Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

UKIP Defence Policy Released

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

UKIP Defence Policy Released

Old 1st May 2013, 20:43
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,913
UKIP Defence Policy Released

Having mixed thoughts on this...

Defence

...it all seems a bit amateurish to me...

I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers from recently retired HM Forces personnel that could help Mr Farage develop something better.

LJ

Last edited by Lima Juliet; 20th Aug 2013 at 01:00.
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 1st May 2013, 20:53
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Lincs
Age: 50
Posts: 12
It's a bit thin.....! (Understatement of the year...)
AF03-111 is offline  
Old 1st May 2013, 21:18
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 282
it all seems a bit amateurish to me.
To be fair the apparently professionally thought out defence policy isn't panning out brilliantly...
Bing is offline  
Old 1st May 2013, 21:27
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @RAF_IFA
Posts: 3,265
It might be fag packet and a little light on detail, but the finely crafted ponderous swathes we wade thought these days don't guarantee results either.

It is a shame that there is no specific mention of revised pension rights for military widows. FPS - you need to get in there, chaps.
Al R is offline  
Old 1st May 2013, 21:28
  #5 (permalink)  

Champagne anyone...?
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: EGDL
Age: 50
Posts: 1,410
I think they got though quite a few crayons knocking that one up.....
StopStart is online now  
Old 1st May 2013, 21:47
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @RAF_IFA
Posts: 3,265
I don't know if we're just getting more verbose, but its interesting to revisit the entire defence element of the 1979 Tory manifesto.

IMPROVING OUR DEFENCES

During the past five years the military threat to the West has grown steadily s the Communist bloc has established virtual parity in strategic nuclear weapons and a substantial superiority in conventional weapons. Yet Labour have cut down our forces, weakened our defences and reduced our contribution to NATO. And the Left are pressing for still more reductions.

We shall only be able to decide on the proper level of defence spending after consultation in government with the Chiefs of Staff and our allies. But it is already obvious that significant increases will be necessary. The SALT discussions increase the importance of ensuring the continuing effectiveness of Britain's nuclear deterrent.

In recent times our armed forces have had to deal with a wide variety of national emergencies. They have responded magnificently despite government neglect and a severe shortage of manpower and equipment.

We will give our servicemen decent living conditions, bring their pay up to full comparability with their civilian counterparts immediately and keep it there. In addition, we must maintain the efficiency of our reserve forces. We will improve their equipment, too, and hope to increase their strength.
Al R is offline  
Old 1st May 2013, 21:58
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 870
Ouch!!
Soldiers, sailors and airmen win wars- not civil servants no matter how worthy.
The Ministry of Defence is not fit for purpose, nor has it been for many years -
and it is very expensive –the cost of keeping 85,000 civilian staff alone will run
to the order of £6 billion per year.

The Royal Air Force reserves will be expanded, utilising a mix
of current equipment and last generation equipment such as the Tornado.
What could possibly go wrong there?!
TheWizard is offline  
Old 1st May 2013, 22:21
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 62
Posts: 6,996
I don't think it will get off the ground Leon

CoffmanStarter is offline  
Old 1st May 2013, 22:37
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 40
Posts: 731
Sorry - was this some kind of comedy 'if Iwere running the show' policy dreamt up in a pub?
Clearly written by people who've never had the slightest understanding of Defence beyond some gucci youtube footage and 1950s war movies.

In short order, no I don't think the idea of the RAuxAF operating GR4 is a terribly sensible idea.
No I don't think disbanding MOD makes much sense, because you still need someone to give oversight and direction to how an organisation based across the globe, operating in deep space and deep underwater, and which does everything from health care, schooling, riding schools, dockyard maintenance and the odd spot of extreme violence does its business.
I dont think randomly suggesting procurement of equipment like extra Type 45 which isn't currently inbuild at a cost of billions, and which will mess up our long term equipment programme is a terribly good idea.
I dont think introducing a stand alone tactical cruise missile for use in a nuclear role without any thought about deterrence, or how a nuclear armed opponent may perceive an attack with dozens of missiles coming his way is a very sensible idea either.
I also think that anyone who seriously believes that the Regular Armed Forces somehow represent a more cost effective body of staff than the MOD when it comes to normal office duties is probably taking drugs (average MOD salary cost is £23K, while everyone in the military at the rank of Cpl or above is on at least £26K plus a very generous allowance and housing support system - the regular military is bloody expensive, which is why we have so many budget problems).

If we had infinite money and time, then they may be on to something. But frankly given the huge responsibilities defence has, the limited funding its got, and the very real constraints we all operate under, I think all political parties of any view would quickly produce a document looking remarkably like the SDSR did.
Jimlad1 is offline  
Old 1st May 2013, 23:16
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 70
Posts: 133
Well it's a manifesto that will not be tested. Parts I agree with, other parts I don't. Which is which is immaterial because of the reason first stated. As a rabid opponent of the European federalist superstate, I have sympathy which UKIP's main theme, but they are a bit of a flaky group. Their main achievement right now is to have seriously rattled the cages of the mainstream parties. Hence the sudden rush by all the major parties to comment on immigration issues once UKIP had dared to raise the issue. Hence also the sudden increase in smear stories about how right wing/fascist they may be.

We are burdened with parties led by forgetables who are certainly not leaders. We are further encumbered by parties which are becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate. None could even loosely be described as radical, and radical thinking is needed now more than ever. UKIP is as flawed as they come, but at least Farage has gumption, conviction, and a simple way of getting his point over. And boy does he tell it like it is. Also, I could actually understand the simple language of their defence manifesto, so a big thumbs up for that. Clearly not written by the usual defence specialists as it's way too short of jargon and acronyms to be a credible military document. They also appear to genuinely care about the defence of the country and that is somehow quaintly old-fashioned.

