providing UK SAR cover out to 030W? I know there is a token gesture at the moment with best endeavours of C-130, but that was only til the end of this month when MRA4 was supposed to take over that role. And dont make me laugh that the E3D can do maritime search for small vessels.
Sadly defence isn't a vote winner and this government sees it as a easy option to save some cash. Labour of course are just as much to blame for the mess they left behind. But Cameron or was it Cameron under Stirrups interference to save his fast jet mates that pulled the plug on Nimrod. After all many of us remember the statement from way on high that MRA4 was one of the 3 red lines not to be touched.
Last month our small MPA group of manpower lost 1300 years of experience just like that. Try getting that back overnight.
In general morale is the lowest I have ever seen. I know of people who have PVR'd as they didn't get redundancy last month as they have simply had enough. This is more than likely why the second tranche has been delayed to next spring to see what the fallout of tranche 1 is.
As was mentioned previously the politicians will be flying the flag and stating that Uk Armed Forces are fantastic, but this is just words, they have depleted us materially and mentally. What we need is real actions not just words.
This is not just about downsizing, it's about losing complete capabilities. I and other foreign contacts think it is totally outrageous that we as a maritime nation with a massive SAR area of responsibility and so reliant on shipping to keep the country supplied have no MPA to patrol out waters. As a 3* said to me this has already bit us on the ass, we just dont publicise it for obvious reasons. The demise of the Nimrod MR2 after its issues had been resolved was purely political as it embarassed the government. Had the previous Tory goverment ordered one of the P3 variants put on offer then we would still be flying it now and protecting our interests. As a Naval 3* once said if we dont have MPA in times of tension we lose ships.
So thats my rant for today, but will we see any change soon, I dont think so, hence the reason morale is at an all time low. I appreciate the folks who say that defecnce has to take its share of the cuts, but the cuts have been happening in defence for decades. Look at defence inflation verses any increase in budget and we keep going backwards. Can anyone remember a review where we havn't had cutbacks? Dr Fox's leaked letter was spot on, it would be good if he stood up for himself and spoke out, but no, he is just another poodle.
The Tories convieniently forget that it was them who ordered the
Nimrod MRA4 in 1996. So who is providing UK SAR cover out to 030W? I know there is a token gesture at the moment with best endeavours of C-130, but that was only til the end of this month when MRA4 was supposed to take over that role. And dont make me laugh that the E3D can do maritime search for small vessels.
Sadly defence isn't a vote winner and this government sees it as a easy option to save some cash. Labour of course are just as much to blame for the mess they left behind. But Cameron or was it Cameron under Stirrups interference to save his fast jet mates that pulled the plug on Nimrod. After all many of us remember the statement from way on high that MRA4 was one of the 3 red lines not to be touched.
Last month our small MPA group of manpower lost 1300 years of experience just like that. Try getting that back overnight.
In general morale is the lowest I have ever seen. I know of people who have PVR'd as they didn't get redundancy last month as they have simply had enough. This is more than likely why the second tranche has been delayed to next spring to see what the fallout of tranche 1 is.
As was mentioned previously the politicians will be flying the flag and stating that Uk Armed Forces are fantastic, but this is just words, they have depleted us materially and mentally. What we need is real actions not just words.
This is not just about downsizing, it's about losing complete capabilities. I and other foreign contacts think it is totally outrageous that we as a maritime nation with a massive SAR area of responsibility and so reliant on shipping to keep the country supplied have no MPA to patrol out waters. As a 3* said to me this has already bit us on the ass, we just dont publicise it for obvious reasons. The demise of the Nimrod MR2 after its issues had been resolved was purely political as it embarassed the government. Had the previous Tory goverment ordered one of the P3 variants put on offer then we would still be flying it now and protecting our interests. As a Naval 3* once said if we dont have MPA in times of tension we lose ships.