All in all, I think our political process needs the prodding that it gets from UKIP in those spots where our leaders are most loath to be prodded. But the reality is, when the chips are down, we will once more be blessed with grey men speaking lots, saying little and achieving less.

Keep shaking the tree Nigel!

LF
Lowe Flieger is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 07:08
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 66
Posts: 3,058
This highlights the fundamental problem with non-mainstream parties. They appeal to the populace and go to the polls with promises of fixes to the issues which are important to the proverbial 'man in the street', but underlying and vital components such as finance, defence, and international relations of running a country only get superficial and inadequate coverage.

It's one of the reasons I won't vote, and never have voted, for any political party, although I am a member of UKIP and support its aims.

If they gave the other useless bunch a challenge, they've achieved something but there's a risk that they split the vote to the extent that neither mainstream party gets a clear mandate to govern and the result is a weak and useless coalition, the current UK situation being a perfect illustration of that.
Capetonian is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 08:37
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 63
Posts: 3,866

In short order, no I don't think the idea of the RAuxAF operating GR4 is a
terribly sensible idea.
Many years ago I was chatting to a USAF reservist pilot who was flying F16s out of Aviano AFB in support of the Bosnia No Fly Zone. He was an airline pilot for his day job, but was a Lt Col in the Air National Guard as a "hobby". His unit had recently taken up the F16 in the ground attack role having previously flown the A10. He said that maintaining competency on the F16 was much harder than on the A10 due to the complexity of the aircraft and the 16 hours weekend flying per month that he was receiving was not enough.

I wonder if the same would apply to the GR4?
Wensleydale is online now  
Old 2nd May 2013, 09:48
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 1,537
Yip, Yip. Wibble, wibble. Hatstand.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 10:11
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SW England
Age: 72
Posts: 3,764
I'd vote for anyone who'll promise to bin Trident. It's beginning to get like someone who is prepared to live in a tent so he can carrying on running his Ferrari - our present defence forces are starting to resemble the tent
Tankertrashnav is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 12:16
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 44
Posts: 1,016
why on earth does anyone think that binning trident - or it's replacement will help the mil budget - if it does go then the pennies earmarked for it would very (as in head spinningly) quickly be swallowed up by whichever vanity project/votewinner/vote keeper/bribe needs it.

the defense budget is looked at arse about face - they ought to be saying we need to do this much - here is how much this will cost.

Not the current way of mismanaging budgets - my budget is "X" that I run/manage/spend for a hobby.
when I run oout of budget and the factory is stopped does my MD say "but you've spent your allowance and you cant have any more!"..... No

he says spend what you have to and try and be frugal next month - maybe my budget is set too small, maybe I should not be buying ferraris on company dine (JOKE)

you need to set out your aims and then tell the accounts dept how much it will cost and have them find you the money.

(here is a helpful hint) look at housing benefit - using taxpayer cash to pay mortgages of property barons to house people.........
cornish-stormrider is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 12:30
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,201
Einstein was wrong, the next World War will be fought with stick and stones on our side at the current reduction rate, not the fourth one.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 12:32
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
you need to set out your aims and then tell the accounts dept how much it will cost and have them find you the money
And why on earth do you think the treasury would just hand over the money? I should think your view has unanimous support, no matter who you speak to, but we have finite resources and should try and spend them as wisely as we can.

I agree with TT, £25 billion that has already been agreed the government can afford, could be much better spent! I doubt the CDS would willingly just let it go while we have such monumental capability gaps!
Bastardeux is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 13:48
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
UKIP are a mixture of blokes who believe what their mates tell them in the pub and a significant bunch of "entryists" from the EDL and similar far right outfits....

remember the guy who founded them quit because of the sort of people who were joining them

they'll get the protest vote but once you turn a bright light on them..... zillions of pounds in give aways and no plans on how they'll pay for them
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 14:04
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: England
Posts: 1,870
Gentlemen

I have to agree with CS. We should:

- Decide what we as a nation want to be capable of doing (NEO, stabilisation, intervention, global (thermo-nuclear) warfare etc).
- Decide what capabilities we want/need to achieve our aims.
- Decide what size manpower requirement we need to man those capabilities.
- And the bloody well fund them. Properly.
Getting rid of Trident or son of Trident will only allow more money to be spent on the UK's Sacred Cows - Education (2.5 times the Defence budget); Health (3 and a bit times the Defence budget) and welfare and pensions (6 times the Defence budget). Even our interest payment on the national debt is more than the Defence budget (thanks Labour).

The country can easily afford to spend more on Defence, our politicians just choose not to.
Roland Pulfrew is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 15:44
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 70
Posts: 133
..The country can easily afford to spend more on Defence, our politicians just choose not to.
There is no reason why defence should be immune to the financial needs of the time. It has to justify it's expenditure and literally get the biggest bang for our bucks. If there were no financial limit then you would be wide open to the even more of the inefficient procurement practices that have dogged us for years. Does our inventory look like the 4th largest (or wherever we are now) defence expenditure in the world? So, whilst I too I would like to see defence properly funded to meet its objectives, I wouldn't contemplate any increase until the procurement process has been fixed. If (a very big IF) that can be achieved, then even the same expenditure would get us further towards meeting very demanding objectives.

Of course the same financial discipline should to be applied to all the really big areas of government expenditure too; they should not be given free rein either. Pity those budgets are more likely to win more votes though.

Current options for such a fix are being debated elsewhere on PPRuNe. I sincerely hope that initiative is successful. If not, there is always UKIP's radical solution of sacking the entire MoD and starting again.

LF
Lowe Flieger is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.