So thats my rant for today, but will we see any change soon, I dont think so, hence the reason morale is at an all time low. I appreciate the folks who say that defecnce has to take its share of the cuts, but the cuts have been happening in defence for decades. Look at defence inflation verses any increase in budget and we keep going backwards. Can anyone remember a review where we havn't had cutbacks? Dr Fox's leaked letter was spot on, it would be good if he stood up for himself and spoke out, but no, he is just another poodle.
It's okay being pally with the US, but it only takes something to destroy that supposed "special relationship" and they can refuse to sell arms to us
Hardly "supposed" is it?
iRaven
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoots - whilst most of your statement I agree with, you would probably do well to remember it's not exactly rosey over in the FJ lofty towers at the moment. To say they're hanging on by a shoestring would be understating matters considerably...
Hardly "supposed" is it?
Special relationship exists to give US what it wants everytime and allows UK to feel like it punches above its weight.
Question is whether Special relationship is really worth it now.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cuts (silent 'n')
I don't think there is any doubt that cuts had to be made, but what has really dented morale and our servicemen's outlook is the way that cuts were made to the MR4, Harrier, CVS and various other ships, and then Libya kicked off and proved that everything that was cut was still needed. It proves how little our politicians know about the military and at the same time Cameron and Fox were saying look at us, we've made these cuts, but we can still go to war. Whilst we have gone to war, the RAF that is left at home is absolutely on its knees. Just take a look at how all the OCUs and FL sqns back home, both FJ and ME, are struggling. It will take months, if not years, for the fleets to get back to where they were at the end of last year in terms of capability, training, etc. If only Libya had started a year earlier...
It strikes me that for all the money which we spend on defence, there is a very small return in terms of quantity. For example, how can we be spending so much on defence and have to abandon a small fleet of maritime aircraft, both old life expired airframes and the tiny number to replace them? Meanwhile, Holland, with I'm sure, a much smaller defence budget, still runs its MPA force of P3s.
Germany a country that those at home often like to present as an example how we should be, have a large heavily armoured Army, an air force which has more high preformance aircraft and units on strength and again, for its comparatively small stretch of coastline, a reasonably sized fixed-wing MPA fleet of P3s and I imagine Atlantics still as well. I appreciate neither Holland nor Germany have a Nuclear Deterrent, but ours is suppose to be maintained by capital costs. I'm also aware of Osborne's insistance that this cost should now be found from within the defence budget, but has it actually been implemented as yet? And isn't it a deeply inadvisable move. Yet whatever happens elsewhere, the defence argument here has to contend with highly selective counter-arguments from people like Sir Simon Jenkins and other columnists in the Guardian and Independent, for example, who's main gripe always tends to be with the development and fielding of more conventional arms. They particularly seem to like the idea of the move away from traditional and more visible military assets and a concentration, indeed prioritization, on things like Cyber Warfare and Robots, whatever the military outlook.
FB
Germany a country that those at home often like to present as an example how we should be, have a large heavily armoured Army, an air force which has more high preformance aircraft and units on strength and again, for its comparatively small stretch of coastline, a reasonably sized fixed-wing MPA fleet of P3s and I imagine Atlantics still as well. I appreciate neither Holland nor Germany have a Nuclear Deterrent, but ours is suppose to be maintained by capital costs. I'm also aware of Osborne's insistance that this cost should now be found from within the defence budget, but has it actually been implemented as yet? And isn't it a deeply inadvisable move. Yet whatever happens elsewhere, the defence argument here has to contend with highly selective counter-arguments from people like Sir Simon Jenkins and other columnists in the Guardian and Independent, for example, who's main gripe always tends to be with the development and fielding of more conventional arms. They particularly seem to like the idea of the move away from traditional and more visible military assets and a concentration, indeed prioritization, on things like Cyber Warfare and Robots, whatever the military outlook.
FB
So 2 articles about the Special Relationship may be over written over a year ago by a journo. Or from the FCO...
UK and US: an essential relationship
"Essential" or "Special" it is very much alive and well and we both need each other (believe it or not!).
iRaven
UK and US: an essential relationship
"Essential" or "Special" it is very much alive and well and we both need each other (believe it or not!).
iRaven